HomeMy Public PortalAbout031 Endorsing the draft letters with regard to Courthouse ExpansionCOUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
MOTION 2012 -031
I move that the Town Council endorse the draft letter(s) included in Tab 08.
1 I Page
Zeics f
Kristen C. Umstattd Council Meiubers
Mayor David S. Butler Thomas S. Dunn, 1I
Katie Sheldon Hammler Kelly Burk
Virginia Kevin D. Wright Fernando "Marty" Martinez
Vice Mayor
25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20175 • (703) 771- 2733/(703) 771 -2727 fax • council@leesburgva.gov • www.leesburgva.gov
December 12, 2012
Mr. Ralph Buona, Chairman
Finance, Government Services & Operations Committee
Loudoun County Government Center
1 Harrison Street SE
Leesburg, VA 20175
RE: Loudoun County Courts Expansion project
Dear Chairman Buona:
On behalf of the Town of Leesburg, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
information regarding the expansion of the existing courts system within downtown Leesburg. I know
that the Committee, as well as the Board of Supervisors, has been concerned about the approval of
such a complex project within downtown Leesburg.
What I would like to do through this correspondence is to re- emphasize the Town's sincere desire to
have this important project remain downtown, and stress that we are committed to a smooth,
predictable and efficient review. The Town has made great strides in the past few years to improve our
development review and approval process, which has in turn led to a much more expedited review
process than in years past. Some of the specific changes we have instituted include the use of a sketch
plan review in advance of a site plan, consolidated comment letters for predictability, the addition of
conceptual reviews by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) during the rezoning process (which
can run concurrent with Planning Commission review), and an appeal process of BAR decisions to the
Town Council. Please find attached for your review, a brief outline of the process by which the
development of the courts expansion could proceed (Attachment 1).
Since the implementation of our flexible and predictable review process, we have dealt with a number
of large complex projects that have been approved in consistently shorter time frames than are
typically prescribed in our official documentation. Examples of some of these projects include the
movie theatre at the Village of Leesburg, the Loudoun Community Health building on Fort Evans
Road, and Wolf Furniture.
We have found that the key to successfully expediting a project such as this one relies heavily upon
active participation and cooperation between the developer and their representatives. The Town of
Leesburg is ready to commit to this project, and we will ensure the highest priority and attention will
be given to the approval process.
Hometown of the 216` Century
Mr. Ralph Buona
December 12, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Again, we are looking forward to working with Loudoun County on this project. Please contact me if
there are any questions.
Very sincerely yours,
Kristen Umstattd, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
cc: Leesburg Town Council
Attachments:
1. Review process outline
2. Draft minutes of December 11, 2012 Town Council Meeting -Courts Expansion Community
Input
3. Email from Mike Carroll regarding Courts Expansion Project
m
c
._
0
cu
N
Cl
V1 �
N
0 a
E E
dc
v
Z E
cr- a
r
3 `—°
o a
CL
cu
u
c
O
U
f6 CU
aJ
a u
4, o
Q- a
a� t
U �
c
V E
CL
o
j
Uv
0
c
v
t
u
m
Q
L
cli
H
O
-M
O
Y
`^
C
m
&
0
3
3
Q
L
O
4—
a
C
v
O
=
c
'a
L
O
0
>
L
v
c/'1
b
a
�
Q
CL
Q
v
a
c
v
t
u
m
Q
Attachment 2
COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, David Butler, Thomas S. Dunn, Katie Sheldon
Hammler, Marty Martinez, Kevin Wright and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Martinez arrived at 7:36 p.m., Council
Member Burk arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Deputy Town
Manager Kaj Dentler, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Assistant
Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Capital Projects Renee Lafollette, Senior
Planner Irish Grandfield, Land Acquisition Manager Keith Wilson and Clerk of Council
Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION: Mayor Kristen Umstattd
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Vice Mayor Kevin Wright
4. ROLL CALL: Showing Council Member Marty Martinez arriving at 7:36 p.m.,
Council Member Kelly Burk arriving at 7:40 p.m.
5. MINUTES
a. Special Session Minutes of November 15 2012
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, the
minutes of the Special Session meeting of November 15, 2012 were approved by a vote of 5-
0-2 (Burk/Dunn absent).
b. Work Session Minutes of November 26 2012
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, the
minutes of the work session meeting of November 26, 2012 were approved by a vote of 5 -0 -2
(BurklDunn absent)
C. Regular Session Minutes of November 27 2012
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, the
minutes of the Regular Session meeting of November 27, 2012 were approved by a vote of 5-
0-2 (Burk/Dunn absent).
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
On the motion of Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the meeting
agenda was approved as presented by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Hammler, Martinez, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 5 -0 -2 (Burk/Dunn absent)
1 Pane
COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. None.
8. PETITIONERS
a. The General Petitioner's Section was opened at 7:33 p.m.
b. The Courts Expansion Petitioner's Section was opened at 7:42 p.m.
(Verbatim transcription follows)
Chad Campbell: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sorry for the mix up.
Thank you, Council, for the chance to speak tonight. Of course, my name is
Chad Campbell. I am an aide to the Leesburg District Supervisor, Ken Reid, and
because of our Board of Supervisors Meeting tonight... our public hearing ... he
asked me to come read a statement on his behalf, so I will begin with that. I am
grateful to the Council for its consideration of the letter addressed to the Board
regarding the proposed expansion of the Court's Complex. I am pleased to
outline the process for approval and request providing examples of how the town
processes would not be a hindrance but a positive to the county. As you know,
the Finance Committee has changed its meeting schedule so the Courts
Expansion issue will come to us on January 8, not January 14`h as previously
scheduled. It is my hope that the Finance Committee will recommend at that
time to go ahead and proceed with the engineering and design for the phase III
expansion site on the old jail site, also known as the Church Street site and move
the matter to the full Board of Supervisors for action on January 16'.
Additionally, I am pleased that the Petersen Company withdrew their proposal to
provide land to build an entirely new Courts Complex on their Crosstrail
Development. I had asked them to withdraw it and they did so. However, just
as I had warned the other Finance Committee members, the Board has been
inundated with additional offers for land for the Courts complex from all around
the county. None of these are being considered by the Finance Committee and it
is my expectation that will continue. I will be continue to push for support for
the courts to remain in their proper location in downtown Leesburg. I want to
thank the Council for their support on this as well as their willingness to partner
to make this expansion work. I hope that we will move forward with this in
January without any further delay.
Dieter Meyer: First of all, just for full disclosure, about a year ago when
the design teams were originally being put together to go after the REP that has
since been delayed, I was a member of one of the groups that had responded to
the RFP at that time, but I am here completely outside of that role that I had at
that time. I am here as a resident of the immediate neighborhood that is affected
by this ... living at 214 Andover right off of Harrison Street is actually in an area
that is most like directly impacted by anything that happens with the courts. In
looking at some of the preliminary planning, possibly new access to the
Pennington lot and increased traffic ... those kinds of things. In spite of that, I
think that the loss of the courts downtown would far outweigh any slight negative
2 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
impact that it might have on myself personally as a resident in that area and I am
really happy to hear that the town is trying to keep the courts in the downtown
where they should be and I do urge you to send the strongest signal possible to
the county that the town will work diligently with the county to come to a
mutually agreeable solution to keep the courts downtown. Thank you.
Bob O'Connor: I'm Bob O'Connor. I live at 108 Church Street, NE, so
pretty close to the courthouse. I concur with this gentleman as far as keeping the
courts in town. I think it is a benefit to having them in town. I think we have put
the infrastructure in place with the parking lots... Pennington and I forget the
other parking lot that is behind ... so my concern is what I have read about as far
as the expansion and what it might do as far as impacting closing part of Church
Street. That would be a big concern of ours, not being able to get to our house or
possibly worst case ... I guess there were a couple of things that talked about night
court and some other options they were looking at. That was one of my favorite
shows growing up. But, also I think if you haven't walked down Church Street to
North Street recently, I encourage all of you to do so. We are doing a lot of
improvements in Leesburg right now. Bricking the sidewalks and putting
sidewalks on actually both sides of the street would be a benefit aesthetically and
from a safety standpoint as well. We just kind of watch the pedestrian traffic. If
there is anything going on on the sidewalk... anybody working on the
sidewalks... people are constantly walking in the street there. Cars tend to cut
through there from Market Street to get to Route 15. You might want to look at
that if you haven't done so. But again, I am in favor of the courts expansion. I
would just like to keep the impact minimal for the people who live on Church
Street. Thank you for your time.
Jeanne Rogers: My name is Jean Rogers and I live at 110 Church Street,
NE in Leesburg. I have lived there for 20 years. I have emailed the Town
Council and I have emailed members of the Board of Supervisors. I really am
opposed to moving the Courts out of Leesburg for any number of reasons. I am
sure of all you know and maybe more than I don't know. I cannot understand
the reasoning of the Board of Supervisors. The way I understand it, they are
afraid ... I suppose it's a security problem with the prisoners. Well, there are all
sorts of ways to get around that right here in Leesburg. In Hong Kong, they do it
by building two skyscrapers that have the same interests and they build skywalks
between the two skyscrapers about 60 feet off the ground ... you know 60 stories.
It's beautiful. In London they do it that way, but another way. I have had many
occasion to go underground to get to places. They build their underground
stations way underground. Some of them down there 400 -500 feet, if necessary.
But you know that could be done in Leesburg so easily and your prisoners could
be kept safe and secure underground and you could also do that for pedestrians.
You could have a double walkway and elevators at both sides. It would be kind
of fun. But a skyway would be very pretty just for the pedestrians, of course. It is
also to hold a tradition ... to keep a tradition and that's this is the county seat and
it belongs here. As far as Church Street, I can only imagine and it is a
very... Church Street is a very... if you have been down it, or if you have lived on
3 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
it as I have after all these years you have seen a lot of changes go on that street. It
used to be a quiet little backwater place, but when the courts expanded and the
Semones and Pennington Parking lots were opened to the public, that's the way
they get to those parking lots. That's the way the rescue squad gets to my house.
That's the way people walk. That's the way cars go when they close the
downtown areas for the almost iconic garden fair. What are those merchants
going to do? What are those people going to do? What is going to happen to our
traffic problem if the Board of Supervisors insists upon this when I think that you
could even do it the old fashioned traditional way—you can continue to do what
you are doing. Have any prisoners escaped lately? They come in vans. They
come by my house ... they used to ... well never mind. They come by my house.
They go down underground into the courthouse. They could do that with the
new complex and just drive a half a mile. As far as the pedestrians are
concerned, you know, what do they want to close? About 300 feet of Church
Street. About 300 feet? They don't even want to close the whole first block, do
they? But you could still close the first floor. You don't need to close it. You
could put a safety crosswalk there for pedestrians and get them to use it. That's
the old fashioned way. It won't cost any money. I just think my time is up. It is
just unfathomable to me why they want to do that. There must be something else
and I don't know what it is. I am not privy to that but it seems to be ridiculous.
Thank you for listening.
Peter Burnett: Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Thank you for
having me. My name is Peter Burnett. My office is at 105 Loudoun Street, SE. I
have with me ... I am appearing both personally and as chair of the Loudoun
County Bar Association Courthouse Planning Committee, of which I was
appointed by Randy Minchew in 1946. He claims I was appointed for life. So
far, he is right. We were tasked with evaluating the BAR's response to the notion
of moving all or part of the courts out of downtown Leesburg and we conducted
a survey of the BAR membership, which is a little under 200 lawyers are
members of the Loudoun County BAR Association and we have summarized
those survey responses in this letter. I know, Madam Mayor, that you have seen
this letter and it is part of the County's record, but I thought it would be helpful to
have it as part of yours. If I might hand it up to Ms. Green... Just three points
really. The first one is economics. It is clear from Loudoun County staff
analysis, and the analysis of others that moving the courts in their entirety or
dividing the courts would be an extraordinary greater expense to the County
taxpayers which of course includes the Town of Leesburg taxpayers as well. Just
for the cost along, the move of the courts in their entirety would be well in excess
of $100 million. A way to get that in perspective, the cost of a new high school.
My thought is we have a facility that really hasn't been used more than about a
dozen years right there. If the holding facility, which Ms. Rogers referred to is
adequate in size and was designed to handle the expansion across the way ... at
the jail lot. My architect friends tell me that the cost of part of a facility like that
is about $600 a foot. My view is let's get our investment out of that before we
abandon that. We would have to be building probably two of them if we move
the courts in their entirety out of town. So, cost is a major component. The
4 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2012
other comment I would make is the Loudoun County Court
facility... courthouse... is the longest continuously operated court in Virginia
north of the James River. Just about every other circuit court... all of the other
circuit courts north of the James have at one time or another moved. Courthouse
Road is at Tysons for a reason. Arlington has moved theirs, Winchester has
moved theirs, Harrisonburg ... all over the state. We have the distinction, which is
pretty neat, to have had that site since the time of the formation of this country to
be operated from that same location. That's something that is almost of national
recognition, I think. My last comment is about decision making. It strikes me
that some of the thoughts of folks over at the county, having the town commit to
any number of paths or concessions, if you will. Call them what you like, but is
cart before the horse. We don't know... and I am a great believer in my
architectural friends coming up with imaging solutions. We see them all around
us. Whether it's tunnels or bridges. Harrisonburg has got a jail and bridge
downtown from its courthouse that you wouldn't recognize as that. You would
look at it as an office building and it works just fine for them. Others... Virginia
Beach has a tunnel between the jail and their courthouse. They like the
consolidation of having them connected. I just think that we should let the
architects bring solutions and weigh what the concessions might need to be but
it's just shooting in the dark at this point trying to guess what they should do. I
would hope that the town will remain open - minded to various ways to keep the
courts here and various solutions but that we not be pushing ourselves into any
corners by making commitments that may be unnecessary when the courts are
actually designed.
(End verbatim)
The Petitioner's Section was closed at 7:57 p.m.
5 1 Pane
FAttachment 3
From:
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:43 AM
To: Council
Subject: Courts
Dear Mayor and Council,
I hope the Courts stay where they are in Downtown Leesburg. If they were to move a lot of businesses would
be affected in a very negative way.
Very excited about the improvements being made around town. I think the future of Downtown looks great and am very
excited to be a part of it.
Hope you all have a great, happy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Mike Carroll
Leesburg Vintner
Town of
Virginia
JOHN WELLS
Town Manager
25 West Market Street ■ 20176 ■ 703 -771 -2700 a Fax: 703 -771 -2727 ■ jwells @leesburgva.gov ■ www.leesburgva.gov
December 12, 2012
Ms. Melissa Poole
Design Manager
Department of Construction & Waste Management
Loudoun County Government
211 Gibson Street, N.W., Suite 123
Leesburg, VA 20176
RE: Loudoun County Courts Expansion project
Dear
We are in receipt of your letter dated November 28, 2012 (Attachment 1) regarding the Loudoun
County Courts expansion project. In that letter you have requested answers to various development
related questions as they relate to the November 20, 2012 meeting of the Finance, Government
Services and Operations Committee ( FGSOC), where discussions were held regarding the
Committee's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the ultimate location of the Loudoun
County Courts. We trust that the following correspondence adequately addresses the questions as you
posed them.
First, we would like to reiterate our position as previously outlined within a letter from the Town of
Leesburg to the FGSOC (Attachment 2), in which the Town stated that the Loudoun County Courts
have been an integral part of the fabric of Leesburg since its inception. We firmly believe that the
courts have been a vital centerpiece of the Town, and we wish to see it continued as such. Since it is
our sincere desire to see the courts stay in downtown Leesburg, the Town of Leesburg is committed to
working with Loudoun County to ensure the courts' place in the Town. This commitment to working
with Loudoun County will be in accordance with our predictable process of approvals for development
applications, with a keen understanding of the cooperation and flexibility necessary to accomplish a
project of this magnitude. We have made great strides in the past few years to improve our
development review process, approving a number of large scale projects in an expedited time frame
that has been faster than the Town's typically prescribed time frames found in official documentation.
We would certainly consider this a project of significant importance and would give it the attention it
requires to be reviewed in a timely and efficient manner as expeditiously as possible.
As outlined below, a rezoning takes approximately seven months and a site plan approximately six to
seven months, depending on the quality of submittals, time the application resides with the applicant,
etc. With the Town Council's emphasis on the importance of this project, Town staff feels that with
Hometown of the 21't Century
Ms. Melissa Poole
December 12, 2012
Page 2 of 6
timely and quality submittals, open communication, and some overlapping concurrent reviews, the
rezoning and site plans' review time can be shortened by a matter of three to five months.
As part of providing an efficient and expedited process with a project of this importance, the Town
cannot underestimate the importance of having a design team, including a design architect and
engineering firm, on board as soon as possible in order to begin the process. This process would also
include meeting and seeking input of neighbors and stakeholders of the project early on, as is common
with all successful projects of this magnitude. We would sincerely request that the Board of
Supervisors issue the RFP for these design professionals so we can get started.
Keeping the above in mind, the following are responses to the specific questions you have posed
regarding the courts expansion project:
1. Will the Town approve a rezoning application of the Pennington Parking Lot parcel to GC in
order for structured parking to be built on the parcel by- right?
The process by which this development will be approved must be in accordance with our
established practice of all rezoning requests, whether they be public or private. A development
application that contains items within our checklist submittal requirements must be submitted.
Subsequent to acceptance of the application, Town staff will review and analyze the material and
submit comments back to you. Upon conclusion of staff's review, the application will be forwarded
to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing, who in turn will forward a recommendation to
the Town Council, who will also conduct a Public hearing. It is Town Council who ultimately has
the final decision as to whether or not the application for a rezoning is approved.
It has been determined by Town staff that a requested zoning of GC (Government Center) could be
deemed an appropriate district for this use. Staff has also determined that since this parcel is
outside of the H -1 district, review by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) will not be
required for this specific parcel.
As you are aware, it is not appropriate for Town staff to pre - suppose a decision by the Town
Council on a rezoning. However, Town staff can state that given the importance of the project and
the awareness of adequate parking as a key element for success, the Town will be flexible and as
creative as possible with any and all reasonable requests that can be deemed appropriate within the
scope of our current land development regulations and processes.
We would like to reiterate that it is our intent, with the cooperation of Loudoun County, to review
this project in an expedited manner that results in a more timely review than typically prescribed
timelines.
2. Will the Town permit, at a minimum, the partial closure of Church Street during business
hours?
As part of the development application process, the Town will review and analyze any proposal,
including the partial closure of Church Street that may be appropriate for both the Town and the
development. It should be noted however, that the results of a comprehensive traffic study and the
Ms. Melissa Poole
December 12, 2012
Page 3 of 6
accompanying mitigation and analyzed effects of such a closure will be key to the decision.
Aesthetics associated with the design of any portion of the facilities that may be required to
implement the partial closure of Church Street will be important as well.
3. Will the Town participate in and consider cooperative solutions or cost - sharing as it relates
to transportation- related improvements including but not limited to new traffic signals, turn
lanes, sidewalk improvements, street lighting improvements and similar pedestrian and
vehicular improvements some of which mitigate existing traffic issues not linked to the
development of the Courts project?
Any of the above mentioned items that are linked directly as a mitigation measure and /or
requirement of the impacts of the development typically fall under the Town's established process
and is the responsibility of the applicant. Specifically, this responsibility comes in the form of
addressing and mitigating the impact that any development may have on the Town's infrastructure.
Any of the items identified above that are not directly linked to this specific development would
have to be added as a part of the Town's Capital Improvement Plan, and would need to be
accommodated in future Town budgets, which requires the ultimate approval of the Town Council.
Once the parameters of the courts development plan are identified through a concept plan, parking
study, traffic study, etc., the Town would be open to discuss these items in greater detail. It is
premature, however, for the Town to commit to these things at this time without an indication as to
the scope and scale of the project, and the impacts it will create.
4. What specific documentation and process will be required by the Town for the demolition of
the four houses on Edwards Ferry Road?
The four buildings that the County seeks to remove are located within the H -1 Overlay District.
Therefore, per TLZO Sec. 7.5.8 Demolition Applications, an applicant must apply to the Board of
Architectural Review (BAR) for permission to demolish these buildings. The application will be
processed concurrently with the rezoning application and will be acted upon by the BAR prior to
the Planning Commission public hearing.
Regarding the necessary documentation, an applicant must demonstrate whether or not the
buildings are contributing structures to the Old and Historic District. The Town's Preservation
Planner can provide the specifics as to what is required, including relevant documentation that is in
the possession of the Town. In addition, an applicant must show the BAR its post - demolition plans
for the site during this review. The Town does have the ability to work- session these items with
the BAR in advance of a formal application. In addition, the Town does have some flexibility
regarding the amount of post development detail shown for demolition permits.
Please be advised that when the BAR approves the demolition of structures in the Historic District,
they will typically put a condition on the demolition so that the buildings cannot be demolished
until the site plan that shows the replacement buildings is approved.
Ms. Melissa Poole
December 12, 2012
Page 4 of 6
S. Will the Town accept waivers or other mitigation options for zoning- related requirements
including but not limited to building setbacks, building heights, buffer and site lighting
requirements?
The following site issues will be reviewed by Town Council as part of the rezoning application.
Please note that the GC District was intended to be flexible to allow Town Council some flexibility
to vary standards to accommodate government uses in the downtown area. During the previous
rezoning for the Courts expansion, the Town Council amended various setback and buffer
requirements in order to accommodate specific needs of that project.
• Building setbacks: Setback requirements can be reduced to zero feet by the Town Council
as part of the rezoning per TLZO Sec. 7.3.3 [1].
• Building heights: 45 feet maximum; the Town Council, however, has the flexibility to
increase this height if they believe it is necessary to accommodate the specific needs of a
proposed government building or facility. The Town Plan provides specific guidance on
when this may be appropriate.
• Buffer requirements: These can be modified by the Director of Planning and Zoning
during the rezoning process, depending on whether the property is inside or outside of the
H -1 Overlay District as follows:
• Existing Courts facilities are inside the GC District and the H -1 Overlay District, so
they can be modified by the Director of P &Z per TLZO Sec. 12.8.5.A
• The Pennington Tract is outside of the H -1 Overlay District so they can be modified
by the Director of P &Z per TLZO Sec. 12.8.5.0 Special Design.
• Site Lighting: Providing a preliminary design as to how a site will be lit for pedestrian
safety is a required element of a rezoning application per TLZO Sec. 3.3.6.E.22. However,
these requirements can sometimes be modified during discussion of the rezoning
application.
• Lot coverage, open space: The GC District does not have maximum lot coverage or open
space requirements. However, these elements are typically discussed as part of the
rezoning proposal.
• Parking: The parking standard for courthouse uses is not specified in the Zoning
Ordinance but based upon research done by staff and other information provided by the
County. A standard of one parking space per 335 sf. of courthouse use was approved for the
original rezoning. Based upon any additional updated parking standard information
provided by the County, staff has the ability to consider said standards and apply them
through the proffers.
It must be noted that no commitments on the above referenced items can be made until the entire
context and scope of the project is known and analyzed, including what, if any, impacts such
modifications or waivers may have on the project and the downtown.
6. What approval timeline can be expected from the Town for a project of this complexity
involving multiple parcels and multiple applications? Can the Town provide
recommendations as to the sequencing of the various applications to provide the most
efficient review and approval process for the project?
Ms. Melissa Poole
December 12, 2012
Page 5 of 6
As you have noted, this is a complex project. Below, you will find our mandated timelines for the
applications. Depending on the quality of submissions and number of public meetings assigned to
this project, the overall length of the process can vary.
1. Rezoning. A rezoning application typically takes approximately seven (7) months and
requires two full submissions. The typical application follows this timeline once it has been
accepted:
• 45 days: I" Submission review by Staff
• 30 days: Resubmission by Applicant (2nd submission)
• 45 days: 2nd Submission review by Staff
• 30 days: Resubmission by Applicant (3rd submission)
• 30 days: Staff final review plus preparation of staff report for Planning Commission
public hearing; Public hearing scheduled
• 14 days: Planning Commission post - public hearing review and action
• 30 days: Staff final review plus preparation of staff report for Town Council public
hearing; Public hearing scheduled and Council action
This is a typical application and time may vary based upon the number of submissions made by
Applicant. Information regarding submittal requirements and timelines is readily available in
the Town's website.
2. Certificate of Appropriateness (Demolition). The BAR must act on an application within
75 days after it first considers the matter at a public hearing per TLZO Sec. 3.10.5 Review
of Plans in a Timely Manner, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. In this case,
the demolition COA would be acted upon during the rezoning review on the matter.
3. Certificate of Appropriateness (New /Altered Buildings). The COAs for the new
buildings proposed as part of the rezoning are not applied for during the rezoning process.
However, the BAR will be a referral agent in this process and will give feedback to the
Applicant and Staff regarding the size, scale, location and massing of the buildings. Once
the rezoning is approved the Applicant may apply for the COAs for the buildings and the
BAR subject to TLZO Sec. 3.10.5 Review of Plans in a Timely Manner as mentioned
above.
4. Site Plan. The "formal" site plan process begins after all legislative approvals have been
granted. Below is our submittal review schedule for site plans:
• 60 days for first submission and 45 days for each subsequent submission including
signature sets.
• Currently, we typically run 45 -60 days on first submissions, 30 -45 days for second
submission, and 7 -30 days on signature sets depending upon the quality of the
submissions.
• When submitted plans are of a high quality and an applicant follows the Town's review
process, including applicant involvement with meetings before and after each
submission, site plans are generally approved in three submissions including signature
sets.
• The above timeframes do not account for time the applicant and their consultants have
the plans in their possession addressing comments.
Ms. Melissa Poole
December 12, 2012
Page 6 of 6
• Meeting with the Town between submissions and at key design decision making points,
will assist in a much quicker and predictable review and approval timeframe.
For projects of importance such as this one, the Town can consider an informal "sketch plan"
review process that can run concurrent with our legislative approval track. This review is an
informal review of the site plan (which can and should be a full set of construction drawings) in
advance of a formal Site Plan application, which can only be accepted after legislative
approvals are granted. The sketch plan process does not vest any rights and is informal, but it
may shorten the overall review time of an application by approximately four to six months,
depending upon when in the process the sketch plan is submitted as well as the quality of
submittals. For a project of this importance, the Town would consider this option.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide responses to your questions with the best
information available to us at this time. The Town of Leesburg is enthusiastic about the prospect of
working with the County on this project. But we would like to state unequivocally that we feel it is
important that a design architect and civil engineer be brought into the process as soon as possible. As
stated herein, the Town believes that the first step in any development process is to begin reviewing an
actual design of the facility, as well as beginning neighborhood and stakeholder meetings. We would
once again sincerely request that the Board of Supervisors issue the RFP for theses design
professionals so we can get started.
Again, the Town is committed to assisting the County in completing a successful Courthouse
expansion project in downtown Leesburg. We look forward to working closely with you as the County
moves forward with this project. Should you have any further questions, or if we can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
�
.4 ----
Jo Wells
Town Manager
cc: Leesburg Town Council
Scott Parker, TOL, Assistant Town Manager
Paul Brown, LC, Construction and Waste Management
Bob Chirles, LC, Construction and Waste Management
Attachments
1. Letter to town manager, November 28, 2012
2. Letter from Leesburg to FGSOC
Mr. John Wells
Town Manager
Town of Leesburg
25 West Market Street
Leesburg, VA 20176
November 28, 2012
Mr. Wells,
Loudoun County, Virginia
www.loudoun.gov
Department of Construction & Waste Management
211 Gibson Street, N.W., Suite 123, Leesburg, VA 20176
Telephone (703) 777 -0187 + Fax (703) 771 -5523
At their November 20, 2012 meeting, the Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee (FGSO Committee)
directed the Department of Construction and Waste Management staff to meet with the Town of Leesburg staff and
discuss the Town coordination items for the Courts Phase Ill project included as Attachment 2 to the FGSOC item
(attached, for reference). We look forward to these upcoming discussions with your staff.
In advance of the meeting, we offer the questions and issues below as a summary of the items included
1. Will the Town approve a rezoning application of the Pennington Parking Lot parcel to GC in order for
structured parking to be built on the parcel by- right?
2. Will the Town permit, at a minimum, the partial closure of Church Street during business hours?
& Will the Town participate in and consider cooperative solutions or cost - sharing as it relates to transportation -
related improvements including but not limited to new traffic signals, turn lanes, sidewalk improvements,
street lighting improvements and similar pedestrian and vehicular Improvements some of which mitigate
existing traffic issues not linked to the development of the Courts project?
4. What specific documentation and process will be required by the Town for the demolition of the four houses
on Edwards Ferry Road?
5. Will the Town accept waivers or other mitigation options for zoning - related requirements including but not
limited to building setbacks, building heights, buffer and site lighting requirements?
6. What approval timeline can be expected from the Town for a project of this complexity involving multiple
parcels and multiple applications? Can the Town provide recommendations as to the sequencing of the
various applications to provide the most efficient review and approval process for the project?
7. Are there other significant issues or concerns that the Town has associated with the project?
Following our discussions and no later than December 19, 2012, we ask that the Town provide a written response to
these items to Include in our report back to the FGSO Committee in January 2013.
We look forward to meeting with the Town staff at your earliest convenience to discuss the Courts Phase I It project and
these key development issues.
Ain , Po e
Design Manager
Cc: Scott Parker, Town of Leesburg
Paul Brown, Construction & Waste Management
Bob Chides, Construction & Waste Management
Date of Meeting: November 20, 2012
#5
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINANCE /GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Courts Complex Phase III Capital Project Review
ELECTION DISTRICT: Leesburg/Catoctin
CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 5, 2012
STAFF CONTACT(s): Paul Brown, Division Manager /DCWM
Melissa Poole, Design Manager/DCWM
RECOMMENDATION: STAFF: Staff recommends that the Finance /Government Services
and Operations Committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Courts Complex
Phase III project proceed as originally planned in the FY 2013 Adopted Capital Improvement
Program and direct staff to proceed with the solicitation of the professional
Architectural /Engineering services. This recommendation reaffirms the Church Street location
in Downtown Leesburg for the Courts Complex.
BACKGROUND: The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, during its FY 2013 budget
work sessions, directed County staff to prepare a Courts Complex Project Review item for the
Finance /Government Services and Operations Committee review.
At the June 11, 2012 Finance /Government Services and Operations Committee meeting, five (5)
options for the development of the Courts Complex Phase III project were presented based on
planning studies that reviewed space needs for the planning years of 2015, 2020 and 2025. The
options 'included siting new construction on the Church Street site in Downtown Leesburg as
well as consideration of a site at the Government Support Center.
The Finance /Government Services and Operations Committee then directed staff to seek key
stakeholder group feedback on the project, the site options under consideration and long -term
planning input. The key stakeholder groups included the Judiciary of all three Courts, the Clerk
of Circuit Court, the Commonwealth Attorney, the Sheriff, the Town of Leesburg and the Bar
Association. Input from the groups was provided at the October 22, 2012 Finance /Government
Services and Operations Committee meeting as was a sixth cost model to move all three Courts
to the Government Support Center site. Attachment 1 provides a cost summary of the options
under consideration.
Board of Supervisors
Finance /Government Services & Operations Committee
Action Itern #5: Courts Complex Phase 111
November 20, 2012
Page 2
ISSUES: The Adopted Capital Improvement Program includes funding to construct 85,000 GSF
as the Phase III project. Phase IV construction would increase the complex to 120,000 GSF, an
additional 35,000 GSF. It is the intent of the Department of Construction and Waste
Management to proceed with land use approvals for the eventual Phase IV construction
regardless of the selected site so that the approvals are in place for the Phase IV construction.
However, should the Finance /Government Services and Operations Committee and the Board of
Supervisors consider constructing the full 120,000 GSF with the 85,000 GSF Phase III and
shelling the 35,000 GSF Phase IV, the Capital Improvement Program would require amendment
in the FY 2014 budget process.
Regardless of location, the next step in the overall process is to solicit proposals for the
professional Architectural /Engineering services. Direction on the total square footage the Board
desires to build and /or shell will be necessary to solicit the proposals for the A/E services. Once
selected, that firm will begin the design phase with programming, traffic study and conceptual
design exercises before land development applications can be submitted.
Project Development Schedule
Design for the Church Street site is estimated to require 18 --- 24 months to complete due to the
nature of the land use processes with the Town of Leesburg. Design for the Government Support
Center site is estimated to require approximately the same time -frame due to the Special
Exception process for the Master Plan of the site.
Based on timelines for all options, construction and furnishings funding currently scheduled for
FY 2014 and FY 2015 will be shifted to FY 2015 and FY 2016. Upon direction from the Board
regarding the Phase III project, the impact on debt capacity will be reviewed with the FY 2014
CIP.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Adopted Capital Improvement Program includes funding to construct
an 85,000 GSF third phase totaling $53,675,000. $7.3 million was appropriated for Professional
Services (design) in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The FY 2014 Capital Improvement Program will be
amended to include updated budgets for the construction phase to address the twelve month
capital project review undertaken by the Finance /Government Services and Operations
Committee. The amendment will program. $48,025,000 in FY 2015 (new construction and
furnishings) and $7,875,000 (renovation of existing building) in FY 2016,
DRAFT' MOTION:
1. I move that the Finance /Government Services and Operations Committee recommend to
the Board of Supervisors that the Courts Complex Phase III project proceed as originally planned
in the FY 2013 Adopted Capital Improvement Program and direct staff to proceed with the
solicitation of the professional Architectural /Engineering services. I further move this reaffirms
the Church Street location in Downtown Leesburg for the Courts Complex.
Or
Board of Supervisors
Finance /Governmcm Services & Operations Committee
Action Item 45; Courts Complex Phase III
November 20, 2012
Page 3
2. 1 move an alternate motion.
Attachments:
1. Courts Phase III Development Options
2. Town of Leesburg Coordination Points
Item #5
Attachment #1
COURTS PHASE III OPTIONS — Undated October 2012
New
Estimated
Annual
Considerations
Construction
Project Cost
Lease
GSF
Savings or
Cost t
Option 1—
• All space vacated by
Church Street
departments moving into
Site w/ Surface
new construction will be
Parking at the
Pennington Lot
$203,754 2
backfilled by other
85,000
$54.3 M
departments needing
savings
expansion.
• $53,675,000 currently
programmed in FY 2013 --
FY 2018 CIP.
Option 2 —
e All space vacated by
Church Street
departments moving into
Site w/ Structured
new construction will be
Parking at the
Pennington Lot
85,000
$58.7 M
$203,754 z
backfi[led by other
savings
departments needing
expansion.
• $5,025,000 in additional
funding is required
Option 3 —
T� ^
_
• Lease of 30,000 SF;
Church Street
• Est. annual cost of $1.1 M
Site w/ Leased
(minus $203,754 savings
Space in
Courthouse
from current leases);
Square
50,000
$35.2 M
+/_$900,000
• All space vacated by
cost
departments moving into
new construction or lease
space will be backfilled by
other departments needing
expansion.
Option 4 — Gov't
• All departments currently
Support Center
housed in lease space would
Site w/ General
have to remain in lease
District Court
space.
• Edwards Ferry Road houses
$203,754
Would remain occupied;
85,000
$48.1 M
cost
occupying departments may
change.
• Commonwealth Attorney
requires space in existing
building and new
construction in order to
support all three Courts.
Item #5
Attachment #1
Notes:
' Annual lease savings or costs shown are based on current annual actual lease costs. General Services
escalates lease costs at 3% per year.
2 Based on preliminary space analysis, all departments currently housed in lease space could be
consolidated into the existing building or new construction. This will be confirmed during the design
phase final space programming
New
Construction
GSF
Estimated
Project Cost
Annual
Lease
Savings or
Cost
Considerations
Option 5 — Gov't
+ All departments currently
Support Center
housed in lease space could
Site w/ General
be housed within the
District and
existing complex.
J &DR Courts
• Commonwealth Attorney
requires space in existing
122,000
$70.5 M
$203,754 z
building and new
savings
construction in order to
support all three Courts.
• Long term options for
expansion exist to allow for
future Courts' space needs.
• $16,825,000 in additional
funding is required.
Option 6 — Gov't
• All three Courts and support
Support Center
functions could be housed
Site w/ All 3
within the new construction.
Courts
. All departments currently
housed in lease space could
244,000
$127.4 M
5203,754
be housed within the new
construction.
• Long term options for
expansion exist to allow for
future Courts' space needs.
• $73,725,000 in additional
funding is re uired.
Notes:
' Annual lease savings or costs shown are based on current annual actual lease costs. General Services
escalates lease costs at 3% per year.
2 Based on preliminary space analysis, all departments currently housed in lease space could be
consolidated into the existing building or new construction. This will be confirmed during the design
phase final space programming
Item #5
Attachment #2
Courts Phase III
FGSO Committee — November 20, 2012
Town of Leesburg Coordination
The Courts Phase III project on the Church Street site has many challenges.
• The project will require several Town of Leesburg approvals:
• A project larger than 60,000 GSF will require a Concept Development Plan and
Proffer Amendment;
• Board of Architectural Review will be required for new construction and for the
likely demolition of the four (4) existing houses that front Edwards Ferry Road
that are on the same Church Street parcel;
• A Rezoning Application (to GC Zoning) or a Special Exception (SPEX) will be
required for structured parking for the Courts on the existing Pennington Parking
Lot site; and
• Site Plan.
• Specific issues that will need discussion with the Town of Leesburg relative to the above
approvals include the following;
• Building set - backs;
• Building heights;
• Buffer requirements;
• Site lighting requirements;
• and other Planning or Zoning requirements such as lot coverage, open space, etc.
to be determined as the concept design is established.
• The Wisnewski Blair & Associates planning report assumes that the new construction on
the Church Street site can be physically connected with the existing building (via a
tunnel, bridge, closure of Church Street, etc. to be determined). This will require
discussion with the Town of Leesburg.
• Construction of up to 466 new parking spaces may be required. These are currently
planned for the Pennington Parking Lot site and DCWM recommends proceeding with
the construction of structured parking to house these spaces.
• Vehicular and pedestrian routes from parking to the buildings will need close attention
and coordination with the Town of Leesburg. This will include considerations of
sidewalk improvements, lighting improvements, etc.
• Transportation - related improvements may be required including traffic signals. This will
require close coordination with the Town of Leesburg and carefully consideration of the
traffic study as it relates to improvements required by the Town of Leesburg for the
development of this project only.
Ze:16� rl
Kristen C. Umstattd Council Mem..bers
Mayor David S. Butler Thomas S. Dunn, H
Katie Sh eldon Hammler Kelly Burk
irginia Kevin D. Wright Fernando "Marty" Martinez
Vice Mayor
25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20175 ' (703) 771- 2733/(703) 771 -2727 fax • council@leesburgva.gov - www.leesburgva.gov
October 9, 2012
Mr. Ralph Buona, Chairman
Finance, Government Services & Operations Committee
Loudoun County Government Center
1 Harrison Street SE
Leesburg, VA 20175
Re: Loudoun County Courts Expansion Project
Dear Chairman Buona:
This correspondence is being provided to the Finance, Government Services and Operations
Committee to provide input on behalf of the Town of Leesburg as it relates to the ongoing
discussion of the Courts Expansion project in Loudoun County. The Committee had requested
this information as part of its discussion of this issue at its meeting of June 11, 2012.
The Loudoun County Courthouse has been an integral part of the fabric of downtown Leesburg
since its inception. It has been a vital centerpiece of the Town, and we wish to see it continued as
such. It is our sincere desire to see any courts expansion occur in downtown Leesburg, and we
are committed to working with Loudoun County to ensure the courts' place in the Town.
The Town would also like to ask for a citizen participation process by which various
stakeholders could gather and provide their input into the Courts expansion discussion. In
addition, the Town's Economic Development Commission (EDC) has evaluated this issue as
well, and voted at its meeting of October 2, 2012 to recommend having the Loudoun County
Courts remain in downtown Leesburg, while encouraging public dialogue during the discussions.
We do appreciate this opportunity to provide this input to the discussion. We sincerely look
forward to working with you as this important and exciting project moves forward.
Very sincerely yours,
Kristen C. Umstattd, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
cc: Leesburg Town Council
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors
Leesburg Economic Development Commission
John Wells, Town Manager
Marantha Edwards, Director of Economic Development
Hometown of the 21" Century