HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcmin0728 COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Katie Sheldon
Hammler, Marty Martinez and Mayor Umstattd. Council Member Butler participated
from a remote location.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Martinez arrived at 7:38 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Town
Attorney Barbara Notar, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Plan Review
Bill Adman, Assistant Town Manager Tom Mason, Deputy Director of Planning and
Zoning Brian Boucher, Preservation Planner Tom Scofield, Environmental Planner Irish
Grandfield, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION: Mayor Umstattd
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Council Member Martinez
4. ROLL CALL: Council Member Martinez arriving at 7:38 p.m. Council Member
Butler participate remotely.
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of July 13, 2015
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Hammler, the work
session minutes of July 13, 2015 were approved by a vote of 6-0-1.
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
On the motion of Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Hammier, the meeting
agenda was approved as presented, by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent)
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. City of Gangneung South Korea Delegation
The Mayor and Chairman of the City Council of the City of Gangneung,
Republic of South Korea, were honored on the occasion of their visit to the Town of
Leesburg.
b. Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Update
Dennis Boykin gave a brief presentation on the efforts of VFW Post 1177's
efforts to raise funds to rehabilitate their building on Old Waterford Road.
1 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
8. PETITIONERS
The Petitioner's Section was opened at 8:08 p.m.
Judge Dean Worcester "I want to apologize first for my casual attire. I did not know
I was going to speak to you tonight until late this afternoon, I heard you were meeting and
decided to come over and have judges weigh in on this important decision. We have not
been involved all that much with the planning of the courts complex, certainly not as much
a we wanted to, so I wanted to apologize first— it is said that people all know what judges
wear under their robes. Now, you know. I want to thank you for the time to hear from me.
There have been a couple of things, and correct me if I am wrong. I understand that there
has been some discussion about possibly moving the courts complex out of Leesburg or
moving one or two of the courts out of the town to other locations and I just wanted to
share with you my experience from that. That has been studied in the past— 15 years ago
probably, the County hired a consulting firm. Dan Reilly and Associates from Florida.
They are nationally known consultants and planners for courts complexes. They have
designed courts all over the country. They came up and spent several weeks here. We met
with them many times. They met with all of the groups that are involved in the courts
complex and the unanimous consensus was that is not a feasible option to move any of the
courts out of downtown Leesburg for several reasons. I can give you some examples.
There are nine courts total all going at the same time. Attorneys have to appear in
sometimes multiple courts during the day, sometimes at the same time. We are constantly
passing a case because the attorney is in another court—we have to wait for them to finish
up there. Same thing with interpreters. They are in other courts. We have to wait and get
an interpreter from one of the other courts —wait until they finish. Public Defenders,
probation officers to meet with defendants after they have been sentenced and sign them up
for probation. If they have to get in a car and drive to another location, it is just typically
not workable because all of those functions dovetail and have to work together. With
regards to possibly moving the court to the County administration building, that was studied
also by Mr. Reilly. A court requires a very different infrastructure than a typical
commercial building. You have to have a secure sally port to bring inmates in and out.
Secure elevators, holding cells, bathrooms. Courtrooms have to have a higher ceiling than
other buildings and that building is steel and concrete. The floors will not accommodate a
courtroom, so that was a unanimous decision. That is not an option. This has been studied
extensively before and I don't think any of those are going to happen. Those facts haven't
changed. With regard to the action by the BAR to recommend not knocking down the
buildings on Edwards Ferry Road, a couple things about that. First of all, the BAR is
required to make that decision. That is in their charter. They have to vote that way. You,
on the other hand, do not. I think we need to view this as an opportunity for the town and
the county to expand the courts system and courts complex to this vacant lot where the jail
used to be located. The county made the decision some years ago that this is where the
courts needed to expand to rather than to go off site somewhere—keep it within a campus
and to maximize the space. It is the only space available adjacent to the Courthouse
complex. There are no other lots that are vacant and the county decided to expand the
footprint and build for the future. In fact, the design for the court complex has the first floor
where the Commonwealth's Attorney's office is going to be located can be converted into
courtrooms 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, as needed so there can be a total of six
courtrooms in that building without having to expand to another site later. That is part of
2 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
the planning. That entails maximizing the building on the space. So, it is an opportunity
[kw for you to agree to expand the courts complex and replace the rather nondescript buildings
with a courts complex that we hope will be compatible with the historic district. I am not a
pro-development, or anti-preservationist. I live in a 200 year old brick house and I owned a
house on North King Street, 200 years old where my office was located for many years so I
am very much in favor of preservation. This will give you an opportunity to follow the
tradition of Virginia Courthouses which are stand-alone courthouses by and large. I have a
book on Virginia's historic courthouses, if you care to see it. None of them have small
buildings in front of the courthouse blocking the view. They are all intended to be
something that stands out that you can tell immediately—this is the courthouse complex.
You have an opportunity to make that happen and replace these buildings that were built
decades ago with something that is compatible with the historic district, a traditional
neoclassical red brick, white column design which is what we are advocating and will
continue to do so. So, view it as an opportunity. I urge you to seize that opportunity."
Randy Minchew "I am here today as a citizen who lives and works in the Old and
Historic District. I live at 330 West Market Street and I work at 1 East Market Street. So,
as you can see by the pin on my lapel, this is not a House of Delegates pin. This is a Town
of Leesburg pin that I am proud to wear. So, I am speaking tonight about my home town.
As a person who lives and works in the old and historic district, I wanted to bring to
Council's attention, a little blast from the past. Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't
really repeat itself, but it rhymes". This is an article from the Washington Post, May 4,
2002, that was praising our town and the county for a collaborative process that was used
that gave rise to the courthouse expansion that was done. The courthouse expansion began
in the mid-90s, and Madam Mayor, I was president of the bar association in the mid-90s,
when the circuit court judges wrote a rather stinging letter to the then Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors saying improve the courthouse or you will need to defend yourself in a
court of law. That gave rise to the Loudoun Bar Association suggesting a collaborative
work force that as Bar chairman, I could chose good talent. I asked my friend, Peter
Burnett, to be the chair of that committee. They worked over the course of two years and
you can tell that Peter wrote that because [inaudible] report, but this gave rise to a
collaborative town and county process working together with stakeholders from the
Commonwealth's attorney's office and the result was a process where everyone was really
proud of the end result. I mention that because here is the Washington Post's arts section
praising the job that was done. Now, here history is kind of rhyming again. We are 13
years later and we are looking at courthouse process. So far, my untrained eye is telling me
that we do not have the collaborative, friendly, professional working relationship between
the town and the county. The county brought in some world class architectural talent that
knew how to work an infill development with state of the art courthouse architectural
technology. That was what was done and that's what the Washington Post was praising. I
know that you will be having an appeal tonight to consider those three buildings—whether
they should come down in the grand scope. So, tonight in many ways is the early phase in
this relationship, that in my opinion is dysfunctional. And, I would love to see my home
town and my home county borrow a play book that was done in the mid-1990s, whereas the
county actually works with the town in a collaborative fashion and employs good
architectural talent. I hope to see an article by the Washington Post that can be written with
a time line of 2019 that says you know the town and the county did not start off on the right
3 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
shoe back in 2015, after the town council acted on the BAR appeal, but in light of that and
in the wake of that, they forged relationship, brought in some good architectural talent.
They actually had citizens who cared. They brought in the bar as stakeholders and they
gave rise to something that both the town and the county could be proud of. So that's my
admonition tonight, as a citizen who intends to be living here in the Old and Historic
District when this courthouse project is finished. And that is my comments as a citizen of
the historic district and I yield back the floor to my mayor".
Andrew Borgquist "I have been speaking here on multiple occasions before and I am
continuing to speak on an issue that I have been bringing before the council. Unfortunately,
I'll probably be a little bit scattered as I did not have remarks, but essentially talking about
what I also talked about on previous occasions, which is I have been concerned about
unaccountable adverse employment actions within the town and essentially, unfortunately
through a personal experience kind of realized that, I think, the Town of Leesburg could do
significantly better particularly with respect to transparency and to accountability in
essentially making sure that employment within the Town of Leesburg is in a fair and
equitable manner and doesn't infringe basically on the rights and opportunities of the
residents who wish to be employed with the town of Leesburg. So, with that in mind, I
have, you know, on multiple occasions again and again sought to try and have some
discussion with management with the town of Leesburg regarding the issues that I think
could be improved upon, whatever. I really haven't gotten much of anywhere. I have come
to a large number of meetings and nobody really wants to talk about it that much and I
guess part of the reason is, you know, being connected to my own personal situation
somewhat, part of what I have been talking about was the fact that it seems that you know
when you have a process that was clearly not the way it should have been and was lacking
in transparency, accountability, and basically all the things that we say that we want to
accomplish with employment within the town of Leesburg, but of course it then points to
the decision that affects my own personal situation, which I feel that was clearly not the
right decision and should be made right. Of course, I know that is a big sticking point for
the town of Leesburg, but anyways, I am still hopeful that there can be a discussion because
I think this is something that is really, truly important and needs to be addressed. I hope
that moving forward, there can be something. I have asked on numerous occasions to have
a meeting with Mr. Dentler. I have not yet quite gotten that, but I hope that can occur and
maybe moving forward this can be an opportunity for the town of Leesburg to improve
upon the system that they already have and make sure that they really are achieving the
objectives that they are seeking to do which I think doesn't don't really have to look too
closely at it to realize that this was not what should have happened".
Matt Cole: "I am here tonight to speak on the courthouse issue. First off, I wanted
to reference history real quick. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was right on the
front steps of that courthouse. Not that one, but the original one and since then a lot of
history has taken place there. Over the past couple of months, I have also been doing some
research on it, looking at it and talking to people about the issue and according to the recent
BAR meeting in May, multiple times it was referenced that these houses actually do not
meet the requirements for historic integrity. The backs of them have been modified, the
fronts of the buildings are not as well maintained as they should be and if you look next to
where the offices are located, there is an office park right there with the courthouse on the
4 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
opposite side. The streetscape has already been changed. So, to risk losing business,
[11. revenue and foot traffic for to say four houses over that—and if we delay the process it is
going to cost an extra $3 million in taxpayer money according to the letter that was received
by the town council. It would cost an excess of$3-4 million to keep these. That is a bill that
I don't think the taxpayers deserve to have to pay when having an open landscape there is
going to add for further foot traffic to go down Market Street and Edwards Ferry Road.
Pittsburgh Ricks and businesses like that would see added foot traffic coming from new
courthouse employees and new county employees that get moved to the area. At the end of
the day, me and after talking to a couple of business owners, I think it would be a major
disservice to the town to gamble with people's livelihoods. We are not talking about me, we
are not talking about anybody sitting here. We are talking about business owners and my
granddaughter, who eventually are going to have to swallow the bill for whatever we do and
whatever changes we make and when we are talking about people's livelihoods, these are
people that their businesses —the county and the courthouse has always been here. There is
no baseline for what it is like if they are not here. So, we don't know what it would look
like if they leave and I don't think that gamble is worth the risk. That's all I have to say".
Howard Armfield "I have worked in downtown Leesburg for 38 years. Our
company, AH&T Insurance has been here since 1921. We are here because we love the
ambience of the old and historic district. In the 1970s, I was chairman of the Middleburg
Planning Commission when we put in the historic district so I am well aware of the
importance of maintaining the core of our 18"' Century town. But sometimes an
opportunity arises that exceeds the divisions for preservation. You have that opportunity
and you have the power to forever solidify the economic condition of Leesburg in general
and downtown in particular. So, take that opportunity, use your power and proceed with
the county complex expansion".
Sharon Babbin "Many of you know me, I am a member of the town planning
commission, but I am here as was Delegate Minchew, totally on a personal capacity. I am
here on behalf of myself, my husband, and our neighbors who are in Florida, not able to be
here, Melanie Miles. I live at 208 Wirt Street, NW. Melanie Miles and her husband own
the Glenfiddich House which is on King Street and also have the back side on Wirt Street
next to us and we know there is no one more dedicated to historic preservation than the
Miles. We are residents of the Leesburg Historic District and we urge you to take action
today to enhance the property values and economic viability of businesses in Leesburg by
showing a spirit of cooperation, not antagonism with Loudoun County over the issue of the
County courthouse expansion. We have heard arguments made against demolition of the
houses on Edwards Ferry Road, but none of them have merit when balanced against the
harm that has already been done and will be done by continuing to play Russian Roulette
with the county with Leesburg's economy. Let me address the issues in order. Number one,
we need to show our ability to join with the county in recognition of our mutual interests.
We need to stop this us versus them approach to every issue. The delays and bickering have
already cost Leesburg a prime anchor business, the Victory Brew Pub and have made it
difficult, if not impossible for businesses to obtain financing because of the uncertainty for
Leesburg's economic future. It does not matter—I am going to emphasize that - it does not
matter whether the county is bluffing or not about moving out of Leesburg. Just the threat
could kill business expansion and property values and all it takes is a few votes on the Board
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
of Supervisors to make this threat a reality. Are you really willing to risk all we have
worked for in this town? Number two, these houses are old, not historic. Yes, the county
conceded they were historic at the BAR, but only because they have no choice under the
definition of historic under which the BAR operates. The town council is not so restricted.
Number three, the Leesburg ordinances applicable to the historic district restrict demolition
of older historic houses, but they do not require maintenance of these structures. The
structures in question are already dilapidated. The county, which owns the structures, has
stated that they have no use for them and will not use them—will not use the structures and
cannot let them be used by third parties because of security reasons. The buildings will
continue to deteriorate and become unsafe and unsightly. Number four, there has been
debate over the cost to keep the structures and build the courthouse addition around them.
The vote on the issue of demolition was delayed from the last meeting to obtain more
information on this issue. This debate is irrelevant. It does not matter if the figure is $4
million or $2 million. As taxpayers, we would not want to see either amount spent on these
structures. More so because they will simply become boarded up eyesores over the next few
years. Number five, the slippery slope argument that if we allow these structures to be
demolished, then it will be the beginning of the end of the historic district is histrionic, not
historic. We have allowed demolition in the past and the end of the earth has not come.
All decisions have to be individual decisions made based on a cost benefit analysis and the
analysis in this case is not even close. Number six, how important can these structures be
when no historic society or nonprofit is willing to take them for free and move them to
another site. Should we, as taxpayers, pay millions of dollars to preserve them when they
have little or no historic meaning and those most committed to historic preservation simply
don't care other than to insist that taxpayer's funds be used to preserve them. I am about to
conclude. Please stop this pettiness. Any further delay will only hurt us here in Leesburg
more. You need to vote now to allow demolition of the Edwards Ferry structures and allow
the courthouse expansion to proceed. As this courthouse expansion project progresses,
please keep in mind the economic cost of delay and bickering on other issues—there will be
more issues with this courthouse complex, not just demolition of these buildings—more
issues will come before you and we have to show a spirit of cooperation. And let me go
away from my prepared notes for just one second in closing and give you a challenge.
Don't just vote to overturn the BAR decision tonight. Vote unanimously. By voting
unanimously, we will be sending a message to all businesses—to all the future businesses
that may come in, to our current property owners and future owners that we all stand
together in support of a continuing economic prosperity of Leesburg".
Doris Kidder, 139 Woodberry Road in Leesburg. "If I go over my time, you can
blame it on my age, because I will be 88 next week. I am here to repeat and add to what
was the intent of the memo I sent to you the other day. I understand some of you may have
made up your minds to allow the county to demolish the historic buildings in downtown
Leesburg. We have a board of architectural review to ensure that the most important asset
of the town of Leesburg is protected—the historic district. It is the historic district, not the
courthouse that attracts tourists, shoppers, diners, visitors to Leesburg. If the Town Council
overrides the BAR decision, we may as well do away with the BAR and let all future zoning
issues fall where they may. This sets a precedence for the historic district. It appears that in
the future, any developer that wants to demolish an historic building can do so by merely
stating that the building is not very attractive anyway and is insignificant. This was a nice
6IPage
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
little town until the politicians began to destroy it starting way back when various councils
voted to demolish the beautiful old Opera House, the Leesburg Inn, and violated their own
height ordinance with the town hall construction and never completed the Loudoun Street
side of the parking garage, which was an integral part of the award winning design. Then
there was the decision to allow the Loudoun Street firehouse to destroy that neighborhood
by allowing a massive three story combination office building/fire house that would have to
share parking places with the church across the street and would overwhelm all of the
surrounding residences including the neighborhood condominium building. Then the
approval of Courthouse Square monstrosity. Even though dynamiting an underground
parking garage might cause damage to many of the historic buildings along King Street—of
course neon signs now are also allowed in the historic district for those people who can't
read printed open and closed signs. Also, the downtown improvement project developed by
meetings over many years by a committee of residents, businesses, planning and engineer
experts and finally approved by the Council in 2010 has been delayed and reconsidered on
several occasions on the basis of a few merchants complaints about loss of parking spaces,
one of which actually gains a loading zone. This is just one example of Council sometimes
making decisions and then reconsidering based on how many people complain or show up
at meetings. More recently, some council members were interested in selling precious park
land, currently a skate park at Catoctin Circle to a car dealer to allow for more parking of
cars instead of keeping it as a teen recreation center. It may be discussed now as an
expansion of the fire and rescue station, which may delay the skate park renovation and
most likely relocate it to a location less visible and less walking for town residents. The
other day, all the big trees on the east side of Harrison Street were chopped down. I believe
some of them may have even been owned by the town, meaning we the taxpayers. It seems
to me that business friendly is a good thing, but not when devleopers and merchants, many
of whom do not live here, determine outcomes that affect the quality of life of the people
who do live here. The cover story of the August issue of Washingtonian Magazine is about
the 25 greatest small towns in the area that are "charming, laid back and worth the trip".
They named Purcellville, Shepherdstown, Waterford, Winchester, Staunton, Lexington,
among others. Leesburg is not among them. Does this mean Leesburg is no longer worth
the trip? I hope that we read about the Washington Post reporting in 2019 that the town
and the county and their world class architects created a courts complex that included three
buildings slated for demolition. It is not my intention to be disrespectful, but it seems to me
that we are on the path of rapidly dismantling our historic district and the very qualities that
brought many of us here, including me. As an active community participant for more than
25 years, I feel compelled to express my dismay."
Teresa Minchew "I have been a member of the Board of Architectural Review and
the Planning Commission, for a bit for approximately 19 years so I have actually seen us go
through this before. Tonight, I am here to speak about the request by the County to reverse
the BAR and allow demolition of essentially a full block of our national register district, a
nationally recognized area that helps put Leesburg and Loudoun County on the map for
heritage tourism among other positive economic impacts. Obviously, the majority of the
board of supervisors of Loudoun County has put you in a very difficult position— I know
this. Particularly with the latest threat implicit in their recent comments and actions. This
is particularly regrettable as all of us on the BAR believe things did not need to be this way.
It did not need to reach this point had the county permitted a better process akin to the last
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
one that you have heard others talk about. Instead all of the months that the BAR spent
working on this with the county staff and architects was for naught. We made progress.
We had lots of good ideas. County staff and the architects were responding, but never did
the majority of the board accept the possibility of considering anything other than the plan
that was dropped in our lap fully formed as a take it or leave it proposal based around their
vision of a sweeping, monumental new campus. Whatever you decide tonight, you can't let
this happen again. You need to make sure that whatever process is going to happen for
these major issues affecting our town is down properly. This was very improper. For the
record,justification put forward for the demolition request was first and foremost to allow
for this vision of what the new courthouse should be. I am not judging what that vision is,
but it also primarily provided a place for stormwater management and a convenient area to
stage the truck and the trailers and the dirt for the entire project. Any focus on safety
concerns only surfaced later. Many, many historic courthouse districts are struggling with
these same issues and many have come up with reasonable accommodations. That takes
communication, though between the governing bodies, which has to all appearances been
sadly lacking in this case, which results in this game of chicken that we are playing.
Without waivering from my personal opinion that these buildings should be retained, I am
aware you may not be able to come to the same conclusion. Practically speaking, though,
upholding the BAR and retaining this historic streetscape would help mitigate any of the
negative effects of the proposed large new building and provide a barrier to the new building
much more appropriate than the bollards or jersey walls that we might expect to pop up
later in a belated effort to provide a safety barrier to the open street. No guarantee that
might not happen. If you can't see your way to upholding the BAR decisions in their
entirety, I urge you to at least uphold the approval regarding the oldest and easternmost of
the four buildings, 112 Edwards Ferry Road. This building could be incorporated into the
campus design with little trouble serving as a visual endpoint for the two blocks long
campus and was a possibility noted by county representatives as appealing and doable in
several of our meetings. This was why we framed our decision at the BAR the way we did.
We divided it into four applications. We understood the pressure you all were going to be
under and we wanted to leave you a path to denying some and approving others—
upholding some and reversing others. Additionally, I urge you to be very careful in how
you word any motion to reverse BAR approvals. Please do not get up in the emotion of the
moment and rush through the motions shortchanging your citizens by neglecting to include
all the normal conditions to which any applicant would be subject as part of a demolition
approval. I am sure the last thing you would want is to have demolition occur and then find
out that for whatever reason, the county will not be proceeding with the rest of the plan. So,
I urge you to be sure to use the specific draft language already provided to you in your staff
report. Don't skip that. Finally, for your own sakes, if not those you represent, should you
vote to reverse, please include language for the record that reflects on the very specific
nature of this demolition approval and the many competing issues you are taking into
account. Perhaps noting the concern about the larger issue of keeping the various
governmental functions in downtown. Without providing such background for your
decision, you will be undermining the effectiveness of the BAR in all future demolition
issues and you will be setting yourselves up to see many more appeals as other applicants
will seek the same treatment given to this one. Thank you for your time and know that all
you do for your community is appreciated even if we don't always agree".
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Gwen Pangle "I am a resident and I own a business in Leesburg. I come to you
tonight speaking as a business owner and as the president of the Leesburg Downtown
Business Association. The following members of the LDBA have asked me to speak on
their behalf. Stilson Greene, Carrie Whitmer and Ingrid at Lightfoot, and Nicole
Gustayson at Inform Fitness, in particular. Want to start by saying thank you for your time,
for everything you have done to consider the issue of the county courts expansion and the
long term effects that it will have on the businesses downtown, the progress of economic
development and the long term plan for the growth and vitality of Leesburg. I am here to
speak in favor of a vote to overturn BAR recommendation and allow for demolition of the
buildings if that is the only choice that is to be made. Very frequently what we have to
decide is not what we want to decide, but there are things that we need to look at that are
beyond that. In the last six weeks, I have been involved in interviewing all but one of the
candidates for the Board of Supervisors. It was an honor and an education, I have to tell
you. I believe I understand their frame of mind as it relates to a rewrite of the
comprehensive plan and the long term planning for the county. This expansion decision is
for them and for the town of Leesburg, a long term planning decision that will shape the
future of business in Leesburg and Loudoun County for decades to come. Not only do we
see the county as a stabilizing force for downtown Leesburg, but also as a catalyst for other
businesses who are making decisions to invest in Leesburg. It won't be just about the 500 or
so jobs we will lose if they relocate, it will be about a potential loss of jobs, tax revenue and
the entertainment dollars lost at other businesses besides downtown is not a good
investment. The LDBA has worked diligently to find ways to get heads in beds and feet on
the street. We collaborate with Visit Loudoun, the EDC and the Town to tag team on
county events and create mini-events in Leesburg so that visitors are enticed to stay and
enjoy our town. The day to day spending of the work force in downtown is a large part of
the revenue stream our businesses depend on. This vote will likely be one of the most
important and telling votes that you have made as it relates to your plan that you envision
for the growth and survival for downtown Leesburg and if you call their bluff and you lose,
what is your plan B? Perhaps knowing the answer to that question would allay the concerns
of the business owners in town. And obviously, we would be happy if we could have both
the expansion and the preservation of the buildings, but that doesn't seem to be an option
and I am a problem solver, so by nature it is necessary for me to come to you and maybe
have a potential solution or at least some thoughts, so if we can't perhaps come up with a
way to memorialize that small neighborhood that those buildings represent—a piece of art,
a plaque, a facade that in some way looks like the fronts of the buildings, a memorial in the
lawn that tells passersby of the history of what was there and maybe we should be able to
preserve the history even if we can't preserve the buildings".
Ron Rust, "My wife and I live at 7 Wirt Street in Leesburg and I would briefly like to
discuss the controversy between the town and the county over the addition to the courts
complex. First, I would like to say that my wife and I are preservationists. We own five
properties in the historic district. Our residence at 7 Wirt Street is a house that dates back to
the 1700s. Four of our properties predate the Civil War and one predates the American
Revolution. I hope that my credentials for preservation are not to be questioned. Secondly,
the county has what attorneys in equity call unclean hands. They have been very poor
stewards of the history of the history of Loudoun County from the [inaudible] destruction of
the historic Leesburg inn or Leesburg hotel half a century ago to their current government
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
building on Jefferson Street. General Sherman could not have done a better job of
destroying the historical nature of eastern Loudoun that has been done by generations of
county supervisors, but there is more at stake than great historic buildings. First, not
everything that is old needs to be or should be saved in perpetuity. My wife and I are
currently downsizing and in the process of sorting through half a century of documents and
other items, some of which is worthy of being passed to future generations, but most is not.
But, there is another consideration. Leesburg has been the County seat for more than a
quarter of a millennia. That is certainly worth considering. I would not want to risk what I
would describe in polite company as an arm wrestling contest between the county and the
town. One of my favorite movies is the Maltese Falcon. Near the end of the movie, Caspar
Guttman threatens Sam Spade to find out the location of the famous falcon. The quote is
"that is an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgement on both sides, because as
you know, sir, in the heat of action, men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and
let their emotions carry them away". So my recommendation for whatever it is worth, is
that the town council should remember where the best interests of Leesburg lie, hold their
collective noses and approve the destruction of the buildings."
Ken Reid, Leesburg District Supervisor, "I wish I had had a chance to speak last
week when you were discussing, because maybe we could have avoided that last minute
motion that came before the board to basically study the—not just moving the county
government center to Sycolin Road but to Ashburn, which frankly frightens me. It should
frighten all of you. I first want to reassure Ron and also Judge Worcester that we are not
talking about moving the courts out of Leesburg. You need a referendum of the voters to
move the Circuit court. We have already studied bifurcating the courts —having part of it at
Sycolin Road, part of it in downtown Leesburg. It is not going to work. However, we are
at the end of the process and while I appreciate Delegate Minchew's bringing up history
here, I frankly would have preferred to have known something about that two or three years
ago when we first dealt with this with John Wells and the rest of the Council. I was not
here in 1998, when this was done and it came to me as a surprise that there was this
committee that was convened and there was also a separate architect that was chosen for the
project. Now, if somebody had suggested that two or three years ago, I am sure we could
have looked at that. But as Chairman York will tell you, the design that we are using is
pretty much the design that was approved by that committee back in 1998 or the late 90s.
So, we are already at the stage where it is too late to reinvent the process. I am fully
confident the Council is going to reverse the BAR decision. I want to remind you what you
wrote to the Board of Supervisors in 2012. I know Ms. Fox was not on the Council at that
time, but I am going to quote this "The Loudoun County courthouse has been an integral
part of the fabric of downtown Leesburg since its inception. It has been a vital centerpiece
of the town and we wish to see it continued as such. It is our sincere desire to see any courts
expansion occur in downtown Leesburg and we are committed to working with Loudoun
County to ensure the court's place in the town. And by a previous resolution, when I was
on Council, we also voted, which I don't think has been reversed to keep the Government
Center in downtown Leesburg as well. So, you voted for this letter and I understand that
Ms. Fox was not on the council and at least three times in the last four years, Chairman
York has specifically told Mayor Umstattd and even told her last week prior to that vote
that if the town is not going to cooperate, we are going to move the courts to Sycolin Road
and now the Ashburn site is also beckoning. Now, this has been called a threat and I don't
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
know why your communication with the Chairman is not communicated to the Council
because I was texting the Council and emailing them at the very last minute last week to
have one of them at least come down—at least the ones who made very, very vociferous
comments about this process and I want to congratulate Council Member Butler for coming
down and talking to the chairman. We have also held at least two public meetings with the
community to show them the design. The Mayor was at these meetings. I don't remember
other Council members being there and we had the BAR out on a tour. So, this accusation
that people are making that the process is broken or that there has been a breakdown in
communication, I don't know where that is coming from. But, I know that the County has
been forthright on this and the problem here I find is that it has been staff to staff. There has
been no intervention by any of the elected officials. So, I would really urge you to support
having a meeting with Chairman York and myself or Supervisor Higgins and Mr. York
because we can only have two on each side to sit down with both staffs and try to figure out
where the rest of this process is going to go because it is not going to just end here with the
BAR. It goes to the Planning Commission and the Council and the least you can do is give
us a back to back hearing as you did with K2M. Joint hearings, I know are difficult, but
don't just sit back and be reactive. Be proactive. The other thing you can do tonight, you
can also approve the relocation of these buildings, which the BAR declined to do. The
ordinance states they had to look at demolition. We have two fine folks who have steppd
up to the plate, but relocation has to be done based on our timeline. It can't be open ended.
It can't preclude demolition. I want to also note that demolition is just there to preserve our
options because once we get into site plan, we don't know if we are going to need to keep
those buildings there are not. We might be able to keep them, but then there is the security
issue, but those are guidelines from the supreme court. I am sure the Board of Supervisors,
if they wanted to, could overrule that, but I don't think they will. The other thing you can
do is seek legislation, as I will, to basically get some exemptions from DEQ for those
TMDLs because that is what is really causing those buildings to have to go. So, I would
urge you to do a meeting. A joint meeting would be good. Take control of the presses.
You know, talk to your staff and lets see if we can get this thing done. Let's see if we can
keep the government center from being relocated to Ashburn, because unfortunately, there
are members on this board who would love to see that done because they don't care about
Leesburg and they want to see support for the special tax district in Metro and Ashburn and
if it is financially feasible to build a building there instead of on Church Street and just rehab
the government center for the courts, they will do that."
Bruce Dewar,5 Memorial Drive. "I have lived in the historical district with my wife
for about 17 years now and in Leesburg for about 26 years. When we moved and built our
home in the historic district we were very excited about what we saw coming in downtown
Leesburg and frankly it has been a long time coming, but it seems like things are finally
starting to roll. I hope this Victory Brew Pub can actually get turned back around and come
downtown, but it seems like things are starting to take off. I did already send all of you an
email and I hope you had a chance to read that, but I just want to lay my support to say let's
not let these buildings get in the way of what is starting to happen in downtown Leesburg.
If you need to take these down, keep the county here and keep the courts here, and keep the
renaissance that really seems to be starting to take place in downtown Leesburg going
forward and vote the right way to do that tonight. We are investing all of this money
downtown with the sidewalks and so on with the idea of bringing people downtown. Well,
11lPage
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
I think the reality is the people who work downtown and or bringing more people to live
downtown is the future of downtown Leesburg. If we drive out the folks who work here
and keep trying to figure out how to get tourists to come to downtown Leesburg, it is never
going to happen. So, let's keep the people we have—let's keep the 500 jobs that we have
and add to those jobs and keep adding to it".
The Petitioner's Section was closed at 8:56 p.m.
9. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following items
were moved for approval as the Consent Agenda:
a. Authorizing a Time Extension for Completion of the Public Improvements for PMW
Farms—Section 4(TLCD 2010-0004)
RESOLUTION 2015-083
Authorizing a Time Extension for Completion of the Public Improvements for PMW
Farms—Section 4(TLCD 2010-0004)
b. Accepting the Public Improvements, Releasing the Performance Guaranttee and
Approving the Maintenance Guarantee for Public Improvements at PMW Farms For
Evans Road. Phase 2 and Riverside Parkway(TLPF2009-0019)
RESOLUTION 2015-084
Accepting the Public Improvements, Releasing the Performance Guarantee and
Approving a Maintenance Guarantee for PMW Farms Fort Evans Road Phase 2 and
Riverside Parkway(TLPF 2009-0019)
c. Performance and Payment Bonds for the Reclaimed Waterline Agreement
RESOLUTION 2015-085
Approving a Performance and Payment Bond for the Stonewall Power Project
Reclaimed Water Line Construction
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Fox, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. TLZM 2015-0001 Poet's Walk
The public hearing was opened at 8:57 p.m.
Irish Grandfield gave a presentation on this request to allow a assisted living
facility in the Oaklawn Development.
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Key Points:
• This is a concept plan and proffer amendment to address a self-imposed
proffering out of the list of allowable uses at the time of the initial rezoning in
2003.
• The intended site is in Oaklawn, Land Bay MUC2.
• Rezoning encompasses all three parcels in the Land Bay because the
boundaries will need to be adjusted in order to accommodate this use.
Boundary line adjustment will be performed.
• Proposed is a 38,000 square foot, one story, 68 bed nursing home facility.
• Application includes a potential increase in commercial development of
36,500 square feet, but it will be difficult to get that much of an increase in
what is left to be built in the MUC land bays.
• The Board of Architectural Review has taken a look at the Concept plan and
has made a few comments.
• Proffers include a reduction in commercial uses to result in no increase in
traffic generation.
• Includes a fire and rescue contribution of 10 cents per square foot for
commercial and institutional development.
• Meets all five rezoning criteria and has been recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Burk: Is there, by doing this rezoning, is there any change in the buffers?Are
we making them smaller or bigger or the same? So, they stay the same.
Staff answer: No, they had proffered to a certain set of buffers and those, they
are maintained.
• Burk: I noticed that they proffered 10 cents for fire and rescue. That goes to
the county. It doesn't come to the town. Is there any other proffer language
that would be to the direct benefit to the town and the residents?
Staff answer: No, not directly from this application, but from the Oaklawn
project in general—transportation improvements and such.
• Burk: Not this one in particular. So there is no open space, park, is there a
real proffer by the designs—the fire and rescue?
Staff answer: Correct. They have already provided a park and the
transportation network so they are just looking to add an additional use in
this land bay. Before approval of the original rezoning that created this land
bay, they did proffers that contributed to other things including a fire and
rescue site and a park although the park is not part of the public park system,
it is a homeowner's association park.
• Burk: So, which homeowner's association? Is it with Stratford?
Staff answer: Oaklawn residential, I believe.
• Martinez: I'm looking at—we got a letter from the Oaklawn [inaudible]...
• Mayor: Lisa Dolinich.
• Martinez: Right and making that increase [inaudible]?
Staff answer: No, that proffer is from Proffer 4 of the proffers. Proffer 3 sets
the total maximum amount of square footage that can be built in the MUC
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
bays. Proffer 4 deals instead with the timing of the transportation
improvements, which have been substantially completed on the project, but
we wanted to have the proffer carried over from the previous rezoning to be
specific about commitments—that this land bay would still be committed to
doing any improvements that still have to be done on site. The reason why
the numbers don't add up there and why they appear to be greater than the
amount allowed in proffer 3 is because those numbers when referring to
transportation phasing are—they can't have the sum total of all of those.
They can have some of those, but it could never exceed the cap of 109,000
square feet for the MUC land bays today and if this rezoning were to be
approved tonight, 145,500 square feet cap for the MUC land bays.
• Martinez: When you say right now, [inaudible] combination of those four
[inaudible] that combination of final uses.
Staff answer: That is correct and that is not just for the land bay MUC2, that
is for all mixed use center land bays. There are three mixed center use land
bays, MUC1, which is a park, MUC2, which is where we are talking about
tonight and MUC5, which is just south of the intersection of Miller Drive and
Battlefield Parkway, so that 109,000 square foot or 145,500 square foot
applies as a combination cap on the total in the two mixed use center land
bays.
• Martinez: [inaudible]
Staff answer: Correct.
• Fox: [inaudible].
Staff answer: The two dissenting voters —one was concerned about the
additional square footage. We did have one member of the public speak
about concern with the additional square footage and I think he was trying to
respond to the concern of the public—that additional square footage may
somehow lead to additional impacts on the nearby residential uses and the
second person who voted against it asked questions about airport noise and
did not say specifically why she opposed it—just that she voted against it. I
did not get specifics on why.
• Fox: [inaudible]
Staff answer: No, this use is not an approved use in any other land bay.
• Dunn: Just out of curiosity, what is the square footage [inaudible] 22,000
square feet. Do they have [inaudible]?
Staff answer: It was a result of the traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact
analysis showed that by reducing that amount of eating establishment square
footage, it resulted in a net neutral traffic impact so the trips generated per day
by reducing 1500 feet of eating establishment are equal to the number of trips
that are generated by the nursing home 68 bed facility. That is what the
transportation impact study showed.
• Dunn: How many different [inaudible]?
Staff answer: I don't have those numbers in front of me.
• Dunn: It's not in the packet?
Staff answer: They stay the same.
• Dunn: [inaudible]
14 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Staff answer: I don't know. I don't have those numbers in front of me.
• Dunn: [inaudible]
Staff answer: I'd be glad to.
• Butler: Just one really. I am struggling here to figure out why this is better
for the town—it's not just the use. It is about 30,000 extra square feet of
density and why is this better for the town to give that up. It doesn't seem
that there is any consideration for mitigation of if there is going to be extra
workers and there is going to be guests and other potential impacts. I don't
know why it is not better to just do the development the way that it currently
is. If I could get some help on that, that would be great.
Staff answer: I think the number of the uses that are currently permitted in
that part of the landbay would have a much greater impact on the nearby
residential if instead the service station or restaurant use was put there. It
would have a much different impact. The benefit to the town is that the
nursing home acts as a transition use from the residential uses to the east to
the more intensive commercial uses to the west. Now, as far as what else the
town gets out of it and what benefits are, I will let the applicant speak to what
they believe those are.
• Mayor: Dave, do you want to call the applicant up to answer that question?
• Butler: I'll follow-up with Irish. I understand that the [inaudible] is not going
to have much of a negative impact, but if we were leaving the total square
footage the same and saying okay, [inaudible] or whatever we are reducing
that by the size of[inaudible] then I could see a distinct advantage to the
neighborhood, but you know, things like we are leaving the possibility of all
of those other things coming and adding to [inaudible]. It doesn't seem like
they are mitigating any potential negative impacts on the neighborhood at all.
That's my question. Maybe the applicant can give a better answer.
Christine Gleckner, land use planner with Walsh Colucci, represented the
applicant.
• Gleckner: In terms of the question, again, we kind of approached this that we
don't think there is a negative impact to the neighbors of this and we have met
with both of the adjoining HOAs and they did not raise concerns with us at
those meetings and we did have people say they felt this is the portion of
MUC2 closest to the residential uses —they felt that it was a better use visually
for them to be looking at since it has somewhat of a residential look and feel
to it compared to a more commercial business. So, we feel it is a use that will
work well in Oaklawn and that it is providing a needed service that is
increasingly becoming more valuable to the community.
Ms. Glecker reviewed her power point. Key points:
• This will be most visible to the Oaklawn residential neighborhood to the east
as well as the Stratford residences to the north.
15 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Poet's Walk is an established nursing home system that focuses on memory
care or care of patients with mental impairment more so than physical
impairment.
• Poet's Walk program helps residents thrive to the extent that they are able in a
therapeutic environment designed to soothe the residents while providing life
skills stations, multisensory experiences and social activities and support
groups.
• Includes professionally landscaped, enclosed outdoor courtyards.
• Residents are always under supervision.
• Architectural features will be approved by the Board of Architectural Review.
• Site will be densely landscaped, particularly on the sides that face the two
residential landbays.
• Original Oaklawn proffers were based on traffic generation by approved land
uses. Most of the road network has been built. Reducing square footage of
uses keeps project traffic neutral.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: I guess before I ask questions here, do we have anyone from the
public that is going to be speaking on this?
• Mayor: We do have one person signed up.
• Dunn: Okay, I guess there is just a couple of questions I had. Was there ever
a plan of this use being in another land bay?
Applicant answer: No. From the original proffers, quite frankly when the
original concept plan came through, I don't think this use was anticipated.
So, this was an opportunity that appeared, seemed to be a good fit at this
location. I am not sure Oaklawn would have wanted to give up the location
along Miller or Battlefield Parkway for this type of use, but this is along
Oaklawn Drive and Brown Road, kind of tucked, you know, in behind and
so...
• Dunn: The landscaping—is the landscaping going to have a blend with what
is going in at K2M, because I know there was some extensive improvements,
I would say, or landscaping, buffers that we are putting in at K2M to mitigate
the building going there. Is the landscaping going to blend with that? Or is it
going to have distinct differences?
Applicant answer: Is our proposed landscaping going to blend with K2Ms?
Is that the question?
• Dunn: Yes.
Applicant answer: I would say yes but I just can't picture how they wouldn't
work together.
• Dunn: They are fairly extensive with K2M. So, we don't know.
Applicant answer: Well, I mean K2M is obviously a good sized building with
a different face to the community and so that has its own set of concerns.
Our front door is facing the residential community. It is facing the park. We
are doing extensive landscaping all along Oaklawn Drive, which faces the
residences.
16 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Dunn: Maybe when you come back, you can show us what you are doing on
the K2M side and what you are doing on the park side to give it more of a
natural appeal to the residents rather than them looking at here is a bunch of
trees to hide a building that you are not hiding versus an open park. I would
like to see some examples. See how that flows. And then, I guess the other
issue I had is while we have gone through rezonings a number of times
starting back with my time on the planning commission for the town and then
on Council and then recently with K2M and now again, we have heard a
number of comments from the community that they may have been sold
something or told something that isn't quite what they are getting. We all
know how that works, but I just want to make sure that we are not going to be
nickel and diming them with changes to the rezoning of each land bay to the
point of which they may not be getting anticipated amenities that they should
be getting. So, I would caution us on that. I would caution your applicant
that I would like to see that these land bays are starting to come out to be
what the folks have been looking for and not always something different. If
they are okay with this, I would like to hear from more of them but if they are
looking for certain amenities, they weren't thrilled about the gas station, per
se. That got approved, but it would be nice to see that if there are amenities
that they are expecting, that those are somewhere on the books and not the
last ones to go in and the furthest away that would limit the possibility of
them even using.
Applicant answer: If I may just make one clarification. The applicant for this
application is the Poet's Walk, but I believe you are referring to the property
owner and I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
• Burk: I think you answered my questions directly when you came up to
speak. I really appreciate that and thank you for addressing the restaurant
issue, because that's a big issue there. They want to be able to have the
amenities and have them be able to walk across the street to go to a
restaurant. So, I think there were a number of people who were concerned
that we were taking away that ability to have that happen. So, I appreciate
that. I would like to thank you for not requesting a vote tonight to work on
your proffers rather than do it at the last minute and make us scramble around
and try to figure out what the wording should be so thank you very much for
taking the time to do that and bringing it back.
Applicant answer: Yes, we do want to be responsive. Thank you.
• Martinez: One of the documents —I keep forgetting that this is a mac and not
an iPad. On the pedestrian network, the paragraph says that the property
shall be served by a pedestrian network as depicted on sheet 4 of 9. I haven't
had a chance to look at sheet 4 of 9, but is this going to connect the
neighborhoods to that network that walking—I am trying to envision what
you mean by that.
Applicant answer: I think the pedestrian network that is—it will connect the
neighborhoods is part of the already approved Oaklawn plan which has
sidewalks or trails all along major roads, so there is a trail on both sides of
Oaklawn Drive. There are trails through the park on MUC1, so both
Oaklawn and Stratford neighborhoods have pedestrian access into the trail
17 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
and sidewalk system at Oaklawn. This particular facility will then have
pedestrian connections to the street/sidewalks and trails so that people can
walk from those onto this site.
l"' • Martinez: Is there much green space available?
Applicant answer: There is green space and we meet the requirements of the
zoning district.
• Hammier: Thank you, Chris. I appreciate that and Irish, your presentation.
Looking forward to hearing from, I guess, our one member of the public. The
issues that I have, have already been raised relative to the increased density.
My recollection was actually different from Tom's about the service station. I
remember the residents were welcoming additional amenities, so you know
the opportunity cost of some of those things like restaurants, the service
station, you know, convenience in the office being closer to kind of again, the
goal being mixed use to me—you have already addressed restaurants, the
opportunity cost of meals tax, but just a reference there is you know when
Exeter, at first it was thought that even that strip mall wasn't going to be
welcome, but now the whole community has embraced having those sorts of
amenities within walking and biking distances, so to me that is the question
and so definitely appreciate you reached out to the HOAs, but I will probably
be taking the next couple of weeks doing more due diligence in that area so
and I like what Kelly said—thank you for very seriously considering the
proffers in light of the density.
• Fox: I just want to make one comment because my questions were asked and
answered. I do appreciate your outreach to the HOAs. I suppose there is one
question. Did the HOAs have a residential meeting or was it just HOAs...
Applicant answer: It was the board meetings.
• Fox: And your feeling was there was basically no push back on this?
Applicant answer: Correct. Yes.
• Martinez: I was just going to say what made Exeter so popular was the
Hershey Ice Cream store. Think you can get one down there?
Applicant answer: I will certainly put it on my [inaudible].
Julie Westlund, 602 Buchanan Court, NE. "I live off Battlefield, so I will be a
neighbor to the Oaklawn community. I am here to show my support for Poet's
Walk. I am also an employee of Morningside House in Leesburg—assisted living
and we have been in Leesburg for 22 years, successfully. Poet's Walk, mental care is
the next step. We would appreciate your approval of the application."
Mayor: Marty had mentioned Lisa Dolinich. She has sent an email to the
Council and she wanted her comments made part of the record. She does state that
she and her family are in favor of the Poet's Walk nursing facility, but they are
concerned about the increase in density to MUC2. She felt that the nursing facility
would be a high end outfit and would benefit the citizens of Leesburg greatly, but she
feels that the town has been consistently changing the uses allowed in that section of
Oaklawn and also the configuration and square footage. She is very concerned about
the increase. She says somehow the town council needs to put a stop to these
increases. She said the proposal meets the requirements of the original density limits
18 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
for this property, but never over the years has anything close to this density ever been
presented to Council. As a result, the residents question who is in charge. Those are
briefly her concerns. She had a family member speak for her at the planning
commission, basically expressing the same sentiment. That is the only other
comment we had received on this.
[Text of Lisa Dolinich's letter to Council follows:]
"Dear Leesburg Town Council Members,
Let us start off by saying we're in favor of the Poet's Walk Nursing
facility but not the increase in density to MUC2. The nursing facility is a high
end outfit and will benefit the citizens of Leesburg greatly. It will have
virtually no impact on the residents boarding that area, including ourselves
who owns the closest single family home to the project. It will look good and
in general will be a very quiet neighbor. We knew when we bought this house
a year ago (our second home in the Stratford neighborhood) that there would
be development in our "backyard", that's been on the books for years now.
However, we were a bit blindsided last summer with the rezoning and
approval of development for K2M, but are dealing with the unappealing
backside of the warehouse in our view. So to see the change to the
restaurant/office plans to include a nursing home was actually a welcomed
proposal. Looking at the plans, it will be a nice front view of the complex we
will see from the back of our house.
However, what we are concerned about is the hidden extra density
that is being included in the developers' proposal---extra square footage use
being shoved in a relatively small area. (My father presented all these points
on behalf of us at the planning commission meeting as we haven't been in
town for your meetings.)
What we should be concentrating on is the 100% plus increase in
density of MUC 2. Everything we were told at the meetings last summer,
including the presentation at the Town Council meeting stated that MUC 2
was zoned for 30,000 sq ft. of restaurants and 30,0000 sq ft. of commercial
retail or offices for a total of 60,000 sq ft. This figure was agreed to between the
DEVELOPER and the Council as noted in the revised proffers signed last
summer. Now, as show on in the proposed Poet's Walk proffer statement
dated June 12, 2015 page 4, OAKLAWN is proposing that Land Bay MUC 2
shall include construction of:
•
Up to 28,500 sq ft. eating establishment uses
19 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Up to 30,000 sq ft. neighborhood, community or specialty retail uses
•
Up to 30,000 sq ft. office uses
• Up to 38,000 sq ft. nursing home use
Or a total that could result in an increase to 126,500 sq ft. total or an increase of over
110% in sq ft. or density to what we were all told the MUC 2 area would contain.
Somehow, the town council needs to put a stop to these increases—yes,
the proposal meets the requirements of the original density limits for this
property of.4, but never over the years has anything close to this density ever
been presented to Council and as a result the residents question, who is in
charge! Remember, both the developer and council approved the MUC 2
proffer for 60,000 sq ft.last summer.
Since we've heard said that restaurants will probably not come to this
area like they were originally supposed to (not a major draw area), let's get
the developer to eliminate the 28,500 sq ft. being reserved for them. Let's get
the developer to change the proposal to:
•
Up to 38,000 sq ft. nursing home use
• Up to 30,000 sq ft. neighborhood, community or specialty retail uses
and/or office uses
This would reduce the density for MUC 2 closer to what we have all been told for years—Le
results in an increase 8,000 sq feet to the existing 60,000 sq feet not doubling the density.
If this can't be done then let's at least limit the increase to a reasonable
number such as a total of 75,000-85,000 sq feet. Clearly indicate to the developer
that under no circumstances will 126,500 sq feet be acceptable.
If the current proposal gets approved as written, then the green space
in the MUC will severely be decreased in comparison to that proposed less
than 12 months ago. Aren't we encouraged to "Keep Loudoun Beautiful"?
Adding more density to this small area would definitely not do that! Our
neighborhood has already been hit with one visually unappealing building
(K2M) can you give us a break this time.
20 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Thanks for your time and consideration. Feel free to stop by and see
the view of all the development from our backyard at anytime.
Lisa and Joe Dolinich"
Christine Gleckner: One brief rebuttal to that. I just wanted to point out that
the [inaudible] FAR of this zoning district is 0.4 and with our [inaudible] it is a
maximum of 0.28, so we are well under the permitted FAR for this district.
There were no additional speakers for this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m. It was announced that it is
anticipated having this on the agenda on August 11, 2015 for a vote at the request of
the applicant.
b. TLZM 2014-0008 Village at Leesburg Concept Plan for Landbay C
The public hearing was opened at 9:36 p.m.
Michael Watkins gave a presentation regarding the proffer amendment
application to remove the property from the H-2 Corridor design district and add
new proffers which require substantial conformance with the conceptual building
elevations for townhouses and stacked 2 over 2 townhomes.
Key Points:
• Located in undeveloped land bay south of the Village at Leesburg.
• Property was approved with a concept plan that includes townhouses and 2
over 2 townhouses.
• No changes to the project lay out.
• Previous proffers include a narrative regarding design guidelines. Concept
plan had illustrations to illustrate those design concepts.
• Builder was unknown at the time.
• Proffer amendments include replacing several proffers to establish substantial
conformance with conceptual building elevations.
• Planning Commission had concerns about the massing of the roof tops.
Decision to incorporate a pediment feature on at least 50 percent of the units.
• Planning Commission and staff recommend approval.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Burk: You had a slide there that listed all of the things that they retain by this
proffer amendment. What are the things that they are not retaining?
Staff answer: We are eliminating language for the design guidelines, so the
language that we had for the design guidelines has been stricken. They are
replaced with actual conceptual building elevations.
• Hammier: So the [inaudible] this specific language still is in keeping with
ultimately what our goals were for the H-2 guidelines. They are just
21 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
submitting the specifics and you have added the dormers to be able to break
up the massing of the roof. I think we even asked this last time, but I just had
this recollection that those porches that are kind of deck areas, are they
actually functional? Are they designed so it is actually functional for the folks
that live in those units or are they so small that they are almost aesthetic, but
not functional and is that something that should be considered just in terms
of...
Staff answer: The front doors for these? There is a deck—they basically have
an alcove for—the door is basically recessed so these are the multifamily
units. The townhouse is the same thing. It has a covered, like a pergola or a
roof feature that announces the front door entry. You will see on the rear
elevations that there are decks for the slider doors.
• Hammler: So, I see these sort of individual figures which leads me to believe
that they are actually usable and those areas that just jumped out at me.
• Fox: You mentioned that the planning commission passed this. Was that
unanimous?
Staff answer: Yes.
• Fox: Okay, and just one other thing. You wanted to change—you wanted to
bring it out of H-2 because you wanted to add 2 over 2s. Is that what the
main goal of this is?
Staff answer: So at the time the Village at Leesburg was rezoned, the whole
property was proffered into the H-2. The H-2 corridor does bisect the
northern part—the mixed use center. But to address the architectural
characteristics—the whole property was brought into the H-2. So, it wasn't a
mapping line adjustment, it was a proffer with the last amendment the unit
types and arrangements changed. It included absent specific elevations
because a builder was not known at the time. We developed these
illustrations and the language and the proffers to provide for flexibility in the
ultimate development of the architecture. So with the architecture known, we
are going to erase the guidelines and the illustrations that are shown on this
screen and replace it with proffered elevations.
Michael Romeo, land use planner with Walsh Colucci, stated he is
representative for the applicant and the affidavit for posting and mailing has been
submitted.
Key Points:
• Worked over the course of several meetings with the Board of Architectural
Review, town staff, and the Planning Commission.
• Used general illustratives and guidelines to provide specific building
elevations.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Burk: Does this change anything in what the applicant would put forward for
fire and rescue?
Applicant answer: No.
22 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Raquel Borras, 1501 Balch Drive, #209. "I am in support of Arcadia's
architectural design for these townhomes. Being I have been a resident at the Village
for five years now, I have been able to kind of see how the local businesses have
thrived or not thrived. Unfortunately, due to lack of walking traffic, a lot of the
businesses have gone out of business, so I think this would be very beneficial for the
village,just to have more residents, have more walking traffic and just, you know,
support the local businesses in that area. I personally would love to eventually move
into one of these town homes myself and not pay such high rent."
Dieter Meyer, "I wasn't intending to speak to this, but since I was here for
other entertainment value tonight anyway, I thought I would weigh in. I am not
speaking for the BAR, but this did come before the BAR and the applicant did a very
good job of working with the BAR and working through this. A couple of things, the
H-2 corridor guidelines were really not written for this type of project so to try to
hold it to those guidelines which were really written for the design of 1980s style strip
malls, really would make no sense. The architecture that they are proposing is a
substantial improvement over what is shown in the illustrative examples. So, I think
by all means you should approve this tonight".
The public hearing was closed at 9:51 p.m.
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the
following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2015-0-013
Approving TLZM2014-0008 Village at Leesburg, Land Bay C to remove the Property
from the H-2 Historic Corridor Architectural Control District and Amend the TLZM
2011-0002 Concept Plan and Proffers
Council Comments:
• Dunn: Just real quick, I think it is a good looking design. I think it fits well
and hope that it helps sales move forward.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, Martinez and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 7-0
11. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
a. Appeal of BAR Decision: Demolition of Homes on Edwards Ferry Road
Tom Scofield, Preservation Planner, reviewed the appeal of the decision by
the Board of Architectural Review.
23 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Key Points:
• Appellant maintains that complete demolition is necessary to allow
construction of the proposed district courthouse on Edwards Ferry Road.
• Appellant maintains there are issues with constructability, cost, stormwater
management, and security.
• Alternatives have been provided to treat stormwater off site.
• Proposed complete demolition does not meet any criteria that the Board of
Architectural Review must use when rendering a decision.
• No estimates of cost have been provided for moving the courts or the county
government functions to Sycolin Road.
• County maintains they have no use for the four historic buildings and third
party use creates security concerns.
• Relocation of one or more of the houses is still possible.
• Intensive level architectural survey is complete.
• Archeological survey is 75 percent complete.
• No demolition permit should be issued until building permits have been
issued for the proposed district courthouse.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: There still seems to be some non-answers coming from the county and
it seems like there may still be some discrepancies between what town staff is
stating and what county staff may be stating. So, I would like to go ahead
and hear from the county if they have anything else to add from our last
meeting and then ask questions of both because rather than them both going
back and forth and answering the same questions at separate times. I will
wait until I hear county's presentation.
• Burk: So, nothing has changed since the last time you spoke to us?
Staff answer: The process and the spreadsheet is amended. You have it in
your agenda package.
• Burk: So, that's the only thing that has changed? There has been no
collaboration and no more talking about saving one or more of the houses.
There has been no collaboration of any sort. There is no more discussions—
nothing has changed.
Staff answer: Staff is not authorized to do that, so there has not been any
discussions.
Scott York: Thank you for taking this issue up on this evening and staying so
late. I know what it is to be out late and doing work of the people you represent. I
did want to share a few thoughts and as I expressed to the Board of Supervisors in
our last meeting, we and I certainly appreciate what the town is looking at in
determining this, including the BAR. I have been on the county's planning
commission and entirely understand when you come up with a recommendation and
the folks higher up above you, and in my case, the Board of Supervisors, take it
under advisement and make a different determination because there is a larger
picture that you have to watch out for, as the political leaders of your community.
The BAR made the appropriate determination that they had to make by the guidance
24 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
of the ordinance that they have to make and so I can't argue with that. The difficulty
for the county is, you have mayor and council members making a good point from
the fact that we have gone from a population when I started with the county on the
planning commission of nearly 90,000 people to today when we have 360,000
citizens in Loudoun County for which the county has to provide services for. The
unfortunate side of growth is that we have to somewhat expand government to
accommodate that. I want to remind everybody back [inaudible] which started in
92, there was discussion with the town of Leesburg about a new county facility. We
were, at one time, where the courts complex is now and many of our associated
departments were spread out around various parts of the county. I remember
distinctly one conversation I had with a particular board of supervisors member at
the time when they were considering various sites—asked my opinion where do you
think we should go. I told that board member, I cannot tell you that. I do not have
all the specifics but one thing you have to keep in mind is that we are a growing
community and you have to pick a spot that will allow you to grow. So, today we
have the office building that we have on 1 Harrison Street that has the capability of
expanding two wings onto the facility. If anybody comes into the government
center, they will see two elevator banks that are not used today because we have not
expanded the building. Why? Because we have absolutely no parking and we are
out of parking to accommodate the staff for which we have right now in our county
facility. We are, today, here to discuss the expansion of the courts complex and
madam chair, we are on a lot that is very constrained. I appreciate the fact that folks
would like us to be able to save the buildings. I would ask folks to go back and look
at the site plan. We have actually picked the smallest footprint for this building that
we can design the facility to accommodate the courts. Not only the courts of today,
but the expansion of the courts in the future as they continue to grow. One thing that
is stunning when you look at that, there is absolutely no parking on that facility
except for a little bit that is on a lot that is to the north of the facility. We also have
an application before you on a different lot for parking for the courts complex. They
are not on the same lot. We have gotten to the point, and I said this to the board
members, that it is perhaps we are where we are now as a county, requesting of the
town to accommodate two gallons of water in a gallon jug and it is making it
difficult. I for one, I cannot speak for my entire board on this, I for one believe that
hopefully throughout many years the county complex will stay downtown in
Leesburg, primarily for one reason—because it is more central to the entire county,
but we do have board members that do feel that we need to reconsider and perhaps
look at putting it more central to the population and the majority of that population,
but I don't agree with that. The challenge that we have as we go forward in the
future is how do we accommodate the growth of county government facilities and
still protect and enhance the quality of what the town of Leesburg wants?
Unfortunately, we are at this point where we have a little rub—not a difference of
opinion on the value of the buildings, but a challenge for us to be able to
accommodate what we have to do and expand the courts complex, providing public
safety for those folks that are going to use the courts complex, for what we have to
provide in terms of, I believe, government mandate in order to accommodate
protection of those folks using the courts complex. So, I would hope that you will
reverse the decision of the BAR that we as a county can go forward and continue to
25 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
work with you. We would like to ask to consolidate the entire process together so
that we are doing everything simultaneously as opposed to piecemealing application
by application and get through that process. I think that if we are able to do that and
my board has made at this point a determination—the county facility will stay here
should the council go forward and reverse the BAR's decision. Staff has been asked
to go forward and work with your staff and begin working on the applications for the
expansion of the courts. Should the decision be tonight to uphold the BARs
decision, then staff is asked to cease and desist on working with town staff until we
can come back and reconvene and determine where we are going forward, but they
have been asked to go ahead and look at the potential move of 1 Harrison Street
either to Sycolin or out to our property that we own as a result of the rezoning of
Moorefield Station. Just quickly two points. It was represented that there is a report
that says we cannot really accommodate taking our government center and
converting it into a courts building. Well, there is no complete report, Madam
Mayor. What had occurred was back during the 2004 board, Mr. Bowers had
approached us and the board began the process of going out on the street with an
RFP and actually looking at moving the county government center in a couple of
places in and around the town as well as a couple of sites in the Ashburn area where
we were anticipating rail to come. One of the things that we did during that process
was to begin to look at what to do with the building. We knew we would need to
expand the courts, so we started the process of looking at the county government
center for the purposes of bringing the courts and putting it in there. The study never
got completed. That will have to begin if the staff begins to go forward and look at
other places. Lastly, I want to thank Delegate Minchew for bringing forward the
article. The article states and congratulates community members for getting together
to determine that the courts should stay downtown. I think that was the right
decision. What it applauded as well in there was the fact that the architectural firms
that we hired could take a very sensitive area that is both historic and bring the new
addition of the county courts complex and blend it in so that it enhanced the
downtown and was not a rub against what you all wanted. So, with that, Madam
Mayor, Mr. Hemstreet, is there anything you feel you need to add? We are here to
answer any questions that you may have".
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: I think it was stated last time and a lot of this is for the public who
might be out there listening or folks in the audience or what may be printed in
the paper,just so that we are clear on a few points. Please correct me, and I
am sure you will, if I am wrong. If we do not overturn the BAR's decision
and we go forward with preserving the houses, the courts will remain in
Leesburg, correct?
Chairman York: I am going to ask you to repeat the question because it is
hard to hear.
• Dunn: Okay. In my thinner days, I was closer to the mike. If we do not
overturn the BAR's decision by removing the houses, the courts will remain
in Leesburg.
Chairman York: Yes, I believe the courts will remain in Leesburg, if you do
not overturn the BAR, but again, I have to put this caveat out there—the
26 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
study that was done to determine whether or not the county government
center could be converted into the courts complex has not been completed
because when the economy went south, we stopped the whole process of
looking at moving out the government center so that has stopped. I just threw
that caveat out there. I do not believe that that would mean the courts are
moving out because that would take them an awful lot to accomplish that.
• Dunn: Yeah. I think we got this answer earlier, but I am going to go ahead
and ask it. What is the cost to convert the government center to courts? You
don't know that? Any rough guesses? 20 million?
Chairman York: We don't have that. I am not going to guess.
• Dunn: What is the cost of moving the government center out of Leesburg?
No idea either, right? Or do we have a rough idea?
Chairman York: Because quite frankly, Mr. Dunn, we have to —until the
Board determines through that study where to go, we are not going to know
what the costs are. Obviously if what happens if the Board makes the
determination to go ahead and move the county's complex to another site, we
have the cost of the new building. That is a given, no question.
• Dunn: Do you see the county being a long term tenant for a government
center—that maybe the existing building is already out there—that they just
lease them or would that be something that the county would most likely
build new?
Chairman York: Let me—the night you took this issue up, I believe the last
time—the Finance/Government Services and Operations Committee of the
Board was meeting. When we finished that evening with an item by staff, we
were recommending for the Board of Supervisors a plan that would look at
Sycolin for expansion for county buildings to go up where we could thereby
take—where we have currently leased facilities —take those departments, get
them moved in. It would help us in our expansion plan. What I asked staff
that night was 1) in this plan that you are presenting to us, are you moving 1
Harrison Street out to Sycolin. No, they agreed. Then, how long does that
provide for us to be able to stay in this building according to your growth
projections and I think the answer to that even was to 2030 and so we were
ready to go to the board, make a recommendation for the board to go ahead
ask staff to complete an analysis to use Sycolin as an expansion area where
we could build again, several buildings to then house departments that are
already out of the building, keeping this facility as it is today.
• Dunn: When you say Sycolin, you are talking about the property on Sycolin
that is in the town currently?
Chairman York: This is just right outside the town limits.
• Dunn: It is the area right across from the airport.
Chairman York: Correct.
• Dunn: A few years ago, I had the honor with Vice Mayor Burk, who was
Supervisor Burk at the time and I was Planning Commissioner Dunn and it
was Council Member Horne. I forget who else from the County was on that
but we were involved in the Government Center Task Force. This would
have probably been somewhere around—well it would have been about eight
27 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
years ago, I guess. Do you know what the estimates were of moving the—
and it was going on at that time was the review of moving the government
L. center outside of its current location. Do you have any knowledge on what
those estimates were as far as costs goes?
Chairman York: No. That's way back [inaudible].
• Dunn: There has also been some talk about job loss. I guess, let's talk about
job creation. With the expansion of the courthouse, how many more jobs are
going to be created with the courthouse expansion?
Answer: [inaudible]
• Dunn: Okay. So, if the courts were not expanded and moved to the
government center and the government center was moved elsewhere, how
many people are we going to fire? How many job losses are there going to be?
Chairman York: Mr. Dunn, I would have to ask—you think government is
going to shrink? None.
• Dunn: Well, I am just going by—because some people are saying there is
going to be job loss. I don't really see it, but that is what I am asking you—
because if there is job loss, I would like to know.
Chairman York: I can't comment on that, Mr. Dunn. I think what their
concern is about relocating those jobs to outside of Leesburg.
• Dunn: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure— again for the public, that we
are getting the right terminology because people are hearing a lot of things.
You know, there is stuff on the streets —you hear things. I want to make sure
we are putting out the right information for folks. So, you do not anticipate if
moving the government center outside of Leesburg, getting rid of jobs,
correct?
Chairman York: There would be no job loss.
• Dunn: There would be no job loss. Okay. So, what we are talking about is
for concerns for folks downtown is how much does county employees spend
in downtown. Do we know those numbers? Anyone?
Chairman York: I do not have them.
• Dunn: Do we— does economic development have those for the county?
Chairman York: I am wondering, Mr. Dunn, if that is not a better question
for the Town of Leesburg.
• Dunn: I am going to ask them next, but I am asking county first, but how
about us, Kaj? Does economic development know how much economic
benefit there is from County staffers who either take time off before they get
to work, time off at lunch or when they leave work to spend money in town,
particularly downtown.
Staff answer: We do not have that information that I am aware of.
• Dunn: Again, because I think a lot of this came from when the county
decided to go ahead and not allow us to freely make this decision, but then to
throw out—to have staff start looking for other places for the county
government to move, that caused a lot more concerns to folks than what we
were hearing prior to that announcement and a lot of the concerns were this is
going to be a tremendous economic drain on downtown or Leesburg, yet, we
don't know what that is. We don't know how many town staffers are
28 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
spending money downtown. We don't know that number. No one does, but
we are basically spreading fear by that and not facts. I was just trying to get
the facts out there.
Chairman York: Mr. Dunn, if I may add, one of the concerns that I had
personally with respect to moving the complex out to Sycolin, there are no
services out there at all for county staff. They would have to get in their cars
and travel whereas now, they can walk conveniently to get lunch in the
afternoon or meet with appointments, get up here to the Courthouse when
they have business with the courthouse. They can meet with town staff when
they meet with town staff. They would be very inconvenienced—there I
would agree on that point.
• Dunn: And what I would love to see is much like what the article said years
ago is us to actually work together on this instead of saying this is cut and dry
especially when so far my questions, we haven't gotten any facts yet.
Chairman York: [inaudible] Mr. Dunn, and I appreciate that, but it is cut and
dry for us on this particular topic because we have to provide the security for
these people.
• Dunn: Yes, I will be getting to that in just a couple of minutes also. So, we
don't— and I guess the courthouse expansion or relocation, I didn't ask the
question about relocation, but I guess it would be about the same that if the
courthouse were relocated to the government center, the job situation would
be the same as far as increased jobs based on caseload. Correct? Okay.
What county services have already moved out of the town in the last 25
years?
Hemstreet: That is a pretty broad question, Mr. Dunn. I am trying to figure
out...
• Dunn: Thank you. The idea would be that it would be very few, but I think
it is quite a few.
Hemstreet: Well, the last 25 years, the county has expanded by—from 90,000
population to 360,000 population, so I wouldn't characterize it as county
departments relocating outside of town. Okay? So, you've got more county
employees in the town today than you had county employees 25 years ago,
so...
• Dunn: Right and some of them may have started outside the town already. I
understand that. I asked you specifically what county departments—really
we are talking about jobs or in other words, not necessarily jobs, but folks
spending money in the town because they work here—what county services
have moved out of town. If you can't— if you want I can say 15 years, if you
like. Make it easier.
Hemstreet: I am not sure what you are asking me. Parks and recreation is
located in Ashburn.
• Dunn: Was that in town prior to 15 years ago?
Hemstreet: It was at Depot Court three years ago.
• Dunn: So Parks and Recs.
Chairman York: And it used to be at the County government center.
29 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Hemstreet: The Sheriff's office was at 88 Harrison Street. It is now at 803
Sycolin Road, which I think is still in the town. Fire Department is still in
town. Economic Development is moving to Loudoun Station.
• Dunn: How about the educations department? Didn't they move? I think we
built a pretty good size building for them, didn't we?
Hemstreet: That's not a county department though. The school division is
located in Ashburn.
• Dunn: Yeah, but they were in town. Yeah. Anything else? So parks and
recs, the schools, sheriff kind of moved further outside. Economic
Development is on its way out. Okay, so there has been actually quite a few
things that have moved outside of town. And I guess, you got something up
Chairman York, a number you said—2030. You said that you would be too
big for your current location. Is that the whole government? If you could
expand on that a little bit. I wasn't quite sure what you meant by we are
basically outgrowing our current facilities. Is that just a portion of
government or is the whole government center. What is you can actually
expand beyond our abilities by 2030?
Chairman York: I think the answer that I receive with respect to the 2030
date is just how far that they have looked out at the facility here at 1 Harrison
Street. Again, my concern with the report was whether or not staff was
including in their proposal for the property off of Sycolin was to also move
the county facility from 1 Harrison Street out to there. The answer, as I said,
was no. Then I asked how long is your projection and it is 2030. Now, I
can't tell you what the board of supervisors is going to do in the next term let
alone what happens in 2030. What I do know is that we are anticipating by
that time to have nearly 480,000 citizens and we will have to have the
complement of staff in order to be able to serve them. We will grow in every
single department, probably except the Board of Supervisors in order to
accommodate that, so I can't tell you really what 2030 means. Whether we
will still be here, whether we will be somewhere else. Again, as I stated, I
hope that we are able to remain here for quite some time. But, I will also add
that at one time, I used to do business at the Fairfax Government Center,
which was downtown in the City of Fairfax, which is no longer there. The
courts complex,jail and all that is downtown. So, if you want to look at a
study about with respect to what happens to jobs, that might be an interesting
model to look at.
• Dunn: Okay, and also the reason I am asking these questions is because if we
we only have one chance to preserve history. Just one. It sounds like there is
multiple opportunities, which has been demonstrated by past experience that
the county government is moving outside of Leesburg in one form or another
and from the infant stages of the report, I would stake, that there is a
probability of that increasing overtime and maybe even completely by 2030.
We don't know, but that sounds like that is a possibility. If someone could
turn their mike off.
• Mayor: No, it's Dave. He is getting restless.
• Dunn: Sorry, Dave. You might as well back off a little bit, I am going to be
talking for a few more minutes, from the phone. But, the—let me see if I have
30 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
some other questions for you. I guess I don't have any questions, but I do
have some comments when we start to wrap up. Let me just check my notes
real quick. I guess I do have one last question for the county and that is the—
I guess as you see it, there is just no way of working this out where we can
preserve these properties and expand the courthouse and keep the government
center here. You just don't see any way of that happening?
Chairman York: Well, what we have proposed to you is what we need to
have happen in order to accomplish what we need to do. And that is to
expand the courts complex and provide the safety for the people that are using
it. That is why the board of supervisors has asked you all to reverse the
decision of the BAR.
• Dunn: Okay. Actually, I do have another question, since you brought up
security. One of the comments that was made at our last meeting was that
should the buildings remain and should the courthouse go on in it's current
location, that the county said that security could be improved by occupying
those buildings, but that the county would chose not to occupy those
buildings or have anyone else occupy them. It seems a little counter
productive to then be creating a security risk that you have already found a
way to mitigate that risk. It sounds like it is just a way of trying to say well
we can't get around the issue when there could be other options for those
properties and the use. And then also, we have heard comments made about
buildings being boarded up or in disrepair. I would hope that should those
buildings remain that if the county didn't opt to give those to a needy cause,
or find some other use for them, that they would become good stewards of
historic properties and put those in a shape that would be presentable. Thank
you. I will yield to my comments after everyone else has a chance to ask their
questions.
• Burk: I do have one question for the county. If the council was willing to
override the BAR's decision, would the county be willing to consider adding a
plaque or some sort of memorial at the site commemorating the fact that this
neighborhood was there— doing something to recognize that and the
importance of it?
Chairman York: Ms. Burk, we haven't gotten to this point in the process. I
think in a meeting that I had with the mayor, I had expressed a desire that
perhaps as a solution/compromise, if you will, that when we take and look at
that area, that is the 60 foot wide area to include both grass, other
landscaping, sidewalks, that perhaps we could do it in a way that marks the
foundation of those buildings and do something in remembrance,
commemoration of those buildings of some sort. So, I will say I am amenable
to that. I suggested that I think at one meeting of the board, but we have not
gotten to that point in the discussions.
• Burk: Is this something that would need to be put into the resolution or is it
something you could assure us would end up happening. I think it is
important that we have something outside so that people walking by...
Chairman York: I think that it is a great point that you put it in your
resolution—whatever you adopt. In fact, when we get to the point that we
311 Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
work between both bodies as well and to look at the design of that particular
section and come up with something that helps accommodate the history.
• Burk: Okay, when we get to that point, I will be adding that. I just want to
make a comment that today we are really making a pretty momentous
decision—whether we allow the county to take down the four houses and yes,
they are old houses. There is no dispute between the town and the county
about the historic nature. The county publicly recognizes that the four houses
are historic. They are not historic because George Washington slept there.
They are not historic because some treaty was signed in one of them. They
are not historic because an Adams or a Jefferson lived there. They are
historic because they represent a neighborhood that began there. Ironically,
that neighborhood represents the start of expansion of the town eastward.
They were built one after the other in the 1800s. They represent a type of
neighborhood that no longer exists, so yes, they are historic. Part of the issue
that we are dealing with tonight is the idea that Leesburg is a historic town
with a historic district and these houses reside in that historic district in this
historic town. So much of the fabric of our history—we lose every time we
tear down a building. I have lived here for over 35 years and I can talk about
the old hotel that was here, and the old opera house and the old jail but I can't
point them out to you because they are gone. Some councils in the past said
that they were not important enough to save, so they are gone. And here
tonight, we are considering doing the same thing. Each time we tear
something down, we are changing the scene of history, yet progress demands
that we must move forward or we are doomed to remain static, so even
though the board of architectural review, which is tasked by the town and the
state to do all that it can to preserve history, offered compromise after
compromise on ways to save the buildings, the county leadership only
returned with threats of retaliation to move the courthouse out of the town.
In reality, I believe the General Assembly can only give permission to move
the courthouse, but the threats to move the county workers out of the town is
enough to cause uncertainty and distress to the town merchants. The BAR
offered more compromises to save the buildings and the county leadership
looked at the numbers and said no—we might move the county workers out
of the town if you don't let us expand and tear down the houses, so the BAR
denied the county application to expand the courthouse. I thank each and
every member of the BAR for their hard work in trying to come to a mutually
acceptable application and I am sorry we were not successful. So, tonight we
the council have to look at the impact of uncertainty and unrest and all this
back and forth from the downtown businesses. We have a new street plan
that is beginning, that will impact these businesses. We have had a major fire
that has caused closure of some businesses and now we are bickering back
and forth between the town's desire to save its history or tear it down to
please the county. So in this case, progress requires we settle the matter
before us. I wish the county planners had realized the value of the houses
early on and planned them within the design, but they didn't. I wish the
county leadership realized the value of the historic houses and would
incorporate them into the design of the new courthouse. I wish the county
32 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
leadership would realize the value of a prosperous town and work with us to
ensure our history is preserved and our businesses are successful and I wish
the compromises could have been reached, but as my mother used to say to
me, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. So, even though I know
the BAR did exactly what they are required to do by law, to recommend the
denial of the courthouse plan as presented to them, I will be voting tonight to
overturn that denial. I am saddened to do this and I don't do it lightly. I
value history, but I believe the uncertainty and unpredictability will be
devastating to the downtown businesses, so I will hang my head as I raise my
voice to overturn the decision.
• Martinez: Well, I really want to thank the BAR for all their work and unlike
some, it may appear that sometimes we at Council don't take you too lightly.
I know I don't and I have been there and I have seen all the hard work you do
and know that what is happening tonight is not easy to take. I really want to
thank Tom for dispelling some of the stuff that has been floating around and
that a lot of what is coming on or what potentially could go on is really just
not true. The town is not going to suffer. We are not going to go into
recession if the courthouse isn't built here. We may have to make some
changes and stuff but you know, the town has survived some pretty bad times
and this council, especially in this last economic downfall that we had, or the
market slide, we held to our guns and we kept this town going and didn't lose
any level of services or quality of life. I also wish that we could have worked
with the county on a collaborative level. I really think that could really solve
the writing on the wall that it was going to be a standoff—that we would have
dropped our gloves and gone out into a room and worked this out. But, what
really disheartens me a lot is we really don't take into consideration our
citizens that really value the historic district and what it means to us. To
some, they may see a house that is old, but they see something different. The
way that some of us — some of our comments, the emails, we have already
discounted that. We are so harsh and I wish that when we start talking about
these things, it is not county. It is not the town, it is the citizens that we are
representing and their feelings. While we may not disagree, but that doesn't
mean that we have to be rude and harsh in our comments. We should all be
respecting each other and be civil. I wish we could have been [inaudible] I
wish we could have done. I know that I have gotten so much feedback and
unfortunately in my mind it has been overwhelmingly in favor of demolishing
the homes because a lot of people didn't see the value in it and I really took to
heart [inaudible] comments about how sometimes we have to move forward
and vote although we know this is something that you wish you didn't have
to do. I wish a lot. I wish that we could all just stop the drawing lines in the
sand. There shouldn't be any lines. We should be working together. I know,
Scott, in the past, we have worked well together. There have been times
when we have been collaborative and done things to benefit not just the
citizens of Leesburg, but the county. We need to do more of that and I am
willing to put myself out there on anything that is coming forward—work
with the county and do something that makes this something that benefits the
citizens of Loudoun County and the citizens of the town. Again, I go back to
33 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
the BAR. I really respect what you guys do. I think people take you too
lightly. I think people don't understand the heartaches and things you go
when you try to make these decisions, because you are bounded. The
question goes, should we allow more leniency in your ability to make these
decisions. I say no. I say you know if you have to make a decision where
you did this time, you should and it should be left to us to make the hard
decisions. It bothers me that I have to vote anyway, pro or con. I am with
Kelly. You know Kelly was very eloquent in her comments about what she
was saying. I was talking to somebody this afternoon and you know we
talked about moving houses, and he goes, that doesn't mean anything to
move those houses and put them somewhere where they weren't originally
put. The fact that those houses were there is part of what is the historic fabric
of Leesburg. Some of you again may think that they are just old houses and
have no real historic value, but to who? I think they do. I may vote to
overturn the board decision, I'm not doing it lightly. I will tell you what, I am
doing it holding my nose and I am going to do it with a heavy heart and I am
hoping that people who value those homes will understand that I'm trying to
look for the overall good for the town and the county and that I do know if I
wasn't on this town council, I'd be right with those people and fighting to
keep those houses.
• Hammler: I don't have any questions, but I feel compelled to make a motion.
I don't know— I know Suzanne might. But, I guess to the point of order,
there might have been a point where there is a motion on the table.
• Fox: I have a couple of questions, but I was wondering since like everybody
has been giving comments, is this the time to do that?
• Mayor: You can do that.
• Fox: Being last, I just want to reiterate what I heard,just so I heard it
correctly. I know there is lots of information out there. Lot of rumors
floating around. I just want to ask you one more time if the BAR was
overturned this evening, does that mean—I'm sorry, if the courthouse
expansion is approved, does the county intend to keep operations in Leesburg
or does the county intend to move operations. That was the rumor and what
I think I heard you say is that the county intends to keep operations here in
Leesburg.
Chairman York: The intention is, assuming we receive positive vote that we
have requested, it is our intention to move forward, expand the courts
complex, keep the county government facility where it is right now with the
operations that we have there and looking at further expansion of government
facilities to accommodate the growth that we would continue to have out at
possibly the sycolin property.
• Fox: Okay. The second question I had is will delaying demolition until the
project is approved in its entirety cause any additional expenditures or other
hardships?
Chairman York: I think it would be very wise for you to require us to hold off
any demolition until such time as all permits and approvals are done and we
are able to move forward with everything associated with the courts complex.
34 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Fox: Just because I brought this up last time, is there no way—or 112
Edwards Ferry totally off the table for saving. I just need to ask that question.
Chairman York: The board of supervisors, again, has made the request that it
has because we feel the responsibility to provide the safety for the public that
is using this facility.
• Fox: I do have a few comments, if that's okay. My questions are and
continue to be is the courthouse expansion necessary and can Leesburg
handle the expansion traffic wise. Those questions haven't really been
empirically addressed, although Mr. Hemstreet did say two weeks ago when
we asked him that the expansion was needed. Honestly, these questions are
not a part of this appeal, but I feel like they should be answered before any
work on demolition does commence. But, the foremost question before us
tonight is what is more important for Leesburg—retaining the four relatively
unmaintained buildings or maintaining and expanding the courthouse and
government operations? I don't believe we should be risking our town's
future and creating instability in the commercial sector for the sake of the four
older buildings, which the county has stated will be boarded up, thus
potentially becoming an eyesore. These are old and they may arguably be
historic, which we have been through, but what is the real value to Leesburg
residents and businesses compared to the other interests at stake. Part of the
value proposition that Leesburg has offered it's residents and businesses for
the past two centuries is that it has served as the legal center, the economic
center and a government activity in Loudoun County. That in and of itself
has significant historical significance, at least to me. However, with metro
coming to Loudoun, there has and will continue to be a push by some to
make the metro stops the main focal point of the county despite the fact that
these stops are geographically located in the far corner of the county. Such a
move would do far more damage to the historic character and the value of
Leesburg than the loss of four buildings at the edge of the historic district. I
believe that Leesburg has a vested and compelling interest in continuing to be
the county seat and governmental center of Loudoun County. Retaining
Leesburg's identity as the historical and functional central hub of Loudoun
will play an important role in our continued economical and cultural growth
as well as our quality of life. I have received numerous calls and emails from
both businesses and residents concerned about Leesburg's future and about
property values if the fate of the courthouse and government center remains in
the air. Both local papers have published editorials calling for Leesburg and
Loudoun governments to work this out. I believe that we need to show
current and future businesses an increased level of cooperation with the
county on this issue as well as future issues. I would like to add just because
we survived hard times in the past, doesn't mean that this council should be
causing them in the future. To echo Delegate Minchew's remarks—more
collaboration, less animosity. Both town and county are responsible in this
partnership and I would like to end with those comments and go on to the
Mayor.
• Mayor: Let me read—I am not making this motion, but let me read it to you,
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hemstreet and see if you think the Board of
35 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Supervisors is going to have heartburn with the two conditions that are in it.
One of the motions we have in front of us is a motion to reverse the decision
of the Board of Architectural Review as rendered on May 18, 2015 and
approve the county's request for total demolition without the modifications
issued by the BAR but subject to two conditions. #2 to require and
architectural and archeological survey and#3 demolition allowed only after
all building approvals are received as set forth in the BAR's approval in each
of these cases. Do you think there is anything in that motion to reverse,
especially those two conditions, that would cause the board heartburn? I
appreciate that very much. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points.
Supervisor Reid spoke earlier and made an inaccurate statement that I had
not shared with Council a conversation that I had had with the Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors prior to the Wednesday night meeting—I think it
may have been July 15. In fact, I did subsequent to my discussion with the
Chairman of the Board, send an email to all of the council prior to that
evening's meeting of the Board alerting the council to the likelihood that the
board seeing a need to expand would ask it's staff to present a number of what
if scenarios. What if the Town Council chose not to overturn the BAR being
primary among those. I described the conversation I had with the chairman
of the board of supervisors as being professional and very calm and my
understanding of where the board was coming from was they recognized
Leesburg's right to decide whether we wanted to accommodate the growth of
the county courts and the county government, but they also needed to expand
and they were giving us an opportunity to accommodate that growth. I think
that's pretty much what happened that evening. There has been some talk
about lack of cooperation by the county with the town, but I would like to pay
the County staff and board some compliments. The county held community
outreach meetings at which a number of citizens attended, as did I. I found
county staff and board members to be very receptive to citizen concerns,
especially when it came to the proposal to close Church Street, which the
Board thus far has chosen to try to keep open during this process. As well as
the proposed height of the courts expansion. One of the things that I think
makes Leesburg a very charming downtown is the fact that we have a 45 foot
height limit. That height limit has been exceeded in a few cases. I have not
been wild about any of those cases, but the county decided to plan to make
that building fit within our height limit. So, I have to give them credit for
that. I found working with Chairman York to actually be a very encouraging
process. I found him to be professional and thoughtful. There has been
submitted, sometimes on both sides from other members of the board, but I
can understand their viewpoint. We have a chance to accommodate this
growth and we have a chance to say no to it. I am going to vote to overturn
the BAR, not because I disagree with what they did because I think the BAR
did what it had to do and I appreciate the county staff and Chairman York
consistently recognizing their good work, but we have in front of us a choice
we have to make. Are we going to accommodate this growth of the courts, or
are we not? And I think we need to accommodate it at this stage in our
development. I think we have heard from enough merchants downtown and
36 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
restauranteurs to justify allowing this courts complex to go forward. So, if
there is a motion, I would entertain it.
On a motion by Council Member Hammler, seconded by Mayor Umstattd, the
following was proposed:
MOTION 2015-009
I move to reverse the decision of the Board of Architectural Review as rendered on May
18, 2015 and approve the county's request for total demolition. The Council urges the
county in accordance with their required timeline to be responsive to the private parties
willing to move the historic structures as well as to work with the town on an
appropriate commemoration. The demolition will occur only after receipt by the
applicant of both a building permit for new construction of the new district courthouse
and after final approval for the submitted rezoning TLZM 2015-0002.
Council Comments:
• Mayor: I am going to ask Chairman York and Mr. Hemstreet if any of those
new proposed conditions are going to cause heartburn for the Board of
Supervisors.
Chairman York: So it gets on the public record—no ma'am.
• Burk: I was willing to vote on this if we had condition #2 and #3. Why are
you taking out condition #2?
• Hammier: I would be willing to consider that a friendly amendment. I just
felt there was a balance relevant to at some point it goes without the saying
similar quite frankly to #3 and it talks about an intensive level architectural
survey in accordance with the guidelines for cultural resources, but we have
done most of that research and the things like—they will be coming back for
all the architectural reviews and the landscaping so it will be part of the
process moving forward.
• Mayor: I would recommend that we consider accepting a friendly
amendment from the Vice Mayor to put#2 back in since the Chairman has
already said the board can live with that.
• Hammier: I would be happy to accept that friendly amendment.
• Dunn: I just have a slight concern that the motion, where it talks about
having the board working with a private party to relocate, does it have to be a
private party?
• Hammier: My understanding is they received a couple of responses and I
believe they they were private parties, so it was just based on an assumption
given the RFI that went out, but if you wanted to make a friendly amendment
about that adjective, by all means.
• Dunn: If you just want to take out private party, when it talks about
relocation.
• Hammier: Be happy to do that. Madam Mayor?
• Mayor: Fine. Third party.
• Hammier: Is that okay with you, Tom?
• Dunn: Well, who is the second party?
• Mayor: There is them, there is us and then there are the other guys.
37 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Dunn: Well, we don't own the property. What it is in essence, I just don't
want to have it pigeon toed to what has to be somebody other than a
f►. government doing the relocation.
• Hammier: [inaudible] party?
• Dunn: Open to government doing a relocation also.
• Notar: Any other individual, corporation or entity.
• Dunn: Well again, it is taking out the responsibility of the government from
doing that. It is looking for somebody else other than the county to do their
relocation so that is what my point is.
• Hammier: That's actually what the intension was—that a private party
would be the one who is requesting to move it and would do it, but maybe
that wasn't clear. I accept the town attorney's adjectives, if that is okay with
Madam Mayor.
• Mayor: That's fine with me.
• Dunn: A couple of other comments that I wanted to make was it was brought
up that this was the council gambling or calling the bluff of the county as if it
was the council the ones who were in the wrong. We weren't stepping up to a
gambling table and we weren't the ones making a bluff. It is unfortunate as I
stated earlier that the board chose to interject this into our proceedings in an
effort to strike fear in to the hearts of men and I guess they were successful. I
think that had they been concerned about the timeline on this, they could
have gone ahead and taken the— if time was the most important they could
have acted on the BAR's decision and just gone ahead and moved forward
and found ways to work around this. The fact that the statements that there
are no options— I just don't believe that. There is the massing of the building,
which could be changed. There is the footprint that could be changed. The
layout of the stormwater management—that could be changed. It is about a
desire to work with it and I just don't think there is a willingness to do that.
A part of that comes down to cost. There is a cost to expansion. There is a
cost to preservation and both of those are high. I think that the cost if
somebody were to say well you are gambling, I think that the $54 million that
we are spending on the courthouse expansion, which by the way isn't going to
come to full use for 20 years, is very high and that the cost to correct the
government center to become a courthouse on the same standards that the
expansion were, I would leave that to people like Dieter, he would probably
know or have a number. I think the town staff or county staff would also
have some idea and then to turn around and create a whole nother building
that would accommodate the expansion of county staff, which it sounds like
they are going to be doing anyway by 2030, 15 years from now. It sounds like
a long time, but it is only 15 years from now and by the way they are trickling
town staff out of town already. So, really what are we trading our history
preservation for? A town staff that is already leaving and is on its way out
with no real guarantee of them staying in town. And the fact that the
buildings are old, last time I checked that kind of goes along with historical.
Yeah, it has been mentioned already that we can't point to these buildings
that anyone slept here of great importance, but you know what, that's
38 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
probably 95% of the other old buildings that are in downtown. And I think
that the— as mentioned earlier, I put a proposal forward last night. Of course
the council didn't take my recommendation which was one of the things we
had a gathering just a few weeks ago on the courthouse law where people
were looking to have some recognition of the diverse make up of Leesburg
and some of our darker days when the slave trade was going on. I made a
recommendation last night that these buildings could have been used for say a
cultural diversity awareness center. That didn't get picked up by council
because we see the direction tonight, but I think there are other uses that these
buildings could have had and it is unfortunate that we are not doing that. As
far as the security goes, if security were the real issue, the courthouse would
not be there today. There are buildings within the 50 foot limit—the
guideline that the courts say we have to have clearance within 50 feet. If that
were the case, the existing courthouse would not be there today. If that were
a true objection to doing this, they would not be expanding the courthouse to
its new location because even in the new location they don't have 50 foot
clearance and as I stated earlier, if they were concerned about these buildings,
one of the concerns were eliminated that if the buildings were occupied, that
would lessen the security, yet they are saying they don't want to occupy
those. Unfortunately, the security issue just doesn't hold for me as well. The
other question I would ask folks in this is let's say this was private enterprise.
This was a private company, one who would come into downtown. They
unfortunately had to take down some historic buildings, but they were going
to bring 600 jobs to downtown. Would you accept it? Good. Because right
now we are not necessarily adding any more jobs, but we are taking down
historic buildings. If you are willing to let private enterprise do it, then you
are okay letting the government do it, but I have the feeling though the votes
would not be the same if it was a private enterprise. By the way, home values
increase in historic districts. As you take away those historic districts, which
this is going to be reducing part of our historic district by removing these
buildings, historic home values do go up in historic districts. Many people
move to Leesburg because of its historic charm. The charm of downtown. I
don't hear very many people say I moved to Leesburg because there is a
government center here or because the courthouse is here. Some may if they
have jobs there, I guess, but they definitely say they are moving here because
of the historic charm. Once the history is lost, it is lost. You just don't get it
back. Government centers do move. We have heard that they are going to
do that. The quaintness needs to be preserved within the agreed upon area.
The BAR makes the decision of historic preservation. It is the job of the
council to enforce that. We have been given a historic district and it is our job
to maintain that. In this case, we are not. So, lastly, I want to ask you what's
next? The parking lot that we are going to put on Wirt Street? Maybe on
South King Street where people are renting businesses and we have a place
where we are going to start storing our government county vehicles on South
King Street. Oh, you are just trying to stake some fear—scare us. Well, it
sounds like the same fear that has been put out by we are going to move out
of town and there is going to be jobs lost and the economic impact, none of
39 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
which we have already stated tonight we have any, any facts to support any of
that,just stuff we want to throw out. It is unfortunate we have had to come
to this where we could not work together because I think there could be a
solution. I am afraid of the what's next. For those of you who live
downtown, have buildings downtown, when the next developer comes in and
wants to say he wants or she wants to demolish a property, they will point to
this example and say I should have every right to do it—the county
government did and you didn't have any problem voting for it. Well, I got a
problem voting for it and I won't be overturning the BAR decision tonight
because I too moved here many years ago for my family and it was because of
the historic downtown and if you start thinking about the other places in our
state, never mind our country, where there is strong historic preservation—
just start thinking about parts of Williamsburg that should get bulldozed over
because government said we should be treated differently. And I am basing
this not on the heresy of what could happen, but on the facts before us and the
facts are we have a historic district we should be maintaining it and we should
be maintaining our historic integrity. We are the stewards of that and I think
we could have worked through this process. Unfortunately we couldn't.
• Butler: First, I appreciate Supervisor Reid's comments. [inaudible] stated
that the county is not looking to move the courts out of Leesburg [inaudible]
and clarification. I also appreciate Chairman York's comments both tonight
and two weeks ago that [inaudible] some different criteria than the county
does. As well as maybe they are trying to fit two gallons of water into a one
gallon jug. That is an appropriate [inaudible]. I would be willing to bet from
the BAR's presentation, their analysis [inaudible] willing to compromise
didn't seem to show up quite as much with the county. It is a difficult
decision. It is not nearly as simple as many people have stated either way.
Both the county and the town agree that the courthouse [inaudible]. This is
not insignificant and it almost feels like this decision, as I think you
mentioned, Madam Mayor, almost feels like a referendum on the entire
development. The only thing I'd like to mention is some people are saying if
the town and county can't work it out—they are squabbling. No, we are not
squabbling. We have squabbled before on a number of issues. This is not
squabbling. The county has actually [inaudible] with what it thinks is the best
decision for them. The town has to decide what kind of downtown we want.
Make no mistake. This development will change the character of the town
and the courthouse will definitely go a long way helping to mitigate that
change. Then again, I am looking at the proposed development—not
particularly interested with a [inaudible]. The [inaudible] are going to come
to Leesburg just to look at the nice new courthouse complex so I think overall
the economic impact is being overstated. But it is what it is. [inaudible] more
important is whether it matches our long term vision. Approving this
development will pretty much cement downtown as a nine hour a day, five
day a week government centric area and unfortunately probably people
[inaudible] if our vision is a vibrant night and weekend downtown, marked
entertainment and dining, seven days a week, 12 hours a day with nightlife,
this development will not help that in any way. Short term, this is probably
40 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
the best decision economically. Long term, maybe it will change us, we hope
for the better. Last, there are still some significant questions around the
development that we need to work through. Katie mentioned, last [inaudible]
there are willing buyers for these houses who will move them at no cost to the
county. We should definitely look at that strongly. The parking garage is
going to be large. It is going to be significant to the homeowners that are near
there and there are some questions about the traffic impact that makes us
uncomfortable. The building, at this point, at least to me doesn't look all that
attractive. That needs some help. So there are still significant questions that I
hope can be brought amicably with the county in a spirit of compromise with
the board.
• Hammler: I actually consolidated my intro comments with my final
comments because I didn't make any comments because we had no motion
earlier and I am very sensitive to how late it is and these poor kids in the back,
I believe they are here for a merit badge. Thank you for all of your patience
and willingness to be part of this important process. I just have to thank all of
you. I will not reiterate the brilliance of your comments and the importance
of your participation— everybody who emailed, who is willing to stay up until
after 11 o'clock tonight, those who represent living in the downtown,
renovating pre-revolutionary war homes and putting a very difficult decision
into perspective—Ron Rust, Mr. Armfield, [inaudible] I could go on. Matt
Cole, who is staying late, who did an incredible amount of research bringing
that forward. Gwen, tremendous recommendations, thank you for
representing the downtown business association, but you also represent those
who have been working on the vitality of the downtown for years and years
and years and this is such an incredibly important anchor whether you want
to talk about expanding a 9 to 5 economy or not. We are the county seat.
This is at least 500 jobs and it is the feet on the street that everything that we
have been doing is, you know, all about. The BAR—we all know that you
made the right decision and that ultimately the council needs to look at this in
terms of we looked at it, is it either going to be something that we don't
reverse and it becomes economically devastating or is it so optimistically
represented for us, it is an economic opportunity? But we are really going to
work closely and collaboratively with the county on the beautiful architecture
of this new expanded courthouse because that is going to be our future history
and something we can be extremely proud of. So, with that, you know two
weeks ago I did my best to get majority support to make it as easy as possible
to get this resolution passed because my [inaudible] was to come here next
meeting, but unfortunately [inaudible] with an Easy Button to say hey we are
with you and we are looking forward to collaborating with you because we
know this is a complex project. We want to work with you on the parking
issues and so many things, but I know we will. So, in closing I am looking
forward to obviously supporting this motion. Under new business, I will be
bringing forward a very succinct motion regarding how to streamline this
process moving forward.
41 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
MOTION 2015-009
I move to reverse the decision of the Board of Architectural Review rendered on May 18,
2015 and approve the county's request for total demolition. The Council urges the
county in accordance with their required timeline to be responsive to any other
individual, corporation, or entity willing to move the historic structures as well as to
work with the town on an appropriate commemoration. The demolition will occur
only after receipt by the applicant of both a building permit for new construction of the
new district courthouse and after final approval for the submitted rezoning TLZM
2015-0002. As provided in the procedures for Demolition outlined in the Old and
Historic District Design Guidelines, the applicant must conduct an intensive level
architectural survey in accordance with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(DHR)Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource Surveys in Virginia;the
applicant must conduct a Phase 1 archeological study to determine if the property yields
information important in Leesburg's history;and the applicant must demonstrate that
the site will be prepared and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan once
portions of the building have been demolished.
The motion, as above, was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Fox, Hammler, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 6-1
b. Minutes of March 10, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Hammier, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following was proposed:
MOTION 2015-010
I move to rescind the approved minutes for the Regular Session meeting of March 10
and approve the revised minutes as provided.
Council Comments:
• Hammier: The town clerk, sometime after that meeting created a new format
and just giving the significance of that particular meeting, it seemed relevant
that we should apply that same template to these minutes. So, I appreciated
that permission under new business to bring this forward.
• Dunn: As I mentioned last night, I think that the need for verbatim minutes
is not really there. I think it is undue staff work and effort when if anybody in
the public wants to hear exactly what council says, they can watch the videos.
• Burk: Am I understanding this? Does this make all of our minutes now
verbatim minutes?
• Mayor: No, this is one set of minutes that replaces another set of minutes. It
does not have any power outside of this particular set of minutes. Now, we—
the verbatim or not verbatim issue is another issue. That is not what this is
doing.
• Hammier: I was going to mention that at some point we didn't as a council
discuss the fact that Lee Ann had changed the type of minutes.
42 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
• Mayor: That is not really germane to this particular motion.
• Hammier: Just in response to that particular comment.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Dunn and Martinez
Vote: 5-2
d. Amending Resolution 2015-001 Making Councilmanic Appointments to add
Liaisons to Leesburg Fire and Rescue Companies
Burk: I re-read the letter and in the letter, they invite you to be the liaison, but
they do not mention anybody else. So, to me it was a letter about you. It
didn't invite...
Mayor: I do not have the time to do that. So, we can either vote to make
someone else the liaison and if they don't like it, they can say nope, you are
not allowed in the meetings.
Martinez: I would say we wait until we get clear clarification of what they
want.
Mayor: Okay, we can send them a letter and...
Hammier: Are they coming back to a work session and we could bring it—
we have asked the question several times, but if it is at the next work session
we could bring it up then.
Mayor: Kaj, could we just get a letter drafted for my signature to ask them if
they would accept someone other than the mayor?
Martinez: Madam Mayor, I believe we have an official representative of the
fire and rescue, if we want them to make a comment.
Mayor: Tammy is welcome, if she wants to, but I don't know if she would
want to speak for the board at this time.
Burk: We need to bring this back when we get clarification on it.
12. ORDINANCES
a. None.
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. None.
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. Council Member Hammier made a motion to suspend the rules to bring an item of new
business before Council. The motion was seconded by Council Member Fox.
Council Comments:
• Hammier: I would appreciate bringing forward the resolution to be able to
communicate this council will be directing staff to expedite the process.
• Martinez: You can't bring up the motion until the rules have been suspended.
So, you want to bring up the motion to....
43 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
Mayor Umstattd noted that all members present would need to vote to
suspend the rules in order for this item to be heard.
The motion to suspend the rules failed by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Fox, Hammier and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Butler, Dunn and Martinez
Vote: 4-3
15. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
Council Member Fox: I want to thank, even though a lot of people left. There were
so many people here who need to be thanked, especially the BAR members. I had the
privilege of being liaison. I think they did everything right. I see their side of the issue. It is
a tough one for me. Chairman York for being here tonight and answering the questions that
we had was very helpful. I want to thank Mr. Scofield. He really put a lot of time and
effort into this whole process and I think he should be thanked for that as well. The only
thing I really have for this past couple of weeks since it is summer time—there not tons
going on, but I met Mayor over at Layered Cake Patisserie for the first anniversary and
participated in the flash mob—my first ever. That was fun.
Council Member Hammier: Just a few quick disclosures, Madam Mayor. I went
downtown on the 15th. We did the recon for those that could go to the ark in Anacostia,
which is the building in which the [inaudible] school of music and the performing arts center
is located and downtown I was also invited to go to a beautiful beer garden example that is
downtown that hopefully will be coming to Leesburg. It is just a lovely idea speaking of
night life and bringing energy and vitality so I did that on the 15th as well. I had a
conversation with Shye Gilad on the 27th and a conversation follow-up on the performing
arts center and parking issues with Dieter Meyer on the 27th and just in closing getting a lot
of great feedback on getting mulch at the town parks. Many thanks to parks and recs for the
mulch.
Council Member Martinez: I was at the VML meeting for general laws and there
was some discussions on body cameras for police departments. We also had a good
discussion on drones and how we are going to approach that legislatively. There were a
couple of other things that I'll bring back at the next working session, if you don't mind, I'd
like to bring up and just discuss. Other than that, it is going to be a long drive tomorrow
morning. I did want to thank my neighbors who really got a kick out of being recognized.
But, they really listened to the meeting and I just thought the fact that they took that time, it
had to be acknowledged.
Vice Mayor Burk: I have nothing.
Council Member Butler: Just a couple of quick things. I look forward to being with
you in person next time and I will volunteer to come to a meeting out at town hall for an
entire day to see if we can come up with a better technological solution to this. The good
news is I could hear the Mayor perfectly all night, but some of the folks, Katie, Suzanne, not
quite so much and there just has to be a better way. I do have one disclosure that I will
submit in writing when I get back, but I did meet with the Poet's Walk guys last week. I
44 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015
was also down at VML the same time as Marty with the Environmental Committee and
there are a couple of things of interest that I intend to bring back next time. Other than that,
it is warm up here in the north and I know—I hear it is pretty brutal down back home so
stay cool.
Council Member Dunn: I just wanted to mention that I don't always look for
government to do a lot of things, but one thing I forgot to mention during our discussion
earlier is when we have a historic district, I do believe that is government's responsibility to
preserve it, not to destroy it.
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
I've got one disclosure. I met with representatives of Poet's Walk today.
17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Mr. Dentler had no comments.
18. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:27p.m.
C. U stattd, ayor
Town of Leesburg
A T:STz
Clerk of I oun it
2015 tcmin07.:
45 I Page