Loading...
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