HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcmin1110 COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, David Butler, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Katie
Sheldon Hammler, Marty Martinez and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Town
Attorney Barbara Notar, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Capital
Projects and Public Works Renee Lafollette, Director of Plan Review Bill Adman,
Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Parks and Recreation Rich
Williams, Director of Economic Development Marantha Edwards, Deputy Director of
Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Senior Planner Michael Watkins, and Clerk of
Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION: Council Member Butler
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Staff Sgts. Smith and Diehl, USMC
4. ROLL CALL: Showing all members present.
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
work session minutes of October 26, 2015 were approved by a vote of 7-0.
b. Regular Session Minutes of October 27, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the
regular session minutes of October 27, 2015 were approved by a vote of 7-0.
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
meeting agenda was approved as presented by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation—Webber Seavey Award for Quality in Law Enforcement
Chief Joseph Price introduced Jeremy Thomas, Motorola Corporation, and
Vincent Talluci, Executive Director of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police.
1 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Mr. Talluci stated the Leesburg Police Department is one of three recipients
of this prestigious international award for their Organized Retail Crime initiative.
b. Certificates of Appreciation—Renee Bricker
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Butler, a Certificate of
Appreciation was approved for Renee Bricker for her assistance with the Police Department's
Organized Retail Theft Prevention program.
c. Certificate of Appreciation—USTMA Kick Cancer Out of this World
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Martinez, a
Certificate of Appreciation was approved for Grand Master Choi and the USTMA for their
long running Kick Cancer Out of this World campaign.
d. Proclamation— Small Business Saturday
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Hammier, the
following was proclaimed:
PROCLAMATION
Small Business Saturday
November 28, 2015
WHEREAS, the first ever Small Business Saturday was launched by
American Express on November 27, 2010 to encourage people across the country to
support small, local businesses; and
WHEREAS, in 2011 across the country, mayors, governors, senators and the
President of the United States voiced their support for Small Business Saturday; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, 73.9 million people were recorded shopping in local,
independent, small business locations; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, 1,450 neighborhood champions rallied to boost the
program in their community; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, an estimated 14.3 billion dollars were spent at small
businesses across the country by nearly 88 million people including Leesburg,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission supports Saturday,
November 28, 2015 as Small Business Saturday in Leesburg.
NOW, THEREFORE PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and Council of the
Town of Leesburg in Virginia that Leesburg encourages residents to patronize the
2 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Town's small, independently owned and operated businesses on Saturday,
November 28, 2015.
PROCLAIMED this 10th day of November, 2015.
e. Proclamation—Diabetes Awareness Month
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following was proclaimed:
PROCL4.NIATION
Diabetes Awareness Month
Eat Well, America!
WHEREAS, diabetes affects nearly 30 million children and adults in the
United States today—nearly 10 percent of the population; and
WHEREAS, another 86 million Americans have prediabetes and are at risk
for developing type 2 diabetes; and
WHEREAS, recent estimates project that as many as 1 in 3 American adults
will have diabetes by 2050 unless we take steps to Stop Diabetes ; and
WHEREAS, African Americans and Hispanics are almost twice as likely to
have diabetes as non-Hispanic whites; and
WHEREAS, diabetes increases the risks of and mortality from heart disease
and kidney disease, and is a leading cause of blindness and nerve damage in adults;
and
WHEREAS, the American Diabetes Association supports eating well, which
means more than just eating healthy—it means savoring food that is delicious,
nutritious and simple to prepare.
NOW, THEREFORE PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and Council of the
Town of Leesburg in Virginia that November 2015 is Diabetes Awareness Month
and all citizens are encouraged to "eat well" to achieve health and wellness every
day.
PROCLAIMED this 10th day of November, 2015.
£ Proclamation—240th Birthday of the United States Marine Corps
3 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Hammler, the
following was proclaimed:
Vrottamation
to &onor of tlje 240th Aiirt1jbap
of tije 1n.iteb iptate5 J.arine Qorp5
.obentber 10, 1775 -2015
Whereas, on November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia,
passed a resolution stating that"two Battalions of Marines be raised"for service as landing forces
with the fleet; and
Whereas, this resolution established the Continental Marines and marked the birth date of the
United States Marine Corps. Serving on land and at sea, these first Marines distinguished
themselves in a number of important operations, including their first amphibious raid into the
Bahamas in March 1776, under the command of Captain (later Major) Samuel Nicholas; and
Whereas, the Treaty of Paris in April 1783 brought an end to the Revolutionary War and, as the
last of the Navy's ships were sold, the Continental Navy and Marines went out of existence; and
Whereas, following the Revolutionary War, increasing conflict with Revolutionary France led to
the formal re-establishment of the Marine Corps on 11 July 1798; and
Whereas, Marines have participated in all the wars of the United States, and in most cases were
the first service members to fight, executing more than 300 landings on foreign shores; and
Whereas, today, there are more than 200,000 active-duty and reserve Marines, organized into
three divisions stationed at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton and Okinawa, Japan; and
Whereas, the motto of the service is Semper Fidelis, meaning "Always Faithful" in Latin;
Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Mayor and Council and the people of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia extend to the United States Marine Corps their heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifice that
each Marine is willing to make in defense of his or her country; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the Mayor and Council and people of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia wish the United States Marine Corps a very happy 240th birthday. Semper Fidelis!
g. Presentation—Telecommunications Antennas
Ed Donohue with Donohue and Stearns, a small business in Leesburg. He
gave a brief presentation regarding collocation of telecommunications antennas. He
asked that Council consider allowing collocation of small cell facilities in several
zoning districts in Leesburg.
4 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
8. PETITIONERS
The Petitioner's Section was opened at 8:10 p.m.
Andrew Borgquist: My name is Andrew Borgquist. Madam Mayor, and Members
of the Council, I know you all know who I am. I am here to speak about the issue that I
have been talking about on many numerous occasions and part of the reason I am here
tonight because I have kind of decided that I am not going to continue coming to these
meetings speaking on this, but it was roughly not quite to the day, but two years ago in this
month when I had, actually it unfortunately involves the Town of Leesburg police. I had a
negative interaction with the Town of Leesburg police in which I had voiced some
disagreement with a town of Leesburg police officer. Although I believe we have a very
good and wonderful Leesburg police, I think that there could be improvements and as then
and as I still do now, I believe that what happened by the Town of Leesburg police wasn't
right, but that being said, I did complain and I was vocal in my disagreement with them
which although they are very good police, unfortunately being vocal on something you
think isn't right didn't serve me very well because I happened to also work for the Town of
Leesburg. Although I had been working for the Town of Leesburg for 14 1/2 years, word got
out that I had voiced disagreement with a Town of Leesburg police officer and without
really any thought, whatsoever—any due process whatsoever, I was summarily fired and
terminated from the Town of Leesburg. That all occurred roughly two years ago and I have
been coming ever since and talking about it, hoping that there will be some change and that
they will have a much more proactive policy or management in place that will prevent the
kinds of things that [inaudible] Parks and Recreation Director, Rich Williams, who enacted
a process that to me was neither unfair, not in the interest of the residents, or the employees
or anybody that visits the town of Leesburg. I do want to emphasize that ultimately my
complaint with the Leesburg police wasn't really that big of a deal, it was just the way it was
handled was just extremely poor in my opinion. So, I had even gone as far as to suggest
that maybe, you know, Mr. Dentler wasn't the appropriate town manager for the Town of
Leesburg just because I don't feel that the reaction that I saw to make sure this kind of thing
doesn't happen and these kinds of things are handled in an appropriate manner was—I
don't know I'm just not sure that I saw that it was done, but anyways, I am just to continue
to make sure that the council takes it seriously and addresses this concern and Mr. Dentler,
that I hope that you will take this seriously and address this concern and ensure that we
continue to have a Town of Leesburg police that wins awards, but that it truly is the best
and it also is truly a good place for residents and employees that work in the Town of
Leesburg and that we have a very fair, transparent, and ultimately not what this was kind of
government.
Joseph Sanchez: My name is Joe Sanchez and I am speaking to you tonight as
Chairman of the Leesburg Environmental Advisory Commission. Although the Crescent
Parke town plan amendment and rezoning application currently under your review
provided the impetus for these comments, the issue that I want to speak to you about is
actually town wide. The Environmental Advisory Commission is concerned about the
continued loss of forest cover within the town due to land development. Tree canopy losses
negatively impact our local environment, our quality of life and the economic vitality of the
town. The Crescent Parke proposal is the most recent example of this continued loss due to
development. While tree loss is an inevitable result of urban expansion, the town provides
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
some level of assurance in the Town Plan and Urban Forestry Management Plan that efforts
will be taken to preserve, protect and restore tree canopy. However, the continued net loss
of canopy is a serious concern. The EAC urges the Council to consider how it may curb
this disappearance of tree cover. In February 2006, Council adopted the Urban Forestry
Management Plan for the town. One of its major objectives was to achieve an overall tree
canopy cover of 40%. At the time the plan was adopted, an official assessment showed our
tree canopy cover totaled about 8 percent, so we did have some catching up to do. To one
day reach 40 percent, objectives in the Town Plan state the need to protect and restore tree
canopy that we do have. The EAC recognizes the efforts of the tree commission and the
town in planting trees towards meeting the 40 percent goal. The EAC encourages Council
to continue to refine strategies to increase canopy cover and seek significant commitments
from developers for tree preservation. The EAC understands that there will be a need to
remove a large portion of forest for development of the Crescent Parke site and we
acknowledge the current proposal is consistent with town Zoning ordinances for tree
preservation. Nonetheless, this will result in a 90 percent net loss of trees. Therefore, the
very significant challenge is to find ways to preserve what we have an replace what is lost as
we develop Leesburg. We believe that preservation should be a priority on not only this
site, but all sites, all development sites in town. We urge Council to ensure that applicants
for development in Leesburg understand the Council's commitment to preserving tree cover
and incorporate that objective in the design of their sites. Now, here is a thought. Perhaps
permitting only 10 percent preservation is detrimental to our town goals in canopy
restoration. Maybe the preservation requirement on new sites should be higher. A
meaningful percentage that when combined with other tree planting strategies can help us
build up our lost urban forest. Just a thought— something to explore, consider. Finally, I
would like to thank you for your continued support in protecting and enhancing our natural
resources here in Leesburg. Thank you for your attention tonight.
Tom Jewell: I am back again. I live in Chesterfield. I am here tonight on behalf of
Mr. Steven Penoris, the owner of the Crescent Parke land. Mr. Penoris asked me to come
and convey two things to you tonight. One is that he hopes that you act on the Crescent
Parke application expeditiously. My second job is to define expeditiously to you. Mr.
Penoris wanted you to know that he is 96 years old. He is in excellent health, but ladies and
gentlemen, we are not talking perpetuity here.
Leah Kosin: 122 [inaudible] Way. I just came tonight to show my interest and
support for the stage that is going to be discussed this evening as well as the water feature. I
am the mother of three very young children, 8, 6 and 3. This past summer we utilized the
new water feature at the Village at Leesburg quite often. In addition to using the water
feature, we stayed there for live entertainment and utilized the restaurants, Rita's Italian Ice,
so many of our dollars went to the Village when we would love to keep them here in the
historic downtown. A lot of my clients here that I help with their marketing are looking for
more foot traffic here in the downtown and I honestly feel that as a mother of three, that a
water feature and a stage for live entertainment, the arts, would help keep us here in the
downtown more often. We live five minutes down the road. I would prefer to support the
downtown. I have nothing against village, but it would be a nice addition to the downtown,
I feel. I know that there is a discussion about the pros and cons. Obviously safety is key. I
know with the parking garage and Loudoun Street just next to Mervin Jackson Park where
6 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
the proposed fountain might be located, there was concern about children running into the
garage, on the street, that sort of thing. I even have concern when we are at Village at
Leesburg because there is only a small iron fence that kind of separates the road from the
fountain area, but thankfully it has worked for a lot of families— always busy when we have
been there. So, again, I just wanted to share my support for having something like that
including the stage here in downtown Leesburg.
Jim Sisley: Mayor Umstattd, it is a pleasure to see you again. Hello to members of
Council and Town staff. There is so much to be thankful for this evening, I am just floored.
I would just like to start off with thank you for the time you have spent recognizing
veterans. More specifically, the Marine Corps anniversary. My son was a Navy corpsman
and the one consolation that I took away on Christmas eve the night he announced he was
going to Afganistan was the fact that he was going there in support of and to be protected by
some of the best trained, meanest, most capable military members of our country. He in
fact did come back safe and I can only thank them from the bottom of my heart. I love my
son. Also, thanks so much for taking your time to recognize small business and the people
you gave awards to this evening. I will say it again. You've heard me say it before, but
small business is where everything in America starts. These are people that are truly
committed. When you think about breakfast, there are two animals generally involved—
one is a pig, one is a chicken. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. I am not
calling small businesses pigs, but these people are truly committed. They sacrifice time
away from their family. They spend all of their life savings trying to make their businesses
successful and they are the backbone of the commercial tax base for our town. So, thank
you very much for taking the time. I hope that doesn't take away from what I am about to
talk to you about. Again, Jim Sisley, I have been in the town of Leesburg since 1995. This
is my chosen home town. I wouldn't choose to leave it, although I have been coached to do
that a few times. I now live in Tavistock and I have, probably over the last 45 days, more
times now than I can count going up and down Sycolin Road between Market Street and
the Leesburg airport. That is an urban boulevard. It is four laned. I will tell you from my
experience in the 20 something years I have been in this town—nothing against town
planning staff or the way that street has been executed, because I know that the plan of the
future is that it will carry significantly more traffic than it does today—that street is out of
character with our community. So, relative to Crescent parke—I really hope that you
consider to keep the road, Davis Drive to two lane because I don't believe that it is going to
serve the residents that bought and currently reside in the southeast quadrant as Davis Drive
will connect to it. Four lanes blowing through that particular area will absolutely change
the character. It will also probably drop property values, so sincerely, please. Do what you
can to support the applicant's request to downgrade the street from four lanes to two lanes.
I think it is a good move for the town and it will do considerable amounts to preserve the
character of the community. Relative to the landbay portion of the application...I believe
that the placement of residential where it has been requested and the associated changes in
town plan are positive moves. Last time, I came to speak about Crescent parke, the one
thing that I wanted to impart to you is what that new population of people would do in
support of the businesses that are in downtown Leesburg. It is walkable. We have, as a
town, we have a 98 percent walkability score. So, that says a lot to the ability of the people
who will be residents in Crescent Parke to get from there to downtown and support those
businesses. The one thing in the past 20 years that I have been deeply involved with has
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
been in discussions and activities with various different organizations. I have brought a
number of businesses into downtown Leesburg and unfortunately, I have seen a number of
those businesses go away. The common complaint from existing businesses and the lament
of the businesses that failed, was that there were not enough feet on the street to support our
downtown businesses. Our downtown has to compete with much larger, better equipped
and better financed other retail environments. So, what I would ask you to do—is you are
working with a great applicant and I am hoping you will support the request that they make
and the changes to both the town plan and the zoning code and allow Crescent parke to be
delivered. It is in closing—it is my opinion that it is high density and that may be a little bit
of a change for what we do as a town, but it is far, far better than the normal development of
neighborhoods which have basically equaled or delivered urban sprawl to much of Northern
Virginia. To kind of piggy back on the Environmental Advisory Commission—higher
density residential does so much more to protect the tree canopy in our community.
Carl Eager: 644 Patrice Drive. I am president of Kincaid Forest Homeowners
Association. I would like to talk about a reminder of history to the Leesburg Town Council.
We have a barrier at the end of Kincaid Boulevard that was put up quite some time ago and
the agreement that was previously established was we would not have to remove that barrier
until Crosstrail got put through to mitigate cut through traffic to our neighborhood. I just
chatted with Ken Reid and also Geary Higgins on the Loudoun County Board of
Supervisors and they putting together a letter to send to you all requesting that they remove
it. I would like to state my position that I would like to us to leave it in place with the
previous agreement that we had with you all to do so because it doesn't seem to be any
benefit of doing that. It still enables us to mitigate the rush hour traffic that would cut
through our neighborhood, which I am sure is going to go faster than 45 miles an hour
through that area. The other part of the deal is we need leverage to seal the deal with the
Crosstrail developer to prevent them from only building a bunch of homes on a portion and
leaving and not building the road all the way through. So, by putting down those barriers,
which I believe you still have control over because they are within Leesburg property limits,
that still leaves us with leverage and mitigates some of that issue. Some of the folks
[inaudible] I would prefer at the time to be able to take a short cut, but for the long term
benefit for leverage point as well as the safety of the community until we get Crosstrail built
all the way through to highway seven, I request your consideration and survey the
community and let us be part of that voice when it comes to you because we don't want—I
don't know why Loudoun County would send it to you, but we would like to be able to give
due consideration of. Thank you all for the great email response. You all work weekends
and stuff too. I appreciate that dedication. It was very nice with the veterans here too.
Russell Yergin: Since we last spoke and came to the town about the Crescent Parke
development, we have been in contact with our members as well as surrounding HOA
board members, owners, and even management companies. We have had a lot of
conversation, some with great urgency. We have had phone calls, emails, and many
conversations in person. The town's Crescent Design plan requires as said, a four lane
urban boulevard, because of the commercial destination on the south side of the creek—
that's from Food Lion, King Street, Davis Drive, and going all through Crescent Parke to
Gateway Drive. Gateway Drive is 38 feet wide all the way down to Sycolin Road. There is
parking on both sides and it is indeed a residential community. People walk their dogs,
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
children walk to bus stops there going down Gateway and of course, we have a great deal of
traffic going down Harrison as well. That road will connect to Gateway with Crescent
Parke. In keeping with the surrounding communities, and they are completely in favor of it,
they would like to have its width two lanes and have, of course, a residential community
connected to that. The scenario of a 90 foot roadway, which is an urban boulevard going
into 38 feet,just doesn't seem to work. I don't think we can move Gateway Drive to make
it much wider. The Crescent Design plan calls for the entire parcel to be developed as
primarily commercial with residential and mixed use. At this time, the developer is
proposing a purely residential community on the south side of the creek. This residential
community would seem to be a good fit for us because it is residential to residential. Going
to the part of looking at commercial, there is four or five story buildings with office space
and retail below it, which brings more commercial traffic up our streets, which is not in the
best interest, we feel at all. The Town of Leesburg also seems opposed to the idea of
residential to residential, citing that the plan originally called for something and it is
immutable. We don't feel that would be the case. If the developer has to install office
buildings over retail with some residential, traffic will increase and our property value won't
be enhanced at all. Based on a design plan— a Crescent Design Plan, we understand that
there is going to be something to do with 9000 vehicles entering and exiting just Crescent
Parke alone. Before the overpass was built, a study was done and found out that just up and
down Gateway Drive coming off Plaza/Sycolin Road, at that point, showed up to 6000
vehicles in a 24 hour period. This has increased markedly since the overpass has been built.
That is our feeling. Often times, we have traffic backed up from Catoctin and Harrison all
the way back to the bridge at the creek. We have also got a children's playground there.
So, that has been increased quite a bit. We do, in fact, like to see the developer, and we
have permission from you to go ahead with his residential to residential on the south side.
We have not seen any traffic plans changed. We have not seen any left turn or right turn
lanes on Harrison— denying the ability to do that, increasing our traffic. We know that
there is going to be a cut through. We know that people are going to go from King Street,
via Gateway down to Sycolin through Harrison. They are already doing this and right now,
we see no stop signs. Sycolin Road and Gateway are going to have to add at least a stop
light system at very minimum. The other thing that people are very concerned about, which
seemed not to be a concern for many years—it was kind of a pipe dream, is the Dulles
Greenway extension. As of late, I have seen several maps and they showed it in dots. It is
going to happen—or maybe not, but the Virginia Department is not about to let it go. We
wish that would be pursued by Council. The 90 foot right of way has been in place there
and has to be accommodated as reserved area. It is mandated. Now the construction of a
two or four lane exit or entrance ramp, we have been told it could be either. This right of
way has a zero set back from our property, in Virginia Knolls. It was mentioned last night
in the work session that along Route 15, against the new building in Crescent parke, that
sound walls would not be a good idea, they would not be preferred and they would be ugly.
Well imagine behind your house, at your property level, you get to look at a raised, elevated
highway and maybe a 15 foot piece of concrete. You could paint it white and show movies
maybe, but that's not the kind of thing that will enhance the value of our homes and attract
people to our neighborhood at all and the several surrounding. We ask you to consider
granting the change and the text amendment as well. I thank you.
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Victoria Yergin: I am the secretary treasurer with the Virginia Knolls Community
Association and I am here to speak about Crescent Parke as well. With respect to the
Crescent Design District, there is confusion in the community in terms of the application of
zoning. Catoctin Circle is wholly a commercial environment from South King Street to
East Market Street, therefore a commercial zoning was anticipated and expected for that
area. Currently a residential development is underway on Harrison Street, clearly in the
commercial corridor of the CDD at the site of the former Barber and Ross window factory.
The rezoning request for this body this evening is for the purpose of residential land
development directly adjacent to long-established residential communities on the south side
of Harrison Street all the way to Route 7 and 15. Since the Crescent Design District clearly
has a CD-RH land use designation, the community wishes that designation to be applied
appropriately. The marriage of residential to residential is the logical and most responsible
choice this body can make for almost 1000 long standing residences in the area south of
Tuscarora Creek adjacent to the east side of Crescent Parke. Rezoning to residential would
also be extraordinarily appropriate for a two lane road in Crescent Parke connecting up with
the two lane Gateway Drive which is 38 feet wide. We were talking about traffic and
signaling. We are going to need to see something that stops traffic from coming down
Gateway Drive to Harrison Street and the concept of a 60 percent increase on South King
Street—that was discussed at the work session last night. There didn't seem to be a start
and an end point for the 60 percent increase—it would be 60 percent from what? That
seems to be a very vague and elusive number. But, right now on S. King Street at the
intersection of South King and Gateway Drive,just beyond Food Lion, you can sit there for
quite some time in the evening before you can get across. The preponderance of traffic takes
a right turn on Catoctin Circle. If they can't do that because there is a 60 percent traffic
increase, we need to have the Dulles Greenway extension in order to relieve that or we have
a whole lot of people cutting through the Crescent Parke Development going out Gateway
Drive to Sycolin Road. They are going to quickly realize they don't have to sit at the traffic
signal at Catoctin and South King Street. What they are also going to do is move away
from the historic district and the commercial corridor that already exists on Catoctin Circle.
This cut through in effect just moves traffic away from all of the areas that everybody is
trying to development, maintain and enhance. I am not quite sure how this works. If we
make this four lanes and we make it fast moving and we make it very efficient, moving
through this development, it gets all that more enticing for people to use. So, we would like
to see no through truck traffic there. We would like to see some restriction on right turns
and left turns at Harrison Street and we would certainly like to see the transportation proffer
by the applicant used for signaling at the intersection at Gateway Drive and Sycolin Road.
It is already getting dangerous there and it is quite fast moving traffic up and down Sycolin
Road. The community would like to believe the issue before this body isn't a matter of
whether the Crescent Design Plan is flexible, but rather this body never intended a
developer to install a large commercial application adjacent next to a residential
community. We are all hoping this was taken into consideration when the Crescent Design
District was formulated and implemented. Density, residential building heights,
townhomes versus two over twos, greenspace, recreational space, can always be addressed
as the process continues. For now, the community has an expectation the adjacent use will
be logically rezoned to residential this evening. We stand ready to engage in enormous
community outreach by this developer in concert with Council and the Planning
Commission to address some of the following areas,just to name a few. Adequate reserve
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
space for the Dulles Greenway extension, the highest standards for stormwater
management, appropriate and long overdue stream restoration over there, great sensitivity
to areas that can and should remain forested. Going beyond minimum standards for the
installation of trees to improve the canopy, sensitivity to the types of retail, restaurant and
service businesses courted to that development for the proposed commercial section north of
the stream. There is a general sense that the town expansion means the loss of many of the
park like settings in Leesburg and Loudoun County. Some people call it progress. Some
people call it destruction. Some just pack up and leave for higher ground and greener
pastures. We feel that expansion and responsibility can co-exist, if expansion isn't always
about money and responsibility isn't always thrust upon a person or group by beating them
over the head. All of this can be done if expectations are realistic and peripheral vision is
not only clear, but permitted to be part of the process and prerequisite to decision making. I
thank you for this time and I ask that my comments be part of the record this evening.
Sarah Richardson: I live at 349 Shenandoah Street, SE, and my home backs to the
project under question. I would, as a resident of Virginia Knolls, I would like to say that
rezoning the area for residential and allowing only a two lane road seems not only
reasonable, but preferable given the reduced amount of traffic residential development will
bring. I would like to briefly recap the concerns I and my neighbors have. Concerns about
how any development on that steep hill could promote flooding. Among the myriad
adverse effects of climate change are increased rainfall as well as more severe and more
frequent storms and flooding. Those new threats will compound the problems that already
exist from building on a flood plain. For those of us who live near the Tuscarora Creek,
managing stormwater effectively is not just a desirable environmental goal, it is a necessity
to protect our homes. My second concern—other people have spoken to already is about
retaining existing tree canopy and habitat, which supports for example, the deer, rabbits,
birds, bats, fireflies to name only the most prominent of the species. The developer, Hobie
Mitchell, has said he is committed to retaining as much tree canopy in the proposed
Greenway extension area as site engineering on a flood plain allows, which is great. I
would like to add that no matter what kind of development ultimately appears on that site, I
urge all parties to work towards creating a suitable buffer, particularly critical given the
uncertainty regarding the Greenway extension and I would also like to advocate for
maintaining green space that will retain some of the site's existing forested character and
create value, both aesthetic and ecological for existing and future residents.
Gem Bingol: I live at 1508 Shields Terrace and work for the Piedmont
Environmental Council. I was pleased to learn that you recently decided to change the
Town Plan amendment process. It should function to add more clarity or simplicity to your
decision making process. I think that the Crescent Parke development discussions highlight
the difficulty of trying to consider a proposal to change the Town Plan at the same time you
are looking at a rezoning application. There is another issue wrapped up in this question
that you are going to address tonight and it has been mentioned more than once. Does the
Council think that the Crescent District guidelines have a value and what value do they
have. Perhaps your answer is no. You have not really adhered to the Crescent District Plan
in your previous decision, small. It appears that you may not tonight so I would suggest
that with your decision tonight, you will be sending a clear message to developers that come
to Leesburg that you don't expect adherence to the plan. Again, if that is what you choose,
I1lPage
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
okay. I do want to point out that every decision that you make that does not match your
plan weakens your position at the time that you want to rely on your plan to justify a denial,
but I think that perhaps you already know that. So, one thing that does occur to me as well
this evening is, you know, there is always discussion of is this community business friendly.
Are you making it easy to develop in Leesburg—I would say when you have the
opportunity to develop by right or choose a rezoning, maybe it's not so hard to go through
our rezoning process if that is what is being considered as the alternative of choice. I don't
know. For your consideration, I do think that before you do decide on this decision this
evening, it would behoove you to get the answers to the questions that your professional
staff has said are the conditions in the zoning ordinance, so how the plan amendment better
realizes the plan goal or objective to provide a more compatible land use and I appreciate
that for many residential next to residential appears to be preferable. I guess there are many
other factors that go into whether it's preferable depending upon set backs, preservation of
the natural environment etc. But, how the amendment clarifies the intent of a plan goal or
objective, how the amendment may provide more specific plan guidance, how it might
adjust the plan as a result of a significant change in circumstance, unforeseen by the plan at
the time of adoption. I could argue that this proposal doesn't meet those standards. In
addition, I think that a fiscal analysis that compares general fund revenues, costs of services,
and required capital facilities improvements generated by the development would be a good
thing to do. Right now, it is kind of like you are making an assumption based on the feel of
it—that it is going to be good for the town, but have you taken everything into
consideration? Have you really looked all of the numbers? I think perhaps not. And, I
don't know honestly that there is going to be any—or I think that there probably will be a
change to the town plan this evening just judging from the way that the conversation has
been going. So, if that is the case, I would hope that you would take a further step back
from the plan and consider how the rezoning can better protect the neighbors and the access
on the property that will happen in a couple of specific ways. Reduce the residential density
here. This is not downtown and so go ahead, if you are going to change the plan, change
the plan. Make it so that there is enough set backs, enough buffers, enough preservation of
the site assets, conditions, that it really does something. Don't cram it all in there. Another
condition would be the entire stretch of the stream corridor receive stream restoration. Why
not? If we are going to do some of it, let's do all of it—the whole thing and build in
commercial phasing so you know that you are going to get it at some point.
Hobie Mitchell: I have various properties around here. In fact, one of the pieces of
property was up for discussion earlier, but I am actually up here to talk about something a
little different. The first speaker was from the Tree Commission, spoke about working on
tree preservation and other matters like that—the canopies and one of the things I have
always not understood is why some of these places don't come to the people in my
business. I will give you an example. I was an eagle scout. My son was an eagle scout. I
was a scout master and we taught our children and adults about how we look at things and
how we plan for things. In my current business, we kind of take those things into effect. In
fact, in many cases we try to transplant trees—big trees. In fact, on Harrison Street, we are
in the process of locating about—hopefully up to 20— 10 inch caliper trees that were
formerly in an interchange. So instead of bulldozing them, we are going to try to utilize
those trees. The permit process to do that is amazing—just to move a few trees, especially
when they are going to get bulldozed. Some other matters are looking at some of our own
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
facilities standards. I was a speaker at the National Arbor Foundation up in Montana,
which is kind of interesting, because they don't have many trees. But that is the whole
point. They are trying to look at that whole program, but you look at different alternatives
for design for BMPs. I know in Lansdowne along Goose Creek we had to put some water
protection programs in there so we went to some alternative designs using different railroad
ties and those kinds of designs that slowed velocity and protected the waters and we didn't
have to clear all the trees. It was sort of an experiment but it worked. I think it is
imperative that people in the tree commission, PEC or others try to work together to see
what is reasonable to try to do some of these things and try to find areas where we can move
big trees. If we are going to go in and clear a big area and it doesn't have a lot of rock. That
is one of the problems in Loudoun County and Leesburg so it is hard to pick these things up
because you need a six foot depth, but you look at programs that you can utilize these things
and move and make it an expeditious process and come up with those designs. In some
areas where you've got open space, look at other alternatives like meadows. I think those
things are important when you put in the designs in a community. So, we are going to work
through the process, but I feel it is important that there are guys like me out there that would
like to do things, but we are restricted sometimes by our own laws and our ordinances and
the permit process to do that thing because we want to do some good stuff because it is the
right thing to do. Moving trees down here on Harrison Street wasn't required by a proffer,
but we want to do that because it looks good, helps market things and it is better-just feels
better. That's my only comments. Sorry, I got off subject. In fact, I went out there and I
volunteered my time to the Tree Commission to talk about some of these things so I think
we are going to follow-up later. But I think it is an important aspect. Everybody has got to
work together to figure out these alternatives and try to implement them.
The Petitioners Section was closed at 8:52 p.m.
9. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following items
were moved for approval as the Consent Agenda:
a. Art Exhibit by the Mason Dixon Ouilt Professional Network
RESOLUTION 2015-130
Approval of a Public Art Exhibit at Town Hall by the Mason Dixon Quilt Professional
Network
b. Route 15(South King Street) Widening Phase II Project—Construction Management
Contract
RESOLUTION 2015-131
Awarding a Construction Management Contract to Volkert, Inc., in an Amount Not to
Exceed$495,634.02 for the Route 15(South King Street) Widening Phase II Project
c. Local Fixed Route Transit Service for Fiscal Year 2017
RESOLUTION 2015-134
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Local Fixed Route Transit Service for Fiscal Year 2017
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammler, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7-0
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. TLZM 2014-0004 Potomac Station Marketplace
The public hearing was opened at 9:13 p.m.
Michael Watkins gave a brief presentation on the application.
Key Points:
• Property is currently undeveloped.
• Currently zoned PRC.
• Property was initially part of ZM-137, a planned mixed use development.
• ZM-154 separated the mixed use component from the residential component.
• Applicant proposes to eliminate 110,000 square feet of office which results in
noncompliance with PRC office/residential ratio requirements.
• Plan includes a service station with convenience store, retail and/or
restaurants, a child care facility, and a large residential land bay including
multi-family units, two over twos, and single family attached townhouse
units.
• Total proffer contributions of$1.8 million— approximately$560,000 available
for use by the Town of Leesburg.
• Staff recommends denial because approval criteria for the Planned
Development District were not met.
• Planning Commission recommended approval with a 6-1 vote.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Fox: I do have a couple of questions. One has to do with coming after the
planning commission recommended PRN—and it came back to staff. Was
the staff in favor of it at some point and then stopped being in favor of it at
another point?
Staff answer: When the initial application was made for the PRC, we had the
constraint of the mixed use ratio. We still have concerns with overall design,
but as we have worked through discussions at Planning Commission, the
sticking point was the retail to office ratio. We went back and looked at the
zoning ordinance. We found that the PRN could be a viable work around for
removal of the office and that is why the decision to go with PRN was made.
• Fox: Did staff lead the applicant to believe that PRN was good enough for
approval.
Staff answer: There is a recommendation of staff to go to the PRN primarily
as a work around for the office ratio to eliminate the [inaudible] office to retail
ratio.
14 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Fox: Okay. And is it still staff's recommendation to deny this application?
Staff answer: it is, but it is primarily based on the approval criteria of the
planned development district. The three things that we mentioned were
major obstacles. One— the design character isn't there. Again, we are
grounded with the ordinance requirements —you all aren't. The third is the
justification for modification and the third was the lack of proffered building
elevations.
• Fox: Is this considered a downzoning—were there more residences at one
point and they decided to downzone and make it less dense.
Staff answer: That's a fair statement, yes Ma'am.
• Hammier: Just a couple of clarifications for the public. Are the units
anticipated to be rentals or sold as private buildings?
Staff answer: The multi-family—the applicant will have to address whether
they will be for market or rental.
• Hammier: I'll have to ask the applicant that. Can you address the traffic
impacts.
Staff answer: The applicant's traffic study justifies that the levels of service of
all the adjacent intersections and the roadway capacity are adequate to handle
the traffic generation by itself.
• Hammier: Alright and just as we have learned recently given that Council
was sort of forced into lowering our capital intensity factors for schools
because of the methodology the county has employed, I am assuming that the
proffers that align to the new capital intensity factors, because that difference
was going to be $2 million with Crescent Parke alone, but at least that
applicant was willing to go back to the original offer of the original proffer
amount, so I am assuming that this is significantly reduced based on the new
proffer amount—excuse me, new CIF. So, as I told the applicant of the other
—given the other situation, I'm like well the County for whatever forces were,
you know, impacting the county to make that decision, they have essentially
put me in a position that unless, I can't even imagine why I would justify
additional residential development for that reason alone, but I am certainly
open to what the public has to say, but I am also very disappointed about the
reduction of 100,000 square feet of commercial office space that is critical
given what our plans are for the Battlefield Corridor and essentially it is a
question of balance in the town given the preponderance of residential and
retail.
• Martinez: I only have one question—the planning commission
recommended approval 6-1. Who was dissenting?
Staff answer: There was dissent based on the inclusion of a proffer. I am glad
you asked the question. One thing I failed to mention is when the planning
commission got to its final resolution, there was the inclusion of an electronic
charging vehicle station. So, that will be included in the commercial area. I
think one of the commissioners objected to the fact that it was inserted as a
requirement and I think that is the reason for the dissention.
• Martinez: So, your lack of including this—we can attribute to your vacation
and trying to get back up to speed? I have no other questions for you.
15 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Burk: I have a couple. I thought the one vote against it was because there was
not the assurance that the gas station—that there was a business willing to go
into the gas station. I thought that was the one vote.
Staff answer: The planning commissioner was concerned about the level of
commitment to the design of the convenience store on the plan and felt like
flexibility that is currently in the proffers for the developer allows him to kind
of look at different users for that, but did not allow the same level of
confidence for the town of what the architecture would look like.
• Burk: And has that changed at all? No. This particular plot of land is pretty
barren right now. Do we have any idea what the landscaping—is it going to
include trees?
Staff answer: Currently, there is a vegetative buffer off site for the apartments
located here and it is hard to see, but it extends down this property line as
well. Then on the applicant's illustrative, you can kind of get a feel or sense
of the proposed landscaping again. Again, there were modifications that were
granted for buffer yards here, but it was primarily due to the width. They are
going to come back and supplement the planting that is there for year round
screening. The other modification was to decrease the planting material that I
have just outlined in red. The reason why the staff supported that was based
on the amenity space that is planned adjacent to it. Adjacent to which can
either be garage spaces or surface spaces, there are existing trees that will be
supplemented at the time they prepare their site plan and then the buffer yards
continue down what I just highlighted in red as well. Then obviously along
Battlefield Parkway, we have got street trees that complement the residential
units.
• Burk: And that's all in the proffers?
Staff answer: Yes, Ma'am.
• Burk: The building elevations you said they would not proffer—are they
willing to proffer the illustratives?
Staff answer: They are proffering to design guidelines and that was it. The
illustratives —there was a conversation we had with the applicant. Staff's
suggestion was to —based on the appearance that a lot of detail has gone into
these elevations, that there was sufficient room for us to be able to work with
them after approval. They were nervous. So, their main goal is to continue
with the design guidelines that are proffered.
• Burk: So, these are lovely pictures but that doesn't necessarily mean it will
look anything like this.
Staff answer: No, Ma'am.
• Burk: So, you show the pictures, but you can't control what is on there if they
are not willing to proffer it. What could be the highest height there? How tall
could the tallest building be?
Staff answer: In terms of the residential buildings. I believe it is 55 feet. The
commercial buildings, they are two story buildings.
• Burk: That's as far as they can go, but we don't have any guarantee what the
architecture will look like.
16 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Staff answer: I will say that the design guidelines include an amount of detail,
but it is comparing the design guidelines to the detail that are shown in these
buildings — staff was able to find deficiencies. I am sure when the applicant
comes forward, he is going to articulate the types of details that are included
in the design guidelines, but again it is not the same as the picture you are
looking at.
• Burk: I had a question on the school proffers. The cash contribution
proffered. At the end of it you said total use by the Town of Leesburg is
$560,900. Why is it?
Staff answer: What is retained by the town? If you look at the list that I put
back up here—the school capital facilities will actually be transferred over to
county schools. The recreation contribution would stay with us—that's
$158,000. The off-site transportation fund, that would remain with the town
—that's $402,900. The fire and rescue—again the town serves as a pass
through, so that leaves $560,900 for our use.
• Burk: And then the last question I had was, there was supposed to be a
commercial building on the site. An office building. Why is that not being
built?
Staff answer: The applicant is claiming that the office market is not viable for
110,000 square feet of office uses on that property.
• Burk: Are there any other office uses on that property?
Staff answer: They could potentially put office uses in the retail building.
• Butler: Just compared to—this is in a lot of ways similar to what is already
approved. We do lose some of the office space which we all know that
buildings like that—it's hard to market them and sell those at this point. The
height—is the height any higher than what is currently approved?
Staff answer: No, sir.
• Butler: Okay and the number of residential units compared to what is
currently approved?
Staff answer: Actually lower.
• Butler: Okay, so things are just taking up a little bit more space.
• Dunn: I have a few things and I did get a call from Mr. Banzhaf today and he
asked me if I had anything on this and I told him no, and I forgot something.
It does have to do with the proffering of the design guidelines. I would really
like to see that and frankly I'd like to see something better than what we are
seeing here. This is good, but I have met with Dewberry in the past and I
know that there are some projects that I have referenced for you that you all
have done in Maryland that I think are outstanding. When I go to them, I ask
why can't we have this in Leesburg. Well, you have not because you ask not.
And I'm asking. So, I'd like to see and be happy to work with you—proffered
design guidelines that can really deliver for us a great looking project, which I
think just helps to sell better. You have to make the building elevations look
like something. Why not make them look like the best? So, I'd like to see the
guidelines proffered. Sorry, Mike, I forgot to mention that to you today. The
other thing is—can you bring up the site map? Much like we have on the
cover of the—here? That's good. One of the things that we seem to always
17 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
do in town is we seem to ask for the maximum parking that we are only going
to use this on Black Friday. We only max out our parking one day per year
when everyone is headed over to the outlet malls. Otherwise, for the most
part we have all this surface that is concrete, cement, whatever and it often is
not used to its maximum and it is all over town that way. I am curious why
we have so many parking spaces at the service station. I know that service
stations are popular. I love paying$3.85 for a Snickers bar, but I just don't
think that many people are going to be parking around the service station, for
example. There is a lot of space that gets used by the service station. I know
we have the shops and the restaurants nearby but it seems like we really are
asking for a lot of parking here. It may be to our guidelines, but frankly I
think our guidelines are excessive on that. Very often, we will hear people
who want to see more green space—also want to see that we maximize
parking. It almost seems like it is a way of saying, this is a way we found a
catch so we can actually stop development from happening. We want more
parking and we want some more greenspace. I also mentioned too that I
believe that prior to this, the previous application actually had where the
service station was where the office building was. I believe when this was
approved last, that was more like a placeholder and we really didn't get into
any issues about that office building at the time. We were just dealing with
other landbays. You already mentioned that office space could go into the
retail locations. How about the childcare? Could that be changed to office?
Staff answer: Right now, it's on the concept plan—the concept plan is
proffered to include day care uses in that location. So, no.
• Dunn: So, you can't take commercial day care and turn it into commercial
office?
Staff answer: If the applicant agreed to modify the concept plan to allow a
different use on the property, we could, but based on the concept plan that is
before council this evening, it is proffered as a day care use and a day care use
only.
• Dunn: Okay. How about the service station—could that be switched
to...they get building and...no.
Staff answer: They would have to amend the concept plan to allow a
different use in that location.
• Dunn: And it definitely is going to be no left turn out from Center Street?
Staff answer: Correct.
• Dunn: Do you have what our current vacancy factor is in town for office
and/or commercial?
Staff answer: I don't know of the top of my head, but we can probably get
that information to you after this evening.
• Dunn: Last I knew it was about 14%, but I didn't know if that was just office
or that was commercial over all. Does anyone from staff know that one? No?
Okay. It may be lower than that now. I'm not sure it would be higher.
That's what I am asking. Total retail square footage, plus or minus from the
previous plan?
Staff answer: It is significantly less.
18 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Dunn: Okay. I know commercial overall is, but the retail is also less and that
is inclusive of restaurants because the previous plan had two restaurants right
at the corner from what my memory serves. How about on the open space?—
it looks like it is more than on the previous plan. Is that the case?
Staff answer: I don't think we made an open space—because of the change in
unit types on this property versus the other, I don't think we did an apples to
oranges comparison just because of the change in the unit style, but the
previous application had multifamily units and I think there are different
perceptions in the residents that will occupy the multifamily versus the
townhouse type attached unit styles, so we did not make that comparison.
• Dunn: Okay, and the previous application or rezoning—it wasn't an
application any more—there was no adult active in that, correct? So the
impact to schools is less then. Okay, I think those are all the questions I have.
I will look forward to the applicant's presentation.
Staff answer: I just want to response to the comment about the parking.
Your observation about the parking and proximity of the gas station is good.
I will say that the applicant has utilized the provision for the shared time of
day for the retail building that is centrally located, so there has been a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces, so we are taking
advantage of the ordinance opportunities.
• Dunn: Do we know a number or percentage?
Staff answer: I believe it was a 23% reduction.
• Dunn: I figured that the retail would be using some of those spaces around
the gas station, but still there is a lot there and the retail would really have to
be doing very, very well for folks to decide to walk across from the far end of
the gas station to go over to that retail.
• Burk: I had one question I forgot to ask you. We have gotten a number of
emails from residents that really want the gas station. That is what they really
are most interested in. Do we have any phasing in regard to the gas station—
like 50 percent of the residential is built? Had we had any discussion about
perhaps phasing?
Staff answer: A lot of discussion at the planning commission level regarding
phasing and I think at the conclusion, the applicant was able to articulate that
it is to their advantage to get a gas station on site as soon as possible. It works
out financially better for them, so I think there was acceptance of that
statement, but nothing has been put in the proffers regarding phasing of
residential and commercial uses.
• Burk: That is something I would be very interested in since I have had so
many people contact me in regard to that—that they really want the gas
station before anything else even. That is what they are looking for. I don't
have as much distress with this particular application because there is
commercial still within it. But I am concerned about that phasing in regard to
the gas station intent.
• Fox: I would like to ask one more question about phasing. I was wondering
—and this is something that I just heard through the grapevine—that the
19 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
applicant had planned on building this out at one time—that there would be
absolutely no phasing. Is that the case?
Staff answer: The phasing that is propose by the applicant, is construction
continuation off of Bank Street, which is called Center Street—that is the
applicant's phasing. It was an infrastructure phasing and not necessarily ratio
of uses.
• Fox: So, they will build that in two phases then?
Staff answer: You'll construction of Center Street and then development
would spur off of that spine road.
• Dunn: [inaudible]
Staff answer: That stipulation is not in the proffers. Again, the only
commitment was to construct Center Street, so in terms of the timing of
whether or not this group of units was delivered before this group of units,
that was not discussed.
Jay Sotos, CRC, gave a presentation on the Potomac Station Marketplace
application.
Key Points:
• Clark and Kettler purchased Potomac Station in 1994.
• Last property in the planned community to be developed.
• Project was designed with the community's needs in mind.
• Illustratives are not proffered to give the applicant more flexibility in tenant
choices without having to come back to Town Council for approval.
• Active adult residential creates more tax income for the town than office.
• No rental units in the project.
• Proposal reduces the number of school age children by approximately 40.
• Proposal reduces trip generation.
Council Comments:
• Dunn: On the parking that is on Main Street,just two suggestions. One is
possibly having that store fronts look like they can enter from there, but they
actually would enter from the gas station side or if you could put parallel
parking on that street, mainly because of the child care center and the
dropping off for the kids. My concern is people having to back out of those
parking spaces. Backing out is always a challenge and kids not seeing them. I
spend a lot of time in my travels in various shopping centers and as late as it
was probably still morning, I am seeing people who are going through
shopping centers and literally not looking at other cars coming never mind
small kids who might get loose and head one direction or hey, look at that
great market square and interactive fountains over there. We want to head
over there versus going to day care. Obviously the morning drop off time
wouldn't be that major unless you have like a Subway serving breakfast, most
of the stores aren't going to have any patrons or even employees probably
until 9:30 or so and most kids are going to be dropped off by then. But I see
the midday pick up and drop off around lunch time and especially those in the
20 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
evening time. Is that something that you all might consider doing is looking
at more parallel parking on that street versus backing in and out? And I don't
know if that was discussed at the planning commission level.
Applicant answer: I would like to answer your first question briefly first,
which is about the rear access and this kind of touches on design guidelines
also, which again go back to quality, which we are very stringent on. This is a
picture of Lansdowne. In our design guidelines, we proffer building rears to
look like fronts. They will have—most rears have metal doors, which are
unsightly. We will have all brick. We will have canvas awnings. We will
have signage and in Lansdowne you will see some of the rear doors function
as front doors depending on the user layout, so we have a four sided
architecture that is proffered to allow for—this asset is a 50 year asset to allow
that space to change and maybe you do access it from the gas station, but will
predominantly access it from Main Street, but we have built in that.
• Dunn: And Jay, the only reason I mentioned that was if then you would
have no parking on Main to the backs. In other words, if you switch the
direction then there would be no parking basically or very limited for staff
versus the parking that is there. My concern is the cars backing in and out
right where kids are going to be getting dropped off.
Applicant answer: Right. We, at Planning Commission,just to give you guys
the process there. It was a great process, but democracy moves slowly. We
had a parking reduction put in where we took 30 spaces off because we think
it is over parked. It was a very controversial—each modification, each buffer
modification—planning commission conducted a straw vote. So, on every
sub issue, they had a vote. We lost the shared parking vote initially. We
won because we convinced folks, but there was parking between too much
parking, too much asphalt, not enough parking, all that. The answer is there
is no tolerance, I think at Planning Commission to reduce spaces. Those
head in spaces —if we go to parallel we would have a degradation of parking.
Secondarily, with Bill Adman, this interchange right here, we studied that
very issue—the backing out, the stacking. In our traffic study, again given
this road that we extended, the reduction of parking here, normally we have
head in, we worked on this for about eight months to make sure it was a safe
condition for that very reason. Thankfully, we have no environmental issues
with staff. No traffic issues with staff. We are planting—this is a denuded
site. We are planting 450 trees that don't exist there, so we are TLZM 2014-
0001. We submitted January 14 and we are working hard to address those
issues.
• Dunn: So, you are saying that you would not want to do parallel parking on
the left side of Main Street? Would you consider angled parking then, and
maybe making that where it is one way in and then...
Applicant answer: We studied that, Councilman Dunn, and we just thought
that head in gives us maximum flexibility if you are coming from Fort Evans,
you are coming from Potomac Station, coming from Battlefield. Head in
gives you every movement, from every direction for maximum flexibility.
Because this is a suburban location, we want it to feel semi-urban, so that's
why we have the parking in the rear, but it still has to have that suburban
21 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
convenience. We really tried to balance that and ultimately, if this was really
suburban, we would have a big parking field like in Oaklawn and the day care
would be at the end. We didn't want that, so we were kind of in the mix—
thought this was the right balance.
• Dunn: And I would just mention too that many shopping centers that want
to try and control the flow of traffic will do versus parallel or in and out
parking, they will have angled parking. Of course, there is no signs that say to
people go the other way, but they will get going down that lane and realize I
can't park if I am heading this direction. Again, if Council doesn't see there is
a need—my concern is I wouldn't want to have an accident with a child and
knowing that—now is the time that we could do some things to try to correct
it rather than finding out later that we didn't do that. I don't think that angled
parking would probably reduce that parking by much and I would be willing
to accept a few less parking spaces for a lot more safety. I don't know from
staff or the applicant whether or not you feel that is safe or having angled
parking—I think it would be because the line of sight would be better and yes
it would limit your traffic flow to primarily one direction, but I think it would
be a safer situation. What is the distance between...is that about 30 feet wide
between the parking spaces?
Applicant answer: 25. One other factor to consider—just put in the mix is
these spaces are reserved for drop offs and like I said it will take care of the
peak morning and evening. Again, if we do angled here, that would force
moms or dads to really kind of come up from Battlefield, but by having it
head in, you allow that.
• Dunn: Or they would have to go around through the other side of the shops
and come around.
Applicant answer: Yeah, they would have to come around here or something
so, we are just trying to simplify this process. We actually had an option to
put retail/office here but it created conflicts with another access point, so this
has been simplified to provide convenience and safety.
• Dunn: and you mentioned the not being able to do proffered design because
that would limit you to having to come in with basically new designs and new
pictures based on a different vendor. Why couldn't a—just taking—you
mentioned Sheetz. You showed a picture of Sheetz. The one thing I don't
want to see is the circus tent operation we already have with our existing
Sheetz. Why couldn't you do design features that are used and then plug in
any vendor in there. We don't have to see the sign today.
Applicant: That's what design guidelines are. It says you will have this
amount of fenestration, this much articulation. I have a few slides that just
summarize the design—to demystify the whole thing and tell you what we
have committed to and hopefully we can get to the heart of the matter.
• Dunn: let me ask staff real quick. So, is that correct that if an applicant
shows pictures of designs that they are committed to those and any change in
the vendor would require a change in the designs? Somehow I can't see that
being the case. Being a Gulf gas station versus a Sheetz. I can do that as long
as the design stays the same.
22IPage
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Staff answer: Right. [inaudible] I will admit that maybe I made a mistake to
say that the multifamily units were proffered elevations, but I will correct the
applicant to say that the way design guidelines are proffered it says he will be
in general conformance with what is shown on that picture. Does that mean
he can change the elevation? Yes. And that is the same thing that we were
suggesting with the gas station, that he submit three different vendors and
come in to work with staff to modify the pictures to represent the unique
requirements of each individual vendor. But, you would have a baseline as to
what that architecture would look like. I can't say the same thing for design
guidelines. Some of the detailing in the brick work isn't proffered. It is not in
the design guidelines. He has materials there and there are some guidelines
regarding articulation, but again there are holes and it doesn't represent what
we normally get from a proffered picture. I think if they want to proffer
substantial conformance with three different vendors, I think we can work
with them on that— or I should say general conformance, but at least there
will be a baseline that we can work on and that is what we recommended.
The planning commission is satisfied with their proffered design guidelines.
• Dunn: I'll let folks—it sounds like they want to get involved in this
conversation because they are talking down at the other end, so I'll let them.
I will put out real quick that projects that are in Montgomery County, such as
Georgetown Square, right at the L-shaped shopping center is Chuck E.
Cheese and you would never know it other than there is a sign that says
Chuck E. Cheese, but the building does not look anything like a Chuck E.
Cheese, so there are creative ways to do this —not to say that these pictures
aren't creative, but I think that it does give it a strip center look with brick
covering and I think there are some other options out there we could use. It
looks better than a lot of strip centers that we see.
• Fox: The one question I have, because the presentation answered a lot of my
questions, so I was really happy about that. This has been such a help. I tried
to download all this stuff and my computer yelled at me. I am so happy to
have this to refer to. The only thing I am still very unclear on is the phasing.
The one question I have about the phasing—is any component of this
applicant dependent on anything else.
Applicant answer: No.
• Burk: I am stuck on the phasing—especially as I look at your design. In the
past, we have had situations where the residential gets built and the
commercial never gets built and the developer comes back in and says there is
no market for it now—we need residential. I have no assurance because you
are not willing to phase in at least the gas station—I mean that's what the
people want the most there is the gas station. That is my hang up at this point.
If I could get like 50 percent residential you have to have the gas station by
then.
Applicant answer: You were asking about who dissented and Commissioner
Robinson dissented and her dissent was this issue. She initially was against
the gas station, then she said we want the gas station and her point was I want
it up front. I call that linkage, not phasing on her cross defaulting uses and I
just said to her can you imagine the conversation I had with Mr. Sheetz once
23 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
he found out my whole project was incumbent on him? We debated this for
at least an hour. The point that I had made and would respectfully like you to
consider is we were asked by staff to say hey give us one of these buildings—
give us x amount of retail for the third one. We then thought to ourselves,
okay, the age restricted generates a lot of real estate taxes, yet retail does not.
There is not that much retail here— 3,000-7,000 gas station. It is not going to
move this [inaudible] but then it put me in a position is it better for the town
for me to try to get my strip center up and get those users—we have been
approached by Dunkin Donuts, by Subway. Those folks—chain guys that are
ahead of it— it creates this weird incentive, where I don't want to do the chain
deal, but I have this incentive that because of these unintended consequences,
it puts a user in there that might not be the best for the community.
• Burk: What you are saying right now is what I am concerned about. So, you
are telling me that you may not put a gas station in there because it may not
be a user that you intended.
Applicant answer: We are desperately trying to put a gas station in there.
We have been working with Sheetz for two years. We have a signed letter of
intent with them. Every time Staff would say eliminate the left turn out on
Fort Evans Road, I would call up Pennsylvania and say we want to take the
left turn out and they would raise their hands up and say that's terrible. You
know, on the Pennsylvania turnpike, we have every access. We have our sign
and we are walking from this deal. I said I've got to do it anyway. A couple
of months later they called me back and said well maybe, I don't know,
maybe I'll reconsider. They are very, very flaky and every time I said we
need to do something and I have done, they waffle. A real commitment from
them can't be achieved until after zoning approval and until we have go
[inaudible].
• Burk: But you are defeating your argument with me. Because you are saying
exactly what I am concerned about—in the end we could end up without a
service station there and that is what I have heard from the residents that they
want more than anything else. So, if I don't have an assurance from you that
it is going to end up happening, I am going to have a hard time. I am not
asking you to do it up front. That's not what I am asking.
Applicant answer: We heard this concern. We did try to —we are proffering
to put Center Street up front, so the investment is there so we can build off
that investment.
• Burk: I am sorry, but it is something I am very concerned about. I am sorry.
• Hammier: Thank you Jay. You obviously put a tremendous amount of work
into the entire presentation as did your whole team, so thank you very much
as well as all of your time and effort over the years. I guess my question,
because you have clearly done a lot of research and modeled a lot on
Lansdowne, as an example, it looks like. In your research what did you
uncover about integrating commercial, because certainly based on what I
know about that, and I do appreciate this community that you are creating
that has the potential to sort of be a really great mixed use attraction, if you
will, relative to by contrast what you mentioned earlier— sort of this—I'll see
if you have an answer to the question and then I will comment.
24 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Applicant Answer: We looked at all uses and we spent a year before our
submission surveying both the community—what uses they wanted and what
the most viable uses are. With our building B, which is the building that is
modeled after the [inaudible] building, we can do commercial. We can do
restaurant. We can do retail. That building will be flexible over time to
accommodate whatever the community wants—whatever is the highest
demand at that time.
• Hammler: And that is included in the 33,000 square feet total of commercial—
that is what you are pointing to?
Applicant answer: What we heard from the community is not to have
professional office or dentists. They want services. They want to be able to
get take out. They want to pick up a meal. They come in from commuting
and they want to be able to feed their kids and take them out to soccer
practice. It is getting that—again streamlined uses.
• Hammler: Again, I am not disagreeing obviously what you are hearing. It is
just that we have also seen very successful mixed use centers that have in fact
very successfully integrated the commercial. So the big issue here is in fact
the 110,000 square feet that was really meant to figure out how we could
integrate that as did Villages at Leesburg. As did Lansdowne. It is this type
of environment that makes it viable. Unlike what you referenced earlier
which was this island of a building because ultimately what was built was a
bunch of big box retail with no kind of pedestrian orientation, so to me you
had so much potential here that is the big issue. It's 110,000 that wasn't really
kind of integrated and kind of the key point from the get go was you are sort
of looking at the reality of the demographics of Leesburg—88 percent
commute, so as a council we have to look at that and say how do we you
know look at that relative to something that clearly we need to address. That
those same families would prefer not to commute as far, but I do appreciate
all the incredible energy that went into ultimately what became a decision for
you to concentrate on the residential.
• Butler: Just one question and then a couple of comments. These street
names, Main Street and Center Street—have they actually been decided by
the Planning Commission yet? Okay, good. I would encourage staff to
ensure that any new street names have south east or north east or north west
after them. I think we messed up a little bit with Village at Leesburg and as
far as I know they are the only streets in town that don't have a directional
designation after them. I just want to make sure that happens. I just wanted
to say that the Village at Leesburg has struggled mightily to fill their office
space. It is still not filled and they are competing against the rest of Loudoun
County and failing miserably at it, frankly. So, the idea of putting in a
110,000 square foot office building—it's just not viable. It's just simply not
viable. I mean we could force them to put it in, but the building is going to
stand empty. It just doesn't work. We might like it to work. We might want
Lit to work. It's just not going to work. There is nothing we can do to make it
work—only prevent all these things from going in because we want an empty
building. As far as retail and restaurants and gas stations, it is not necessarily
to phase those, because the market conditions will cause them to follow the
25 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
residential as the market allows. The market doesn't allow forcing them to
put in businesses that won't be viable. It doesn't make sense for the
businesses or the town or anybody else. So, if a gas station is going to be
viable on that corner and is going to make money, it will go in. Period.
Whether we ask for phasing or not, but without the residential there, the gas
station isn't going to be viable. The restaurants will not be viable. The retail
will not be viable. They follow the residential. It can't be the other way
around. So, I'll just leave that for Council to chew on.
• Mayor: You know, Kelly, the Vice Mayor made some good points about the
desirability of a gas station, but I can understand your concerns because we
got an email from Alan Stevens, with Sheetz today and it is very non-
committal as to whether they are thinking about going in at this location or
not. They are very interested in developing a new store in Leesburg and
remodeling our existing store. He likes your project but he doesn't commit
that he is going to locate there. So, I can see your hesitation on committing to
a gas station at that location. I do like the significant reduction in residential
over what had been approved before. I want to make sure that I understand
what is going on with the design guidelines. I can understand you don't want
to proffer anything with the design of a gas station, because you are not sure
which gas station might go in there, if any. And you did agree, as I recall
from planning commission to go with Hardiplank as they requested. Beyond
that though, the design guidelines are not proffered, Mike?
Staff answer: [inaudible]
• Mayor: Are proffered. Okay, so were you only concerned about the gas
station—the look of the gas station, or are you concerned about the look of
the whole project?
Applicant answer: I think the applicant has established a rapport based on the
feelings in the town of Leesburg. As staff, we deal with the standard. The
standard is we can communicate to Council that we have assurances that the
buildings will look like this. The way the design guidelines are written—I
won't disagree that there is fenestration, that there is articulation of building
facades, the rear and front facades of building B have elements that decorate
the facades but if you look at the amount of detail that you spent on just the
illustrations and the articulation and the details are included in those
illustratives, it just made sense to staff that you have already done the work to
illustrate what you are going to do. Proffer to elevation. We can work with
them if there is a tweak that is necessary, but again it establishes a threshold.
It needs to be built like this. I think what we tried to articulate in our staff
memo to planning commission and council—while there is a rapport and
relationship with the town, while we do have illustratives that aren't
proffered, and while we do have design guidelines that include specific
architectural details, there are still holes. It doesn't illustrate the whole
picture and that was what we were trying to communicate is that are design
guidelines appropriate and I think in some instances they are. It is Council's
discretion whether they want to proceed with or without them. I hope I
answered your question.
26 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Mayor: Mike, give me an example of another development where we had
more specific proffering of elevations.
Staff answer: There are a couple of instances I can point to. I can point to
Village at Leesburg. Village at Leesburg is special because it was proffered
into one of our historic overlay districts, the H-2. So, we have proffers that
established the requirement to create design guidelines. There were schematic
illustrations used in those elevations, but the designs were advanced with
specific elevations. We can go back and pull those and show those to you,
but there was an evolution that gave a picture of which at the time the
construction of buildings took place, it was administrative in nature. Do they
look the same? Do they meet the design guidelines—check to approve.
Lowe's is another example. Lowe's is probably one of the examples where
we still are cautioned—staff has caution with regard to the remainder parcel.
Again, there were very loose guidelines. There are still opportunities to, you
know, if we find difficulties in implementing those design guidelines, we can
obviously bring them back to you. But in my opinion, those are probably the
two examples I can pull from where we have accepted design guidelines in
lieu of building elevations.
• Mayor: Thanks.
There were no members of the public wishing to address this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 10:52 p.m.
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2015-0-018
Approving TLZM2014-0001, Potomac Station Marketplace, Rezoning a Portion of
Mixed-Use Parcel A from PRC to PRN
Council Comments:
• Butler: I would just like to say this is not a real big development but I think it
really fills a hole where it is. I am not worried so much about the elevations,
because as long as they have guidelines, I don't think it is not likely to get too
far out of hand. I hate to super-regulate exactly what everything looks like, so
I am fine with it.
• Fox: Just a couple of things. I found this to be a pretty tight application. I
like the downzoning with the less dense scheme. I took a look at the by-right
plan. I think this is much better. I agree with him about the office space.
Look kitty corner to this project, there is office space just sitting there and it
has been for as long as I can remember. They have been willing to take the
planning commission's recommendations and make the wanted changes and
the biggest thing to me is the surrounding communities —they took what they
wanted and they took their guidance and responded to it and I respect that, so
I will be supporting this application.
27 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Hammler: I look at the tremendous success of Lansdowne being very
effective in terms of filling office—the kind of office that would allow our
residents not to commute as far. I never mentioned a standalone building, but
there are ways to integrate quality commercial that could have happened in
the way that they spent so much time and effort creating a more pedestrian
oriented type of community that also businesses—business folks are working
for start, grow and expand in Leesburg and we keep hearing about the fact
that businesses can't stay in Leesburg because we don't have the office to
sustain them. So, I will keep chipping away at it and I do certainly appreciate
the point that the residential has been reduced slightly. That is still more kids
that are going to the schools. We are getting fewer capital intensity factor
dollars from a proffer perspective. All of these trends point to ultimately for
me, the wrong direction relative to where we need to toe the line to create the
kind of balanced community we need overall.
• Burk: I agree with Katie in regard to the office could have been integrated
better. I am concerned, that as I stated, we have got commercial over on one
side. We have seen in the past that if we don't make sure this happens—it
gets transferred into residential. But, I am going to threaten you, that if there
is no gas station in there by the time this is finished, you are going to hear
from me in not very pleasant terms. If I have got to trust you on this, this
makes me very uncomfortable, but I want to see a gas station in there. That is
what the people have said to me repeatedly and I want to see that happen.
• Dunn: Take it from somebody who knows—you don't want to hear from
Kelly. I couldn't resist that one. For me, I am going to vote for this, so
anything else is going to sound negative, but you are going to get my vote, but
it is not your fault. It is our fault. The reason why is because as a town, we
had an opportunity to give you the ability to create a project and put in there
what you would like to put in if you followed more of a form based code.
But, we didn't do it here. So, I can't really require you to put in the form of
the building. I can only suggest use these pile of materials and that is what
you are doing. That is what most people can do other than in our H-2, which
has been a failed policy and in our historic district and now we have a
crescent district that is kind of iffy as far as the whole form based goes. Here
would be another example and I am not saying it is going to look bad, but
here is another example of a development in town that we have let pass by us
that we as a community get to decide what the forms of these buildings would
take and it will be decided by the developer and we have to hope that it looks
acceptable. Like I said, I don't want to see another Sheetz circus tent like we
have over here. That intersection, that is not far from this one if probably
some of the worst examples of zoning and planning—not just in Leesburg,
but on this planet. Okay? Try negotiating it. Mentioning the kids—try to
negotiate walking through that area. Okay? Our fingerprints are all over it.
Okay? So, when I am pointing the finger at you all, there are three of them
pointing back at us. I, Jay, to give you an idea we talk about the need for
more commercial and more offices. We can't force everyone else out there to
do what we want them to do. So, if we are a restaurant and retail
community, I have to accept that and make the most out of it. So, if I have
28 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
got 78 percent of my population with kids, why do I want to create a
community that is full of office buildings? Jay, if you recall way back when I
told you what I would like to see here. And you know what, it is because my
kids say hey can we go to Winchester to Sonics? We can't go to Potomac
Station kids—we have to hop in the car and go to Winchester to enjoy Sonics
because it is not what we want here in town. I call that bull. I know my kids
and probably other kids would love to go to Sonic. I thought it would be a
nice feature here, but we are afraid of too much driving. We have to protect
them against themselves and there is going to be too much traffic and people
don't know how to get out of the way of an oncoming car. So, anyway I am
on my soapbox. I really would like to see if you can try to—and I would love
to talk to you more about the design features and I can't tell you more if you
look at Georgetown Square in Montgomery County and look at what they
have done with that project. It just is really unique and as I said earlier, we
don't have it and we may not get it here because we are not asking for it. We
are not requiring it. We could have done it again with form based code, but
we decided that we couldn't handle that either. So, I am going to vote for
this, and I hope that everything turns out well.
• Mayor: The persuasive element of this is the significant reduction in
residential that had been approved previously so I will be supporting it.
• Martinez: I am glad we are here—finally getting it through. I have been
supportive because of the mix and demographics of the neighborhood and Jay
has been working real hard with the residents. I have seen that personally and
so I can really appreciate the work he has done to get them involved and try
to address their needs along with being competitive in this kind of
marketplace that we now have.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Martinez and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Hammier
Vote: 6-1
11. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
a. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following
was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2015-132
Supporting Legislation for Virginia to Participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative
Council Comments:
• Butler: This is a very good thing for Leesburg and the state. Other states that
are participating in this —there is a focus on conservation of energy and all of
the states, at least the last data that I saw, all have lower average electric bills
than Virginia. While Virginia has a lower cost per kilowatt hour, the
conservation is so poor that average electric bills across Virginia are
29 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
somewhat highest in the Country. So, I am looking to go a long ways to
change that so we can all save money.
• Burk: I would like to add that VML has also supported this realizing that it is
a regional issue that we need to participate in.
• Dunn: I wish the first question that I had is how did this get on our agenda to
begin with. I remember a gentleman came and spoke to us about it, but I
don't remember us having a discussion about it or a work session or any other
follow-up information so I am wondering how it gets onto our agenda,
especially when it goes on as a Consent Agenda?
Staff answer: I believe Council Member Martinez requested it to be on your
agenda for action after the gentleman spoke. Since there was no opposition
addressed at any time either when the speaker was here, or when Mr.
Martinez—I believe it was Mr. Martinez, I would have to check the minutes
to verify that I am correct—I am following your head nod, sir— since there
was no opposition at either time, I placed it on Consent.
• Dunn: My concern with it is that this and also a position statement that we
have in the legislative agenda related to it talks about how this is going to be
funded through additional taxes. Taxes are a hard, real fact, but some of the
positions by this legislation are still up for debate. In looking over some of the
issues that are trying to be accomplished through this action, you will see that
most scientists use words as could or may happen but not that it will happen
or that scientists believe that it may happen in the form of global warming or
the tides rising. Even looking it up this afternoon talking about how polar
icecaps will melt and increase the sea levels. I am a simple guy. I know that
if I put an ice cube in a glass of water and it melts, the water level goes down.
It doesn't go up. So, I am not sure how we are justifying water always going
up by ice melting. Again, the global warming is again up for conjecture, but
taxes are not and this is going to be funded by taxes or it also results in
government's good and generous nature to send down to localities unfunded
mandates, which we are kind of dealing with in Exeter right now. So, VML
as much as they are good natured, VML does not govern the Town of
Leesburg. Last time I checked, we do. So, I can't support this.
• Martinez: [inaudible] I apologize. But, I understand if Virginia embraces
this, they sell CO2 allowances into the state fund and that is how it takes care
of the investment. I have been looking throughout the material and I didn't
see where it was going to be raising taxes. This is more of just asking the state
to embrace the Greenhouse Gas initiative. No matter how much we deny it,
it has been proven that there are issues with the greenhouse gases and it is
impacting our environment.
• Hammier: I just want to echo what Kelly said about VML supporting it.
There is no stronger organization that directly supports ensuring that we are
represented in terms of unfunded mandates at all levels of government, but
certainly general assembly and they do incredible research work and a lot
goes into the processes before anything is approved, so I feel very comfortable
with this resolution.
30 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Fox: I have a question. As I read through the executive summary, the RGGI
would develop a system to regulate carbon emissions through taxes or carbon
credit options. So, my question, I suppose for staff, is if any action whereby a
new tax might be likely, shouldn't that be met with public input. I don't
understand why it is on consent and why we are not asking the public about
this. This is a tax issue.
Staff answer: The details are not known. This was something that was
picked up from the VML legislative agenda and asked to put a draft
resolution, which was presented. As far as whether it would be an auction of
carbon credits or a tax imposed on businesses that wanted to exceed certain
carbon discharge limits and then those funds going into the account that goes
towards mitigation processes, all [inaudible].
• Fox: I, for one, firmly believe that if we are looking at a new tax, then public
input is necessary and preferred. I don't have an interest in supporting a new
tax for a general state fund and creating the possibility of another unfunded
mandate. We are dealing with that now and I just can't support that.
• Mayor: Reading through the proposed resolution, what it appears to be doing
is requesting that the state start providing financial support for some of the
programs that potentially are being imposed on our localities and on our
homeowners. One of the provisions in the resolution talks about requesting
that the state provide assistance to low and middle income Virginians who are
facing problems with flooding so it is not clear to me that this is imposing any
kind of local tax increase. In fact, it seems to be doing a bit of the opposite,
requesting that the state step up to the plate and begin to cover some of the
costs that are currently being borne by the localities and by individual
homeowners. Given that, I can support this because I think one of our big
problems at the local level is that the state keeps imposing mandates on us
and not providing funding. This appears to be requesting that the state do
more to provide funding. So, based on that and my interpretation of it, I will
support it.
• Butler: Just a couple of quick things. I am on the committee for VML—that
developed this recommendation—this position paper. RGGI, as it is
popularly called. Kind of dumb, in my opinion, but that's okay. RGGI is not
a tax. What it does is it does a cap and trade system for the utilities which
generates money, so the utilities end up paying money into a program and
then the program is used for conservation around the state. So, what happens
in most of these states is that the electricity rate goes up, but conservation
more than makes up for that so the average electric bill goes down across the
state. California has done this to tremendous effect. Their average electric
bill, even though it is a lot hotter, is about 30 percent less on average than it is
in Virginia. Virginia has the eighth highest bill in the country, but there is
going to be no tax. I can't imagine that our legislature in Richmond would
end up creating a tax. So, it is not a tax. I want to make that clear. The other
thing is while Council Member Dunn is correct that merely having a melting
iceberg in the water does not make the water level rise, most of the ice is
actually on land and when that ice melts or calves off and falls into the ocean,
31 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
that causes the rise in sea level. Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear, but
thank you.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Hammier, Martinez and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Dunn and Fox
Vote: 5-2
b. 2016 Legislative Agenda
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2015-133
Adoption of the Legislative Agenda and Positions Statement for the 2016 Virginia
General Assembly Legislative Session
Council Member Comments:
• Dunn: I would be interested if—there is a couple of items I don't necessarily
agree with as far as position statements for the town and would be interested
in dividing the question, if Council would allow. The first item is we talked
about before—item 9, the local authority to prohibit fire arms on public
property. We already have regulations that would limit people firing
weapons on public property. What my concern is that it is these types of
good meaning legislation actually is a broadcasting to those who wish to do
harm to look for those people who are—the predator looks for the most
defenseless person. As we have seen from across our country, from coast to
coast, north and south—those predators have shown up in movie cinemas,
schools ranging from elementary through college, even in our own state,
government buildings such as the Washington Naval Yard. As I said the
predator looks for those places where they can attack and not be attacked
back. So, my concern is—on the surface, it seems like this would help
prevent crime, it just gives a venue for those that mean to do the most crime
to those who cannot protect themselves. I don't know that there is any
legislation planned in Richmond right now, but I would rather that not be our
position statement. In fact, we had a situation a few years back where we had
a major hostage crisis where a would-be robber was run off by an equally gun
wielding merchant downtown. So, I would ask to either take this off of the
legislative agenda or to —I also ask if not that, to be able to divide the
question.
• Mayor: Is there any other issue you want to do that with?
• Dunn: Also, the item S, which is the nonpartisan redistricting. Again, I think
that these efforts, while they seem to be well meaning sometimes, I think that
partisanship exists and will always exist and when the public is presented with
the idea that there is something that is nonpartisan, it really is a smoke screen
by those that wish to practice the most partisan efforts out there, so I really
think this is something that would never happen and in actuality is a way of
presenting to the public that there is something that truly is not. The other
item, as we just talked about, a position statement, which is item T, the
32 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
regional green gas initiative and commonwealth funding. As we heard from
staff, we just passed a resolution on something we don't have all the details on
and in fact, in this statement it says it could be credits or carbon gas emissions
taxes. So, when we have something we are not sure about, I would say before
we take positions, why don't we know what is going on first. What a novel
concept? Before we actually start taking positions on that.
• Mayor: You would like to divide the question to divide out those three
issues. Barbara—do we need a second to the motion to divide the question?
Council Member Dunn offered a motion to divide out the three issues from the
legislative agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Fox.
The motion to divide the question failed on the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Fox, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Burk, Butler, Hammier and Martinez
Vote: 3-4
Council Comments:
• Dunn: Rather than voting against some of the other positions that we have in
the legislative agenda, I will go ahead and abstain from voting on this.
• Hammier: I am just really looking forward to meeting with our legislative
delegation on the 16th here at Town Hall. Thank you very much to staff for
all the support on this, especially Keith.
• Fox: I agree with a lot of what Tom said. I will abstain as well.
The motion to approve the legislative agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Hammier, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 5-0-2(Dunn and Fox abstaining)
• Hammier: There was a significant amount of money that was allocated for
the Route 15 widening, but that was from VDOT.
b. Construction of Permanent Stage on the Town Green and an Interactive
Water Feature on Mervin Jackson Park
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Mayor Umstattd, the following
was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2015-135
Approving the Construction of a Permanent Stage on Town Green and an Interactive
Water Feature on Mervin Jackson Park
Council Comments:
• Butler: These are two amenities that we have had just a whole bunch of
residents come out and say that they enthusiastically support—Facebook,
emails, coming to the mike and these are both together that we can pay for
33 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
them with the money that we saved on Hope Parkway, so there is no
borrowing money, there is no increase in tax rate. There is none of that stuff.
No increase in debt service. We saved$3 million on Hope Parkway that is
running through my neighborhood and that money can be used for these two
well needed amenities to help downtown get more people on the street and
downtown desperately needs amenities like this.
• Mayor: I don't have anything to add. Just remind Council that we have a
Council member up here who is feeling very sick and so the shorter we can
make the conversation, the better.
• Dunn: The only thing I would mention is that I will support this. In a way I
am not thrilled about us taking funds that could have been used for other
projects we have had on the books for a longer period of time versus things
that have just come up before us as a nice idea. Time will tell whether it
actually does have a draw. My concern is that the water feature is going to be
buried so deep off the street in the rose garden, that you are really going to
have to know it is there to actually come out. Folks are really going to have
to make it an effort to go to that knowing that it is there. As I said, we had
other projects and other needs in town for a much longer time that these funds
could have gone towards rather than putting it towards these efforts on the
fly, but I will go ahead and support it. We could have done better.
• Hammler: Just very quickly that we spent a lot of staff labor time creating the
stage whenever we have events, so I actually think the stage itself will pay for
itself. Do you have, Rich, on the maintenance that you anticipate with the
water feature just so that we can anticipate the cost associated with
maintaining it?
Staff answer: The water feature itself, is governed by Loudoun County
Health Department regulations, as would a swimming pool under the same
guidance. It would need to be set up with automatic chemical monitoring
that would then be sent over to our staff at Ida Lee to monitor the actual
chemicals. There is no additional cost in terms of the monitoring because that
would be done in an automated fashion. You would be looking at a chlorine
expenditure which would be minimal based on the amount of water you are
dealing with that specific feature. I would strictly be making a guess on the
actual chemical costs through the course of a year, but in my opinion it would
not be significant.
• Hammler: I guess I am also anticipating repairs. I know Alexandria—they
are incurring a great deal of cost because their fountain is just not working
anymore. So, I guess we are probably taking a little bit of a leap of faith that
we are not going to incur that, but if you had anything to add or knew about
it, I would appreciate it. That would be my concern.
• Martinez: Rich, what did the planning commission say? And Kaj, what
capital projects would we have to move around to make this work?
Staff answer: On the financial side, you don't have to move any projects
around because the money is not assigned to any other use at this point.
Williams: This information was just shared with the Parks and Recreation
Commission. They have not taken any action at this time.
34 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Hammler: I am thinking about whether it makes sense to divide the motion,
but in the interest of how bad some people are feeling, I won't complicate
anything.
• Fox: Just a few questions I had. I have talked to a lot of people—got a lot of
positive feedback on this particular feature. On the fly, I feel like this is really,
really fast and we haven't really looked into this very well. I have some safety
concerns. I have got some concerns this is being overdone. We just looked at
Potomac Marketplace tonight you know. We aren't going to draw people
from there to downtown. This is to draw people to downtown and so that's a
concern of mine. Businesses gave me the feedback that they actually suffer
more in the winter than they do in the summer. So, actually we are looking
for something to pull them down here in the winter, and this would not be a
feature that would facilitate that. So, those are the kind of things that are on
my mind and I wish we had a little more time to think about this and think it
through because this is very, very fast and I think that you know, we could do
this a little bit better— at least vet it a little bit better; however, I am a
representative and the feedback I have gotten is that it is wanted, so I will
support it.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Hammler and Martinez
Vote: 5-2
12. ORDINANCES
a. None.
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. TLTA 2014-0001 Town Plan Amendment—Crescent District Uses
On a motion Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following
was proposed:
MOTION
I move that Town Plan Amendment application TLTA 2014-0001 Crescent District
Uses and Reclassification of Davis Avenue be denied based on the following findings:
1. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to how the proposed
amendment better realizes a Plan goal or objective;and
2. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to how the amendments
may rectify conflicting Plan goals and objectives;and
3. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to how the proposed
amendments may clarify the intent of a Plan goal or objective;and
4. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to how the proposed
amendments provide more specific Plan guidance;and
5. The applicant has not provide sufficient justification as to how the proposed
amendments might adjust the Plan as a necessary result of a significant change in
circumstances unforeseen by the Plan at the time of adoption;and
35 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
6. The land use pattern does not reflect the intent of the Crescent District to achieve a
mixed-use development pattern;and
7. The proposed land use change reduces the amount of planned open space;and
8. The proposed land uses changes do not adequately buffer proposed and existing
residential development adjacent to the proposed Dulles Greenway extension to
Catoctin Circle.
Council Comments:
• Martinez: It is not that I am totally against this application, I just think there
needs to be more talk about the cost to the town in the long term—what is
going to happen in the next 10-20 years when we talk about VDOT, the tree-
save issue, the buffering along 15 and kind of buffering that they have and the
fact that I am concerned about the traffic impacts, especially along Sycolin
Road and King Street as this application is completed. There are just too
many questions left on the table and I think it needs to go back and be
discussed and vetted a little bit more clearly. Also, my other concern is this
has not been seen—this current status has not been seen by the planning
commission and that's what they are there for and I think they need to have
their look at this before we vote on it.
• Burk: There are a number of issues with this application overall, but the most
compelling reason I will not be voting to support this text amendment is
simply because no one has convinced me that there is a significant reason to
change the plan. It took us close to ten years to plan this area and it was
planned commercial. It is located next to two very busy roads with great
visibility. Many of us on Town Council have lamented about the need for
commercial and about how wrong it is to move from commercial to total high
density residential, yet here we are again considering it. This text amendment
changes what took so many of us years to complete—the Crescent District
Plan. If we vote for this change, then we should simply rescind the plan. The
developer has said that commercial is not possible here. Maybe not now, but
in the future it could be developed as a mixed use project. The only
compelling reason I could see for the text amendment is to benefit the
developer and that is not my role here. My role is to speak for the residents
that will be impacted by the changing this from a mixed use to a dense
residential. The other two issues —I will talk about it later, but that's the
reason I won't be voting for this text amendment.
• Fox: I have one question—is that okay? Is this a spot zoning? It is not?
Okay. Well, I took into account a lot of the emails that I got and I am
convinced that the road needs to go to two lanes since commercial won't
allow for two lanes and residential to residential makes sense, I will go ahead
and support this. I am voting against the motion so I would support the text
amendment. I don't know how to go from there. I am a little
discombobulated.
• Hammier: I will not be voting in support of the motion on the table.
• Butler: First, to eliminate some confusion—what we are voting on is not the
rezoning. We are not voting on whether to send it to the planning
commission. We are not voting on a text amendment. What we are voting
36 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
on is a town plan amendment. If we vote no on the town plan amendment,
then basically the project is dead. There is no more discussion. There is no
sending it to planning commission. There is no none of that. If we vote
against this, we are not going to change the town plan, then the whole thing is
dead. Goodbye. So, we have to approve the town plan amendment in order
to send it to the planning commission or nothing makes sense. So, I will be
voting against this motion so that we can then change the town plan, amend it
and send it to the planning commission, if needed.
• Dunn: Thank you, Dave, for mentioning that because that is exactly what I
was going to say. If we deny this, we would be better served to defer it than
deny it because if we deny it then we are done. So, there is no moving
forward. I would also mention that in anything that we do, I would
recommend that we look at putting discussions off to give all of staff and
people involved time to look at this to probably the beginning of January and
then during that time, or just after it, to have the applicant present all the new
issues to the planning commission again. Not necessarily for a formal vote or
review, but to allow them to at least see what we have worked on, but that is
up for—I'll put that in another motion should this motion fail.
• Mayor: I am not in favor of the town plan amendment because of the increase
of residential and would consider supporting it if there weren't so many other
problems with it. The density, I think, is too high on this proposed change. I
could see if the density were reduced enough so that there were significant
buffers between the town houses and two over twos that are being proposed
and the bypass, the Virginia Knolls community, the residences along
Gateway Drive. I do think there is merit in keeping; however, the road a two
lane road. I think the Yergins have made a very compelling argument for
that, so I am not in favor of four laning the road coming into Gateway. But,
in general I just do not like this significant increase in residential density, so I
will support the motion.
• Martinez: I think the biggest comment or some of the comments that
everyone might have to do with the Crescent District. We spent a lot of years
trying to figure out what we were going to put there—how it was going to
interact and again, you know, it is one of these things that we spent so much
time trying to do. I also know that the Crescent District plan is like
everything else in the town—it is a plan and things change. Dynamics and
markets change and things have to be looked at. This is more of a guidance
document to me than an actual written in stone. It is not that I am totally
against the application—let me do something with it, but I have to agree with
Kelly in that if we are going to scrap this plan on the first development that
comes here completely, because this is what we are going to be doing, then
why did we spend so much staff time and years trying to put this together to
put the best fit there. Now, I do know that some feel residential to residential
is a good thing, but what you have to realize is some of that commercial and
retail is support the neighborhoods that are littering that area. Right now,
there are other than Food Lion, there is really no other amenities nearby.
You know, we need to have those kind of mixed use in that area. Not only
that, again, there has been a couple of Council members who have mentioned
37 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
the fact that we don't want to give up our commercial and retail. We don't
want to increase density, yet here we are doing that same thing. I do think
that we need to go back and there are so many questions that are left
unanswered. The planning commission hasn't even seen this. For those of
you who don't know, our planning commission is there for a reason. It is
there to go in detail on any of these different applications that are asking for
rezonings or special exceptions because this council doesn't have time with all
of our other business to go through and do this. And I depend on my
planning commissioners to make sure that they keep me informed on the
status of all of these applications. I want to make sure that I—it is not that I
am totally against it, but again there are some questions that need to be
answered and I don't think they have been answered fully which is why I
made the motion. I would have no problem seeing it come back after it went
through another iteration or two on what's going on, but the fact that I think
you said it had gone through the review process how many times? Four or
five times? Several? And at the last meeting two weeks ago, there were still
57 comments. In the planning process, you should only go two to three times
at max for review and hopefully by the time you get to that third review,
you've only got a few comments and that was one of the issues I had when I
first came on Council is that a lot of times the developers skip planning
commission and go directly to Council and do their best to convince Council
to make the decisions and not vet it go the planning commission. You know,
I still believe that the correct process that this should—with all the different
major changes and all the different comments, it needs to go back to the
planning commission. It needs to go back and be vetted again. The language
and everything that is going on here needs to be looked at.
The motion to deny failed by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Butler, Dunn, Fox, and Hammler
Vote: 3-4
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2015-136
Adopting Town Plan Amendment TL TA 2014-0001, Crescent District Land Uses,
Revising the Planned Land Uses and Reclassifying Davis Avenue as a Through
Collector Road
Council Comments:
• Butler: Just like to reiterate if we want the planning commission—the
planning commission has seen the town plan amendment. We have to pass
this town plan amendment in order to send the rezoning back to the planning
commission. This is not directly related to the rezoning. It is not directly
related to the 57 items. That is part of the rezoning. What this does is change
the issues available in that area of the town. Now,just a couple of quick
38 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
comments on this. One, the Crescent Design District is based more on uses—
or it is based more on design and not so much on uses. So, changing the uses
is not a change of the spirit of the Crescent Design District. The other thing is
we did not spend much time on this area of the district. We spent a lot of time
in the interior and around Market Street and Catoctin and a lot of discussions
—this basically is more or less the same as it was before. The original intent
was basically to take a Village at Leesburg and plop it into this area. I think
that most of us realize that is just not going to happen any time soon. It is not
the right development for this space. It would be, I think, devastating to
Virginia Knolls if we took a Village at Leesburg and put it into this area,
which is what we had originally discussed. If we did that, Gateway Drive
would almost certainly end up being expanded to four lanes to handle the
incredible amount of traffic that would go back and forth. So, this is much
better suited to the neighborhood. It will put more feet on the street, as we
heard earlier today and the retail and restaurants will again come along as the
market allows, but regardless of what problems you might have with the
rezoning, we have to pass this in order to get to the rezoning. Otherwise, it
makes no sense to even discuss the 57 items.
• Dunn: And to point out that there are commercial elements to this. They are
not quite how we had planned where it was going to be first floor commercial
and residential on top. We have got a block of commercial and a block of
residential, which actually fits in more with the district. We do talk about
how long we worked on this, but just to remind you back when we first
started working on this, the home values were significantly higher than they
are now. You would have said uber what? And Barack was candy and not
the president. So, a lot of things have changed since we started on this and
we have got to recognize that—brach's candy— it is a hard candy. It is late—
stay with me. But, things change and we need to be able to adapt to those
changes that are coming our way. If we don't then we push them away and
those changes go somewhere else and we have been doing that for decades
and we have to recognize that we are planning. We are not obstructing. We
are planning. If we go with an attitude that we are going to stop everything,
then that's not called planning, folks. That's just stopping. You can't stop.
Life is about growth or death. Pick one. I would rather pick the one that is
moving towards growth and plan on that. Otherwise, you just get what you—
as I said earlier—you just get what's coming to you. So, the most I would
say, is if you have an issue with moving forward with this town plan
amendment, then postpone this, but we are going to have to make this
decision at some point. I would also point out that Council was very willing
to work on—without a town plan amendment—very, very willing to work on
Morven Park to come into the town and we worked on that for a year before
finally Morven Park wrote a note saying okay we are not going to do it and it
was only at that point that Council said okay we won't do this, but for a year
without a town plan amendment, we worked on efforts to try to make
Morven Park into town. Here we are trying to correct that and do the plan
amendment first.
39 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Martinez: I really have to ask sometimes how we cry wolf hearing that the
sky is falling, the sky is falling if we do a certain thing and that is not
necessarily true. Tom, about Morven Park we did waste a lot of time on that,
but if I remember right I am the one who put forward the resolution to stop
the process because they weren't responding to the letters we sent to them.
So, it wasn't a process—anyway, so on this the town plan amendment is what
started all of this and the different changes and stuff are what is impacting our
Crescent District plan. Yes, I do believe that it does talk about uses. If we
want, we can look at what we think it should be and make our own changes—
initiate it on our side of the fence. Again, I can't support this as it is right
now. It is the top and everything else that is underneath it, we need to make a
wholesale change. That's all.
• Hammier: I will be supporting the motion on the table and I do look forward
and appreciate in advance everybody's hard work to work through the issues.
The collaboration that was mentioned for stream restoration. We talked
about the tree canopy, the commercial phasing. So, [inaudible] a lot of a hard
work for everybody, but I look forward to moving this forward to get that
done.
• Fox: The Crescent District, by right we have to have that four lane road in
there. I don't think that is in the best interest of Virginia Knolls, so that was
my main impetus for pushing this forward—for supporting this motion. I am
not happy with the application as it is at all. I think there are major issues,
concerns—traffic, density. I think having it go back to the planning
commission would be extremely helpful and I think there is a lot to parse
through; however, we are not going to get that two lane road if we don't
change this as well. I am very supportive of the motion on the table and I'll
just leave it at that.
• Mayor: Two comments, one of which is the way to guarantee that this land
develops very quickly is to vote for this motion and allow the high density
residential. That would build out immediately. If you don't want anything to
happen to that land, you vote against this because as we have spent hours
tonight listening, there is no office market. So, Virginia Knolls is not going
to, any time soon, have any office built near it. That land would remain
empty for years, if not decades. So, I think a vote tonight is a guarantee that
we are going to be generating more traffic. We will have more cut through
traffic through Virginia Knolls. We will have more traffic along Gateway.
Then, I will just give the response I always have when someone says you have
two choices, one you either grow or you die. Well, if you grow too fast, it is
called cancer and it kills you. So, that's where I think lack of growth tends to
do to this community. It destroys green space. It destroys habitat and I think
that is what this is going to do in a truly dense environment that I just don't
think the town and the nearby communities can handle.
• Hammier: I just think it is an important point—It is one thing to say it will
never develop, but the fact remains that it is actually very prime real estate
relative to its location. There are very attractive qualities to things that have
been brought forward. Significantly, if we are just going to determine we are
going to allow it to develop by-right by default, then we don't have access to
40 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
any of the proffers and those are certainly of significant benefit to the
community as well.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Fox, and Hammler
Nay: Burk, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Vote: 4-3
c. TLOA 2015-0002 Davis Avenue Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following
was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2015-0-019
Approving TLOA 2015-0002 Removing Davis Avenue as an Urban Boulevard
Council Comments:
• Burk: Well, this is one of the ones that I have some misgivings about, but if
this is going to end up being a residential development as opposed to
commercial— Council Member Hammier pointed out this is an attractive
location. It is attractive because it was supposed to be commercial, but if it is
not going to be commercial, most certainly it doesn't belong as a four lane
road.
• Butler: This is a minor text amendment. If we had it to do over again, we
might not have any of these listed in the zoning ordinance be that as it may.
• Mayor: I will be supporting this.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammler, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 7-0
d. TLZM 2013-0006 Crescent Parke Rezoning
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
MOTION 2015-017
I move that rezoning application TLZM2013-0006, Crescent Parke, be remanded back
to the Planning Commission for purposes of resolving rezoning and proffer related
issues. Further the Planning Commission will report back to the Town Council prior to
the Town Council's second meeting in January.
Council Comments:
• Butler: I think it is clear I personally would prefer it would stay with Council,
but we clearly don't have the votes. So, it going back to the planning
commission with the text amendment change is completely appropriate and
reasonable. I think they will do a good job.
41 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
• Burk: Well, I don't know what the planning commission is going to end up
doing with this, but we have now changed the Crescent District Plan so it is a
new day. We will see what they end up coming back with.
• Dunn: I would have rather it come back to Council and have the planning
commission review what we had done, but I would be interested to see what
the planning commission does with this and again hoping that they definitely
now that they have the town plan change, if they have, as I mentioned last
night—the planning commission is the planning body for the town and why
aren't they making these decisions. I think now with the town plan change,
they should be making these decisions. So, I am hoping decisions that move
towards planning and not just to saying there is no way we are going to do
this. Because unlike what the Mayor said where she took life and death as
both options equal death, I see a better future ahead.
• Burk: With this motion, Council Member Butler did not include any of the
issues that we talked about and so didn't the planning commission ask us to
make sure that we tell them what we...
Staff answer: I think that when the applications were transmitted to Council
there were suggestions that the planning commission recommended to you all
to consider. It was staff's recommendation for you to advise Planning
Commission as they deliberate seeing what they had highlighted in terms of
recommendations to you—giving them feedback would be beneficial, i.e.
things on this piece of paper. Maybe it doesn't need to be verbatim. Maybe
we can keep it generalized. If there is issue with what we put on paper, but I
think remanding it back to planning commission, as the staff person that
needs to work with them and the applicant, I am a little bit concerned that we
are not capturing what the Council would like them to specifically target at
they look at the layout of the zoning application.
• Butler: In the motion, I specifically left them off because I don't want
Council debating these five things for the next 2 1/2 hours, which I think we
might and I think that these are good things for the Council to look at if it was
not remanded back to the planning commission. I think my preference would
be for the planning commission to look at these areas and make their
recommendations as long as they are things that fall under the normal
planning commission agenda. I don't want the planning commission to be
opining on things that are not normally part of the direct health, safety and
welfare, which is what the planning commission does. So, as long they stick
to what they are legally required to do, have them tell us what they
recommend and then move aside. I don't want to tell them what to do, I
don't think, which is why I left them off.
• Burk: So, can you take that back? Do you feel comfortable being able to take
that back to them—that they are going to know what to do?
Staff answer: I think in listening to what Council Member Butler just said is
that the planning commission has full discretion and that it is their duty to
review the zoning part of the Crescent Design District and review the
applicant's lay out and advise the Council as to what should or should not be
changed in a revised concept plan.
42 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 7-0
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
15. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
Council Member Fox: I spoke with Mike Banzhaf on Potomac Station Marketplace
this week. Also on Crescent Parke, I spoke with—I forgot to put the name—that would be
Hobie Mitchell. I had a conversation with him yesterday. I also spoke with Gem Bingol
from the Piedmont Environmental Council both yesterday and today and also today, I
spoke with Randy Minchew about Crescent Parke from Walsh Colucci. I have one item of
new business, if it is okay...I liked the presentation we saw on the telecommunications and I
would like to pursue that.
Council Member Hammler: I also spoke to Gem Bingol with Piedmont
Environmental Council on the 5th and I had three phone calls from Hobie Mitchell on the
8th, the 9th and the 10th. Just wanted to congratulate all our small business award nominees
and winners. I appreciated seeing Kristen and Marty at the awards dinner and Keith and
several others. I can't remember everyone else who was there. The history awards were
lovely Sunday. I did want to thank Stilson for the awesome idea about the permanent stage
on the town green. I just thought it was getting too late to divide the question, but I
certainly supported that. I was very disappointed to see that Leesburg Today was being
sold. I think that is very, very sad relative how important they were for the community and
our little corner of democracy but I am very optimistic that creative minds will prevail. Two
last things, I wanted to congratulate everyone over at Makersmith. They made the
ornament that is going to be hanging at the Governor's Mansion on their official Christmas
tree representing Leesburg. In keeping with our innovation here in town, it is an ornament
that you can turn on and off with your smartphone. So, we should send pictures of that,
Kaj —it was pretty cool. Finally congratulations, Madam Mayor on your big election.
Council Member Martinez: I would like to thank Russell, Victoria, Sarah and Jim
for staying with us. You guys are amazing. I know that it probably didn't go the way you
guys were hoping, but hopefully in the future we can get something that is a better product
out there and I am hoping we can work with Hobie because he has done a heck of a job on
Harrison Street and Catoctin and I hope to see something like that there too. But, you
know, I just had too many questions and hopefully we can move forward on it. Thank you
guys for coming and hanging with us. You get to see we are still smiling. I do want to say
Happy Veteran's day to everyone being a nine year vet. It is always nice to have a day of
[inaudible]. I want to congratulate them. They won another award for the Potomac
Crossing park. That was really great. I want to mention a couple of things. The NAACP is
having a meeting and membership drive on Sunday, December 6. Everybody who is
interested—they can go to the website. Talking about stuff going on—the Jingle Jam. I
don't know if I can get up at 5 a.m. to go buy a ticket, but I know they are going to probably
going to be sold out by 5:30, but I am going to hope that somebody buys me a ticket. I do
43IPage
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
have three disclosures. I met with Mike Banzhaf on the Potomac Station. Gem Bingol
from Piedmont on Crescent Parke. I also met with with Phil, Barbara, and Christine
Gleckner on the Montfaire—I think that is the application. I am looking forward to seeing
that. I did have—Mary Haberl is resigning from my EAC. She has been there forever and
[inaudible] but apparently her business is growing and she needs to take time off to devote
to that. I am kind of sad, but happy for her. I will be looking for an EAC person. I don't
know if any of you went to the Leesburg downtown business association social, but they
had a great social hour. I enjoyed meeting some new people that came out and a few of the
other businesses that came over. I want to say they are going to have another one on
December 3, so I am excited about that too. The Halloween parade was phenomenal. I
wrote a whole bunch of stuff up here. The small business awards, it was great having been
with you guys there. Katie, the mayor and Kelly. That's right. Kelly was there and she
booked, but it was nice seeing you there. That's about it. One last thing, all veterans, I
would look in the paper and listen to the radio. There are a heck of a lot of freebies for us. I
think TGIF gives you a free something. A lot of other businesses in the area give you some
nice bennies. I'll have to do that. It has been a joy.
Vice Mayor Burk: I have just two disclosures. Spoke with Mr. Banzhaf concerning
Potomac Station and Christine Gleckner concerning Sycolin Commons. I just want to take
a minute to give some background on that Kincaid forest opening—that road. When the
county decided that they wanted to use that area for a lot of their buildings and the
developer came in and wanted to build the houses there, one of the agreements—the one
agreement that I insisted on as the supervisor at the time, was that Kincaid could not be
open until Crosstrails was open otherwise it ends up being—talk about a cut through. It
would make a dramatic difference to them. That was negotiated with the homeowners
association and the residents there. If that letter does come to us asking us to open it up, I
hope that we will not do that to those residents because that promise was made to them and
I would hate to see it rescinded until that road is built and completed, Kincaid forest should
not be opened, in my opinion.
Council Member Butler: Just a couple of things. I had some disclosures. I also
talked to Mike Banzhaf on the application tonight and I spoke with Chris Gleckner and
Hobie Mitchell three times regarding....Veteran's day tomorrow....
Mayor: Veteran's Day, 6:45 a.m. if you want to do the Balls Bluff dawn ceremony
for Veteran's Day and then people are being asked to show up 10 o'clock at Dodona Manor
at the Marshall House. Then at noon is the unveiling of the Patriot Project Revolutionary
War monument on the Courthouse grounds, then I believe at 1 o'clock is the VFW's
Volksmarch. I think that may be it for tomorrow.
Butler: The last thing is—speaking about gas stations. The gas station is open on
Miller Drive and I think everyone of my family members has been there four times in the
last three days just because it is so cool. It is convenient and it is great. I am so happy it
finally opened. I am sure the folks who are on Potomac Station would be equally happy
when that gas station opens and then Kelly will be happy.
44 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2015
Council Member Dunn: Disclosure—I had conversations with Hobie Mitchell about
his project. Unfortunately, I have to work tomorrow so I can't take part in the activities, but
in deference to the late hour and my normal comments, I will not bloviate.
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
As Council knows, everyone should congratulate Mike Carroll of the Leesburg
Vintner and Doug Fabbioli of Fabbioli Cellars for a wonderful coverage on [inaudible]
television—the official government TV station in Moldova, which used to be part of
Romania, did a wonderful and charming series of interviews and footage of downtown
Leesburg from Mike's store, the Leesburg Vintner with a good interview and then followed
Doug Fabbioli around his vineyard and it was charming. You've got English interviews
with Moldovan subtitles. You'll understand what is being said, maybe not what is being
printed. It was a very charming international coverage of Leesburg and as Mike Carroll
said, it made the downtown look very good.
17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Monday night is your legislative dinner. It is at 6 o'clock. I did change the location
this year. It is at Lightfoot, so we will start at 6 o'clock. Tara will be contacting you for
your selection of choice—there will be three choices. I don't remember at this hour what
they are. She will contact you so everything is ready.
18. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, November 11, 2015.
(.4111 Vs.
•I ' en C. Umstattd, Mayor
/Th Town of Leesburg
ATtESD (
Clerk of Coun it
2015 tcmin1110
45 I Page