HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022_tcwsmin0509 Council Work Session May 9, 2022
Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly
Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ara Bagdasarian, Zach Cummings, Suzanne Fox, Vice
Mayor Martinez, Neil Steinberg, and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: Kari Nacy.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Deputy Town Attorney Christine Newton, Director of Public Works and Capital Projects
Renee LaFollette, Deputy Director of Public Works and Capital Projects Leonard "Bud"
Siegel, Transportation Engineer Calvin Grow, Senior Planner Richard Klusek, and Clerk
of Council Eileen Boeing.
Minutes prepared by Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Traffic Study Areas
Ms. Renee LaFollette shared the three proposed areas for inclusion in the
traffic study:
• Study inside Catoctin Circle
• Study inside Battlefield Pkwy
• Study of the one-way pairs of Market and Loudoun, as part of the study
inside Catoctin Circle, independently, or not at all
Council and staff discussed the item.
It was the consensus of Council to revise the draft resolution to include inside
Catoctin Circle and inside Battlefield Parkway as the areas for the Traffic Study
proposals.
c. Bridge Maintenance
Mr. Bud Siegel reviewed a citizen's concerns about the Route 15 Bypass
bridge over South King Street. Mr. Siegel noted the bridge is maintained by the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT reported to the Town
that the most recent inspection of the bridge yielded a condition rating of 6 out of
9 and that funding for bridge repairs was restricted to bridges with a condition
rating of 4 or less. Mr. Siegel added that VDOT states the bridge is not a structure
in imminent danger of collapse nor does it qualify for significant maintenance
funds, but that VDOT would work to identify funding to fix some of the cosmetic
elements of the bridge.
Council and staff discussed the item.
1iPage
Council Work Session May 9, 2022
It was the consensus of Council to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board(CTB)and the Virginia Department of
Transportation(VDOT)requesting maintenance funds for the bridge.
b. Crescent Design District Master Plan
Mr. Richard Klusek provided Council with a brief overview of Strategy
1.1.6A of the recently adopted Legacy Leesburg Plan which in an update of the
Crescent Design District Master Plan. Mr. Klusek reviewed the history of the
District and Council's areas of focus to include in the update.
Council and staff discussed the item.
It was the consensus of Council to scope the costs to have staff or a consultant
complete work in the following five areas to update the Crescent Design District: Staff
Briefing Paper; Public Outreach; Stakeholder Outreach; Feasibility Analysis and
Fiscal Analysis.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Mayor Burk requested a future Work Session discussion to review the process of a
revenue sharing discussion with the County.
It wasthe consensus of Council to add this as a future Work Session discussion.
Mayor Burk requested a letter be sent to Chair Randall thanking the Board of
Supervisors for the joint meeting with Council and including the direction Council intends
to take regarding revenue sharing.
It was the consensus of Council to send the letter to the Chair of the Board of Supervisors.
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Council Member Bagdasarian, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Clerk of Council
2022_tcwsmin0509
2IPage
May 9, 2022—Leesburg Town Council Work Session
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It
may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy,we encourage you to review the video of the
meeting that is on the Town's Web site—www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Council
meeting minutes. Council meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per
Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.)
Mayor Kelly Burk: Let me call tonight's Town Council work session of May 9th, 2022 to order. Our first
topic for discussion tonight is the Traffic Study Areas.
Renee LaFollette: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Town Council. Tonight we're here to
further discuss the traffic areas and where we're looking at potentially doing the comprehensive traffic
study as you requested during the budget discussion. Tonight we'll talk a little bit about the brief history of
how we got to where we are, some proposed phasing of the traffic studies, what the staffs
recommendation is, and the deliverables we would be looking for. Then have a discussion with you to
determine which direction you want us to go with these studies.
A little of the history on how we got this far. We're going to primarily be looking at the core historic district.
The first one that came up was North Street, King Street towards Church Street when the courthouse
expansion was proposed and there was concern about how traffic would navigate that small narrow street
with the increased traffic. Council had mentioned the possibility of making that street one way. The next
one came up was Royal Street's improvements project from Wirt Street to Church Street.
As we were developing that project, trying to fit 10 pounds in a 5-pound sack with parking 2-way traffic
and the pedestrian connectivity, there was some thought about potentially making Wirt Street one way
from south towards Loudoun Royal Street, between King and Wirt. Then Liberty Street came into that
discussion from Loudoun towards Liberty Street Lot. The next piece came in with The Great Beginnings
Daycare. They requested the Town make Wirt Street one way between Loudoun and Market Street.
We had three different proposals, three different sections that were being looked at, and staff didn't
believe that we should be doing this in a piecemeal manner. Because of how tight the grid is, we need to
understand how making those one-way streets is going to impact everything else within the historic
district. What we proposed is the first area that we look at would be inside the Catoctin Circle loop, which
is what's shown in red here. That gives us the area that is the core historic district, where we have some
congestion during AM and PM peak.
It would also bring in some of the larger developments that have been approved, Virginia Village, the
Courthouse, Church and Market, Brickyard. We would be able to utilize those traffic studies as
background traffic information. We do current day counts, incorporate those traffic studies into some of
the background information, see where, and if there are any misconceptions from those initial TIAs. Our
estimated cost for that component is somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000. We reached out to five
different consultants, and this is the range that we got for that. Those are the numbers we have for that
one.
The second one would be going out to Battlefield Parkway, and this map is slightly incorrect. We should
be coming down Catoctin Circle. We're missing Catoctin Circle here, but coming around Catoctin Circle
and in, so it would add that extra area outside. That would bring in Leegate, Meadowbrook, Crescent
Park, and White Oak. We would primarily focus on the main entry points into Town, Edwards Ferry, Fort
Evans, Market Street, South King Street, Sycolin Road. In this area, our primary area of congestion is the
East Market Street between the bypass and Plaza Street. That section right now is currently being looked
at by the VDOT Stars Program. VDOT is paying for that study. This one is one for discussion on whether
Page 1 May 9, 2022
we want to do this or not. The cost for this component would be an add of 30,000 to 230,000 to go into
that additional area.
The third topic was the potential of one-way pairs of Market and Loudoun Street that a few of the Council
Members have mentioned. There are a couple of ways that this one could be done. It could be done as a
standalone study, and the estimated cost is 36,000 to 250,000 just for that study. Or we let the study
inside Catoctin Circle, where we ask them to look at the one-way streets, see if this comes out as a
potential for additional study to make this a one-way pair, and we have that discussion at that time
because we don't know if this is really a great idea or not, but if we look at the core area inside Catoctin
Circle, they would be able to tell us whether this makes any sense to study further or not.
To wrap up, the traffic model, otherwise known as a travel demand model is funded separately from the
study based on what you approved with the fiscal 23 budget, and that was approved at 125,000. Our
timing based on what direction we get from the Council, we would immediately go into the request for
proposal stage that can take six to nine months, depending on how much response we get, review,
interviews, negotiations. Once we have the engineer on board, we're anticipating that the study would
take 12 to 18 months. We've shown three options for potential study areas, and we'd like to determine
what Council's preference is on that
Does the Council want to move forward with the study inside Catoctin Circle and/or study out to Battlefield
Parkway and/or the one-way pairs of the Market and Loudoun Street? I do not believe that all three will fit
within the $250,000 budget that was established with the 23 approved budget. We recommend that we
look primarily at that area inside the Catoctin Circle loop. That's where we have the tighter grid of streets.
That's where we have more congestion, more special events, all things that we need to be dealing with
over time. The other one is what would the Council like to study the one-way pairs at this time or wait until
later.
What the Town would look for in deliverables is that the engineer study all of those intersections and
those that area inside Catoctin Circle, let us know what our current issues are. Let us know what their
anticipated future year's issues are and give us a listing of potential projects that we can do in-house up
to the larger projects that may require some capital contribution with it being added to the CIP. With that,
let's discuss what direction we want to go.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on this? Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Fernando"Marty" Martinez:Well, the only comment I have is you just ended with us
wanting us to tell you what we think about the future. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that I don't have that vision.
We're depending on you, the experts, to tell us what we should be expecting.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Neil Steinberg: Yes, thanks for the presentation. Let me ask, we had a study done by
RK&K and they brought forth a recommendation that we do a comprehensive study, and that was in
2019. What is it we're avoiding or why are we avoiding fulfilling their recommendation since we paid them
for their recommendation?
Renee LaFollette:When they made the recommendation for the comprehensive traffic study and we
asked them what they thought those dollars would be and they gave us a number between 150 to 200
plus thousand dollars, we have asked for the dollars for this study, and it has not been approved in prior
fiscal year budgets.
Council Member Steinberg: Interesting. Well, this is obviously something we've been fighting for. I
remember offering this idea and obviously, it wasn't a new one and that was also in 2019, the first year I
sat on Council, and I don't think anybody would advocate for a street-by-street one-way designation. That
would make no sense. Obviously, if we were to look at a one-way pair of Loudoun and Market Street, that
Page 2IMay 9, 2022
would almost certainly involve a couple of other streets in terms of one way. That has to be a more
holistic study which brings me to the question of the estimates for the costs which are varying wildly from
a low to a high end. Why is it we can't better pin down the cost of the studies?
Renee LaFollette: Until we know the specific direction we want to go, it's hard to draft a very formal
scope to give to the engineers for estimating purposes. When we talked to the various engineers about
this, we told them we were looking at doing a comprehensive study inside the Catoctin Circle loop,
utilizing existing counts, approved traffic impact analyses, but we didn't give them a specific number of
intersections that they would be looking at. Each engineer would look at that scope and say, "Well, I'm
going to just focus on the core historic district and might not come out a little bit further."
The lower number is a smaller number of intersections that they would look at. The higher number is the
more intense number of intersections that we would be looking at. To pin the complete number down, we
would have to draft a complete and full scope. Not knowing exactly what you were looking for, it was hard
to do that.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. I'm going to concur to a great extent with Vice Mayor Martinez's
comment. We've been offered that first of all, a traffic model, developing or redeveloping a traffic model.
This is a good idea or not, I'm asking?
Renee LaFollette: The travel demand model, yes. That is something completely different than the study.
Council Member Steinberg: I understand that. We could do the traffic model and not do a traffic study, I
presume.
Renee LaFollette: Yes.
Council Member Steinberg: All right. I guess since yes, we look to you for expert advice, the obvious
question is, what level of study gets us the information that's going to do us the most good. If spending,
for example, in the Catoctin Circle, the estimate is anywhere from $60,000 to $150,000 so what do we get
for 60,000 versus 150,000, and at the lower end, is the information worth having or not? Do we even want
to consider the lower ends if it may not get us where we want to go?
Renee LaFollette: I don't think we want to consider the lower end, because that is really focusing on just
the central part of downtown. North to Royal and Harrison to Liberty. We need to go out further than that
to get that information which is why we're talking inside the Catoctin Circle loop, but we would go out
further with the intersections. On Market Street, for example, we would go all the way out to Catoctin
Circle and most likely to Memorial Drive. We wouldn't have to go all the way to the far side of Catoctin
Circle. We know we don't have any travel issues and congestion issues that far to the west. Then north to
south, you would go from Union Street down to Catoctin Circle, because you've got that core north-south
route. You would look at that large of an area.
Council Member Steinberg: Understood. Already you're offering a professional opinion as to the extent
or scope of some of these studies and we are not necessarily conversant and able to do that. I guess the
ask really is, A, does staff not see any value in trying to gather this information? I find that hard to believe
since we have to assume that in having it, it helps us plan better. Then B, if we assume, the information is
valuable, then what does the scope and scale of these studies need to be?
Renee LaFollette: What I just explained inside Catoctin Circle, I think that's the scope that we need to be
looking at, and that is not going to be at the high end of that estimate. I don't believe it.
Council Member Steinberg: Fair enough. If we then said, "Okay, so we've got three areas. The Catoctin
Circle, outside the Catoctin Circle, and the potential one-way pairs."Then if we said, "Okay, give us the
level of study you feel gives us the best bang for the buck, so to speak, and the quality information that
we require in order to then plan or understand what's happening as we try to plan these areas regarding
Page 3IMay 9, 2022
the traffic." Is that not what we should be looking for? Lacking again, the level of expertise that's required
here?
Renee LaFollette: No, I think the core area of downtown is what we need to be looking at, that inside the
Catoctin Circle loop with the limits that I just went through. Market to the Memorial, Union to Catoctin.
That area is the primary area that I think we need to focus on. Once we get that information and see if
any of those streets make sense to be one way, what kind of impact that generates to any of the
intersections, looking at all of the traffic impact analysis for those larger developments in that area that
are affecting downtown and get that, what are our current issues that they see from that?What future
issues do they see?
Are there any projects or recommendations that they have that we can do simply in-house up to potential
capital construction? From the staffs point of view, that should be our primary focus. The one-way pairs is
something that we have heard the Council talk about but is it a commitment that the Council has if the
study comes back and says, "Yes, one-way pairs look like it's a really good idea. Do we want to go down
that path?" Because that's going to be a very difficult path to go down with all of the businesses and
everything that's involved with that.
That is a recommendation that I can't make standing here right now until we have some of that
information, which if you're asking me specifically what I think, do that study inside the Catoctin Circle
loop, see if they have, or make a recommendation regarding the one-way pairs. If that looks like
something that we should further study based on their information, then we bring that back to see if you
truly want to go down that path, given whatever they say may be the consequences in affecting
businesses and affecting traffic and affecting pedestrians.
Council Member Steinberg:Well, that's certainly a very rational explanation. I recognize, there's a slight
political spin there. I don't think we're looking for the easiest path necessarily as opposed to the best path.
The best direction staff could give us then in making that choice, I think serves us better. Yes, coming
back to you, then I would say, give us the outline of the direction that you think puts us on the best road,
no pun intended, to start getting the information that we need as we also then develop this traffic model,
which apparently, that's also important. Okay. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian.
Council Member Ara Bagdasarian: Yes, thank you very much. Just a few questions. I guess I'm still a
little dense on the deliverables or the differences between the traffic model. I understand that that gauges
how much traffic can be sustained in the area versus the study. Due to the deliverables or the outcomes
of the studies, would that differ then the outcome of the actual model?Which seems like it's a practical
tool.
Renee LaFollette: The travel demand model would be a tool that would be used moving forward. It's
more of that 5,000 to 10,000-foot look at traffic. You're looking at lengths and segments of road versus
actual intersections, and how intersections function. Your study is going to look specifically at
intersections and how they function, where you have queues that are too long. The model is going to look
at individual sections up to 1,000 feet and how those work as a whole network, and how that ties into the
regional models. Those get run to validate and help validate the traffic impact analyses that the
developers submit. They're two different elements, yet they tie together.
Council Member Bagdasarian: They tie together, they don't necessarily overlap. They're not redundant?
Renee LaFollette: They're not redundant. They're two totally different animals.
Council Member Bagdasarian: One thing I think that we should consider because we also have the
Crescent District Master Plan on the agenda today, would it make sense to incorporate the Crescent
Page 4IMay 9, 2022
District as the area of study, because that will help determine which direction we go with regarding any
sort of modifications changes to the level of traffic and impact though that makes?Tying together.
Keith Markel: That's essentially what's captured in the Catoctin Circle loop. That's going to grab all of the
Crescent Design District, the staffs primary recommendation.
Council Member Bagdasarian: I think that's important.
Renee LaFollette: I had to think about where the Crescent Design District stopped, but yes, it does
capture that in this.
Council Member Bagdasarian: All right, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Suzanne Fox: Thanks. A couple of questions. When you were talking about inside the
Catoctin Circle, and I had my head inside the bypass. You said something to Memorial, you said Market
to Memorial, but I don't know exactly where you're starting. The reason I talked about that is, I would like
to include Fort Myers and Fort Evans in there too.
Renee LaFollette: The reason I didn't include that is because the congestion breaks at Plaza Street and
doesn't come from Plaza Street into Catoctin. You hit it again once you get inside that Catoctin Circle
range. The study that's going on with VDOT right now, the STARS study is looking specifically at the area
that was of concern between Plaza Street and the bypass and making recommendations on that section.
Council Member Fox: That's already happening?
Renee LaFollette: That's already happening, and they've done two public input sessions there in the
process of starting to finalize that to get a draft report in.
Council Member Fox: Okay. That makes me feel a little bit better. I have to agree with looking at more
the arterial rather than ancillary streets because whatever we do with the main roads is going to affect the
other streets somehow. I don't think I would advocate for doing anything for outer streets, one way is
anything like that, until we know what's feasible for the arterial streets, in my opinion. I don't see a study
for that, I see a study for the inside Catoctin Circle, I see a study for just one way on Market and Loudoun,
but I don't see maybe a criss-cross study for the arterial streets.
That's what I would advocate for, but if I had to choose, I suppose inside Catoctin would work. I really,
really feel strongly about figuring out whether or not, first and foremost, Loudoun and Market would work
the one way. I'd like to see what effect that would have on everything else because I think it would have
an effect on everything else, but what effect would it have? I feel like we can't really study anything else
until we know if the effect will be for bad or good. That's where I'm at. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings.
Council Member Zach Cummings: Thank you. Was the RK&K case study that you referenced, the last
traffic study the Town did?
Renee LaFollette: It's not the last study that Town staff has done. It's the last study that impacted the
downtown area. Initially, we were looking at our, we were doing our 30% concept design drawings for the
Royal Street improvement project.When we recognized the fact that we couldn't get parking two-way
traffic and sidewalks to meet our requirements, and then the fire marshals' requirements, we started
talking through, would it be possible to do one way on any of these streets?We asked the design
engineer to look at that. Once we started looking at that, we're like, "We can't do it in a vacuum and just
look at that one small area."
Page 5IMay 9, 2022
Because when they started looking at it, they were finding impacts further down King Street, further
across Royal Street, further up Wirt Street. It became a much bigger issue, which is part of the reason
that we recommended going forward with some type of comprehensive traffic study for the downtown.
Council Member Cummings: That was my main concern with the options are that traffic doesn't stay in
one zone, doesn't stay on one street. It obviously goes everywhere. I understand budgetary, we have to
look at how we can get something and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's my big concern
is just that we spend 250 to study even 2 of the 3, and we lose other areas. There's that cause and effect
of the traffic there. On the studies that we're looking at, are we looking at just studying congestion and
use or are we also looking at safety?
Renee LaFollette: Started out as congestion and use, but the congestion and use drives safety. As a
byproduct, you are looking at safety because you're looking at the function of the intersections. How do
they function for turn movement, site distance, pedestrians? It all ends up factoring into the study.
Council Member Cummings: Perfect. I haven't read a study. I've obviously read the briefings of studies,
but not the study itself. Does it provide potential solutions? Is that what the in-house smaller projects
would be that would be solutions for potential problems?
Renee LaFollette: That's what we would scope this to be. Is that they let us know what they see as our
current issues. We can look at that and see if we agree with that. That's what we're actually seeing in the
field. What do they see our potential issues 20 years out, then give us recommendations on how we can
begin to fix it? Is it different signage? Is it yellow striping around the traffic signals? Is it different marking
for crosswalks? Is it turn lanes where we can add turn lanes?What range of improvements can we do?
The smaller ones that we can do in-house up to bigger capital.
Council Member Cummings: Obviously, it's a traffic study, it's automobile-focused, but do they look at
pedestrian traffic?
Renee LaFollette:We can request that they do so.
Council Member Cummings: I think that's all the questions I have. Just generally, I think we have to
study the Catoctin Circle, inside the Catoctin Circle, so map one, but I also think it would make sense and
if we can do it fiscally, I think it makes sense to look at outside that Catoctin Circle District, Catoctin Circle
as well, so map two. Map three, I think that's an interesting idea. I wouldn't disagree that politically, maybe
we don't need to study that at this point. I would love to see more, but I understand we have 250,000 in
the budget for fiscal year'23. We have to try to, so we have to work within that budget line. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: A couple of more questions I have. The first one is about the Planning Commission
recommendation. In reading this, they were asking for analysis of traffic study. Applicant studies must be
at least 50% through. They were looking at the studies that the developers have done and that after the
development is 50%finished, then we would look at their studies and see were they accurate?
Renee LaFollette: Do a study to verify that their study was accurate. Staff did not agree with that
recommendation. That staff group was myself, Calvin, Susan Berry-Hill, Bill Ackman.
Mayor Burk: Why?
Renee LaFollette: The reason was, of all the traffic studies that have been done in Town, when you look
at the background traffic that is utilized in making those studies, those are based on VDOT numbers that
are done every year through Town. The numbers typically end up being year over year, about 1.2% to 2%
growth. She's looking for a 5% difference and historically, we have not seen anything beyond what the
VDOT studies have shown of standard traffic growth that is utilized in their background traffic counts for
their studies.
Page 6IMay 9, 2022
Mayor Burk: You do study the studies?
Renee LaFollette: No, we don't study, it's based on counts that VDOT does every year. Those are
compared year to year to see what that background growth is. That's what each developer when they
come in with a traffic impact analysis study, they're required to include that background traffic growth in
their study. For example, Crescent Place, they're approved, they're built out. Their traffic that they
generated, is captured in the counts that were done by VDOT. That background information of those trips
was captured in Virginia Village's background traffic based on those VDOT numbers. Each developer
does a study of a study because they're picking up that background traffic.
Mayor Burk: You're pretty confident that there is not a big differential between what the study indicates,
the developer study indicates, and what the reality is?
Renee LaFollette: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Interesting. Okay. Map one, I would say most certainly is an area that we definitely need to
look at with the Crescent District design stuff that we're going to be talking about here soon. This is the
next big growth area. Most certainly, I could see that being very significantly important to make sure that
we are looking at that area. As Council Member Cummings said, ideally, we'd look at the whole Town all
at once at the same time because it is awkward that you're going to be looking at one section and there's
implications outside that section. We know that this is a big area that's coming up next.
The idea of the one-way pairs causes me a great deal of concern because we've just come out of or
hopefully we're coming out of COVID, where businesses have really struggled. Now we're telling them
that we're going to look at a study that could have major implications on their business. That to me would
cause me pause. I don't think they need that right now. I think that would be very detrimental to their
recovery. I would be very hesitant to support doing the map, the third map on the one-way pairs and
outside the Catoctin Circle, that perhaps sometime in the future, but I think inside that Catoctin Circle is
where we need to be focusing on right now.
That being the case, I need to know are there-- I'm going to go through each one of the maps and ask for
are there four people that want to support that particular map, if that's satisfactory to everybody. The map
one, the inside the Catoctin Circle, which is what you're recommending that we look at, are there four
people that want to see that particular area of study.
Council Member Fox: I have a quick question on that one.
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Council Member Fox: Can we vote for more than one?
Mayor Burk: Okay, yes. Map one, everybody, Mr. Martinez, everybody's on that one. Okay. The map
two, which is outside the Catoctin Circle, do we have four people that want to see that area studied at this
point? Okay. You do. Okay. Map two is also an area that they want studied. Map three, which is the two-
way traffic. Okay, not that one. All right. The map one and two?
Renee LaFollette: Then what we will do is we'll put the resolution together with those two. When we
create the request for proposals, we'll have those two areas in it. We will have our selected engineer,
price both and we'll do what we can afford.
Mayor Burk: Okay. You may come back and you may say that we can't do both of them at this time, we'll
have to do--or unless you want to give us more money.
Page 7IMay 9, 2022
Council Member Cummings: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt. Is it possible to, as you're looking for
the RFPs, if there are enough head nods to make sure we're including pedestrian and bike traffic as part
of the--
Mayor Burk: Yes, she said that.
Council Member Cummings: Okay. I just want to make sure.
Mayor Burk: We'll make sure we include that in the scope. Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: I realized I was the only one in favor. My feeling is that doing the study just
gives us information that may prove valuable if not immediately, at some point down the road, and it helps
us in our general planning. That's why I would be in favor of it, at least looking at the potential for the one-
way pairs and see what happens.
Mayor Burk: Didn't have enough votes. All right, so you know what you're doing. Thank you. Our next
item. Mr. Klusek, has asked for 20 minutes.
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor, may I ask? If you take the items out of order tonight, since Renee and Calvin
are here, we can talk about the bridge maintenance, and they can be released from the evening, and then
the rest of the evening be focused on Crescent Design District. Because that'll take up a lot of time.
Would you be indulgent to that?
Mayor Burk: I suppose.
Kaj Dentler: Yes, thanks.
Bud Siegel: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bud Siegel. I serve as Deputy Director of Public Works
and Capital Projects here in Town. I'm here tonight to brief you about Route 15 Bypass bridge over South
King Street. Just a few overview remarks. The bridge itself is operated and maintained by the Virginia
Department of Transportation. There was an issue with the western expansion joint that was actually
ongoing for a number of years. VDOT actually fixed that back in October of 2020. This briefing is actually
prompted by recent citizen's concerns related to the condition of the bridge. We're here tonight to make a
staff recommendation, if you will, on how to proceed.
Just a few things. I think I've first learned about this from an email that I received from the Town
Manager's office on Friday morning. The citizen raised concerns about the bridge on Route 15 flying over
South King Street. She was kind enough to provide arrows and several photographs, which I'm going to
show to you here this evening. The red arrow that she provides indicates that as we look south on King
Street, the bridge is fine over the 15 Bypass is flying over. She is expressing concerns about the condition
of the Western bridge pier as indicated by the arrow.
Just a little closer look at that, there's several instances which she's been kind enough to provide arrows
indicating the delamination or a spalling of that bridge concrete. You can see where it's broken away from
the finished surface and is gotten into the reinforcing steel below. As a different look at that, same
conditions, but just a different perspective. You can see that the bridge concrete is delaminated and is •
showing the bridge steel. Then finally, look at the bridge pier looking roughly to the north, maybe north
and northwest, showing steel that has been exposed.
I just like to, as prompted by the email, I think I mentioned earlier that there was a bridge expansion joint,
the western expansion joint which needed to be repaired. As some of the Council Members may recall, it
gave a very loud metallic clang, it was a little disarming as folks drove over. That was repaired in October
of 2020. The bridge was actually inspected by the Virginia Department of Transportation on June 14th,
2021, and then May 6th, this past Friday, I think I mentioned or received an email from the Town Manager
to DPW staff, expressing the concerns wanting to pass on the concerns from the citizen.
Page 81May 9, 2022
As prompted by that email, we reached out to Virginia Department of Transportation's Northern Virginia
District Bridge Engineer, a gentleman named Gary Runco. Mr. Runco actually responded to my email in
about an hour and a half, indicating that he would get back to us before the close of business Friday,
which same he did. I want to go back and just mention some of the things that Mr. Runco mentioned. This
particular situation, you can see on the top of the pier, there's a portion of the concrete that has spalled
off, exposing the steel. Again, the bridge was inspected in June 2021.
The inspection report disclosed that this particular delamination of concrete was relatively insignificant.
Although it doesn't look good, it does not significantly impact the load-bearing capacity, the structural
capacity of this pier cap. Similarly, this particular steel that's exposed, although it's not attractive at all,
that is ancillary steel. It is not central to the compressive strength of the column or the resistance to
buckling of the column, but it's steel that was placed in the column to essentially hold that main steel in
place while the concrete was poured again. The inspection report indicated it was not a significant
detriment to the structural capacity of the pier column, but he did acknowledge that it was unattractive.
Mr. Runco as part of our communication, he did get back to me before close of business and he indicated
that the bridge has a general condition rating of 6 for the bridge deck, 6 for the superstructure, and 6 for
the substructure and I'm going to put that in a little bit of context. I know those numbers don't mean
anything to you now.
Council Member Fox: [inaudible].
Bud Siegel: I do understand and I'll save that biblical reference for later, ma'am. I do want to indicate that
the National Bridge Inspection Society does have a standardized condition rating. It's an ascending
numeric scale of condition rating with 0 being a fail condition where no remediation, no fix is warranted,
but a full replacement of that element, and all the way up to 9, which indicates an excellent condition. I
won't go through each and every one of those, but the blue arrows on the slide are important. The top
blue arrow indicates a condition rating of 6 or 6, 6, 6, which is the current condition of the bridge.
Then I will note the blue arrow below it for condition rating number 4 warrants funding. I try to be terse in
my language, but I'll explain a little bit more what by warrants funding. VDOT structures funding. A couple
of salient points is the programming of bridge maintenance funding is predicated on that bridge condition
rating. The Code of Virginia which is commonly known as state of good repair limits the funding for
bridges to bridges with a general condition rating of 4. Going back to our slide our bridge is rated 6 in
condition rating, and the warrant of funding is 4.
Oh, excuse me. Just a few things I'd like to note. I worked for VDOT for a number of years. They have a
very significant portion or portfolio of bridges in Northern Virginia. It's worth noting, they've got 2,300
bridges and culverts. They have an additional I believe 13,000 ancillary structures, light poles, light
standards, camera poles, traffic signal poles and mast arms that they're responsible for maintaining along
with 100 miles of sound walls in Northern Virginia District. More than 300 of their bridges have a condition
rating of 5. In other words, about 13% of their overall portfolio is rated worse than the bridge that we're
concerned about.
I'm going to summarize Mr. Runco's statements. I think it's important to know he does understand I guess
the citizen's concerns, and he's a very good public servant. I've known him for a number of years and I
just want to read his conclusion of the email he sent me at five o'clock on Friday. "We appreciate the
citizen's concerns. We're grateful that citizens do report things they see and are concerned about. In this
instance, the bridge is not failing or in a pending state of collapse. The citizen not being a structural
engineer, as she admitted, incidentally, has assumed incorrectly that spalling concrete is an immediate
concern. This is not the case. We will remove the concrete that is an insipid spall to eliminate the falling
concrete danger adjacent to the sidewalk."
Mr. Runco recognizes, again, it's not a structure that is an imminent danger of collapse nor does it really
qualify for significant maintenance funds, but they'll scrape up some money to fix the cosmetic elements
of the bridge. I think I mentioned early on in my presentation that we make a very brief staff
Page 91May 9, 2022
recommendation. Infrastructure and the condition or aging infrastructure, it's a national issue, I think we
hear about it almost every day on the news. We deal with it in a local Town-wide manner and in regional
manner with our Northern Virginia partners and Statewide with our State partners.
I'll just read the recommendation that staff is making as a possible recommendation from Council. In light
of the regional challenges imposed by our aging infrastructure, Town Council consider making a request
to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the allocation of additional funding for the bridge and for
culvert maintenance and repairs. With that being said, Madam Mayor, I conclude my presentation. I
respectfully turn the microphone back to you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much. Are there any questions at this point on this item? I do appreciate the
fact that you went to all this effort to make VDOT aware of this and that VDOT is willing to respond.
Bud Siegel: Yes, ma'am.
Mayor Burk: That's really a very good sign. In that bridge, it does drive people nuts. It looks bad and it
sounded bad when that metal stuff was going on. It is something people walk under it frequently, so I do
hear about it on more than one occasion. Anybody have any questions?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Just quick. I'm assuming that in the recommendation, it's not just
funding, but it's actually doing the actual maintenance work, correct?
Bud Siegel: Yes.
Council Member Bagdasarian: [unintelligible] they can't do that. Thanks.
Bud Siegel: It's not our bridge, sir.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Right. Exactly.
Bud Siegel: Yes, sir.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.With this recommendation, is that something we have to all agree on
tonight in order to move this forward?
Mayor Burk: Yes, I'll see if there's four people interested in pursuing this.
Council Member Fox: Okay.
Mayor Burk: Anything else?All right. Are there four people that would be interested in having the Town
Council make a recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the allocation of
additional funding for the bridge and culvert maintenance and repair? Everybody. Okay.
Kaj Dentler: We'll move it to consent for tomorrow night. It's already on your agenda.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Bud Siegel: Thank you so much.
Mayor Burk: All right. You guys can go home. All right. I started to say previously that Mr. Klusek has
asked for 20 minutes. Does anybody have any issue with giving him additional 10 minutes?
Page 101May 9, 2022
Vice Mayor Martinez: I would like to know how much different this is from the previous presentations and
why does he need 20 minutes.
Rich Klusek: The goal of the presentation this evening is to bring everybody up to speed on essentially
everything that has happened since 2006. There has been a lot of questions about the Crescent District.
Part of the presentation is intended to answer some of those questions and essentially point out why
some of our-- Excuse me. The intent is to demonstrate why certain things in the zoning and Master Plan
are the way they are. If Council prefers not to have that extended presentation and to go into a much
more brief five-minute version, I'm happy to do that as well.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I'm just wondering, we've heard several presentations on the Crescent District,
and just how different this is from the past. I'm willing to go along with whatever Council wants.
Rich Klusek: I am happy to provide a more brief presentation as well.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there four people that want to have the 20 minutes?Yes, sir? Oh, you are okay?
Okay.
Council Member Bagdasarian: [inaudible]
Mayor Burk: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Council Member Bagdasarian: I'm fine with the shorter.
Mayor Burk: Oh, the shorter version?Are there four--
Council Member Fox: [inaudible]
Mayor Burk: [laughs]You're mumbling to yourself over there. I don't know.
Rich Klusek: If you would be okay with it, given what I'm hearing, how be it if I try and give you a quick
one-minute conversation first, and perhaps I would use some of the information I have to answer
questions that Council may have.
Mayor Burk: You're going do a one-minute presentation?
Rich Klusek: Yes.
Mayor Burk: I don't think we want a one-minute presentation. Really. I mean, if we put all this information
together, it's not going to hurt us to listen to it if you go through--
Rich Klusek: Okay. I will be selective and try and provide you with the information that I feel is new. Does
that work?
Mayor Burk: Okay. That's good.
Rich Klusek: Okay. You've all seen this before. You know how the Crescent District Master Plan fits
within Legacy Leesburg. At the time we were preparing Legacy Leesburg, Council noted that you had
several concerns. Those concerns are now provided on pages 86 and 87 of Legacy Leesburg. In
addition, a strategy was added. Strategy 1.1.6A, which is essentially an intent to update the Crescent
District Master Plan. You all should generally be familiar with the Crescent District, so I will not go into
extensive detail on that.
Only to let you know that the Crescent District was put together at a time when there was a lot of interest
in development, in developing the area surrounding Town, both to expand the business footprint and also
Page 11 IMay 9, 2022
to promote a pedestrian environment. I won't go into the vision. Briefly talk about some of the Master Plan
elements. These are some quotes directly from the document, and I'm highlighting these because, again,
to your point, Council Member Martinez, this relates to some of the questions that Council Members
asked at the time of Legacy Leesburg, and also during Virginia Village.
Extend the fine grain pattern of the downtown area while creating a setting for a mixture of uses, including
a host of housing types. Create an opportunity for redevelopment consistent with the downtown area, that
will also incorporate greater density into a collection of uses, coupled with high-quality pedestrian spaces.
Adding open spaces to encourage outdoor events along Town Branch and additional mixed-use
developments.
I hit on a buzzword there, which was density. This is something that has been a major concern of Council,
using this slide essentially to illustrate the fact that there are many kinds of density. You see 1 dwelling
unit per acre, 6 dwelling units, 18 dwelling units per acre, but the point that I wanted to make is that it's
not just the way it looks on this picture. There's a lot more to density than that. Even thinking about
Virginia Village, which was recently approved, you've probably heard a lot of numbers thrown around as
to what the density of Virginia Village was.
If you look at just the area of the taller buildings, it was about 50 dwelling units per acre. If you look at the
entire project site, it was about 30, if you include the open spaces. Things like that come into play as well.
The Crescent District Master Plan currently looks at several things, including the street network. It
provides a land-use plan, it provides a map showing building heights, and it provides street topologies,
essentially illustrating what different streets within the Crescent District are supposed to look like.
There are several guiding principles, and these I feel are pretty important because they address some of
the questions of Council pretty directly. Number one is that the plan is to be implemented by the private
sector. Number two, public and private infrastructure will be coordinated. Number three, public usage
should be on public land. In other words, a civic center or something of that sort should be on public land
and not something that is on private land. The plan is to be incremental and should reinforce and extend
the character of the downtown. When we talk about extending the character of the downtown, you have
the downtown area shown on this slide.
Obviously, something much more suburban. We're looking at Catoctin Circle and other parts of Town.
The idea was to have a character like this more generally extend to the Crescent District. When we talk
about incremental change, the idea there is that you could have development like you see at 338 East
Market Street, or something that is much more significant. The plan never envisioned that the entire
Crescent District would be occupied by Virginia Village type development. We talked about some of the
Council discussion topics. They're included as an attachment in your memo.
As I mentioned before, the one that was common amongst all the Council Members was density.
Traditionally, when we talk about density, it's the number of housing units per acre, or if we're looking at a
mixed-use environment or something commercial, it's the ratio of building area to land area. However,
and I could be wrong, but when I heard some of the Council comments, as well as some of the public
comments, density might at times be confused with mass. If you look at the two images here, which you
all have seen this before, this is from that Charleston proposal that was circulated around, these both
have the same density.
They are both essentially 109 or 108 bedrooms per acre, but they look very different. The big distinction
here is that the image on the left provides parking, the image on the right does not have parking. When
we're talking about density, perhaps the conversation needs to move more in the direction of the way
buildings look and their appearance. That's speculation on my part, but it might not be the number of
dwelling units per acre. In addition, density relates to a lot of other topics. For example, housing
affordability was something that came up pretty extensively during Council's discussions.
When you look at something like Virginia Village, there are, I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of
500 dwelling units. Many of those will be one-bedroom units, which inherently are somewhat more
Page 12JMay 9, 2022
affordable to, for example, somebody graduating college, getting their first job. It's a small component of
housing affordability, but that density allows it. Again,just one thing to consider as we're having this larger
conversation. Then public investment opportunities. This is something Council Member Steinberg that
you and I had a bit of dialogue on during one of the Legacy Leesburg meetings.
There are many opportunities for public investment. Couple of examples of those are a parking structure,
implementing the streetscape that is called for in the Crescent District Master Plan, various infrastructure
investments, community facilities, new parks. The Town has the opportunity to invest, or perhaps you
want to use the word to partner with the development community. As it currently stands, the Crescent
District Master Plan does not envision that at all, and that was through some of the deliberate actions of
Council and the Planning Commission at that time. I will not go into much of the background information
here, only to focus on the fact that--Well, I'll start over here.
Questions to consider. These are the things that I believe Council needs to be thinking about going
forward. What should new development look like? How can new development achieve other goals?What
is the desired timeframe for that new development?That comes into some of your economic development
goals. Again, up through 2018, that's the time that the Economic Development Steering Committee
actually weighed in on the Crescent District. There was a desire to move development forward and to see
more development. Finally, does the Town want to partner or invest in redevelopment efforts?
You are not starting from scratch here, because, as I mentioned, in 2018, the Economic Development
Steering Committee did make several recommendations. You also had the Form-Based Code Institute
come in 2019, and Council actually approved several amendments to the zoning ordinance, to the
Crescent District at that time. Essentially, as a temporary measure, to allow certain modifications, to allow
things that might make the Crescent District easier to develop. In addition, funding was allocated for
making revisions to the Crescent District. That funding actually expired.
Council never moved forward with that revision at the time because Virginia Village was seen as being
somewhat of a test case. The idea was to wait until after Virginia Village was done to identify more
specifically what the recommendations would be. Our recommended update process at this time is to
essentially go through a four-step process here, with step one being update and refine the Crescent
District vision, and identify potential changes to the Master Plan. Step two, we would present some of
those recommended changes to you. Step three, we would actually conduct a process to update the
Master Plan, Town Plan amendment essentially.
Step four would be to incorporate the Crescent District Master Plan updates into the zoning ordinance
rewrite process that you all initiated on the same night that Legacy Leesburg was approved. Again, as
these conversations take place, particularly with regard to step one, there are a number of things that
need to be considered. How do we get that proper balance of the vision considering the elements like
density, the visual appearance, affordable housing, economic development goals?The list goes on and
on. We recommend that the Council consider these five elements.
One would be a staff briefing paper, where staff essentially provides you with a download of everything
that we've learned over the past couple of years with the Virginia Village, what we've heard, what the
development community has said. However, we also recommend that a public outreach component be
considered to get a better sense from the public as to whether or not the vision that was first established
in 2006 has changed, and also hearing from the stakeholders, which, of course, includes your
landowners, your developers. Other components that you might want to consider is a feasibility analysis,
thinking about the economics of developing a site. I don't think that you want to simply reduce the density
in half. I'm wrapping up in about 30 seconds.
Mayor Burk: That's all right. Keep going.
Rich Klusek: I'm watching it. I don't want to mess around here.
Page 13IMay 9, 2022
Mayor Burk: I know, [crosstalk]
Rich Klusek: When we talk about feasibility analysis, essentially making sure that the development
called for in the Master Plan actually makes sense economically and a developer can do it. We don't want
to have densities reduced by half and then have it completely stagnant and get right back to where we
were in 2018, where there was an interest in spurring additional development. Then also fiscal analysis.
Different types of development, different densities are all going to contribute to the Town's tax base in a
very different way.
The Form-Based Code Institute had a work session with you, and at that time, there were some
conclusions that were drawn. The purpose and goals--This is from the Council. These are things that the
Council agreed on. The purpose and goals of the Crescent Design District are still supported.
Requirements and zones in the Crescent Design District should be simplified with more emphasis on
form. A streamlined process with less legislative review is desired. There should be consideration of a
public investment strategy to work towards achieving the vision of the Crescent Design District, and the
review of architectural details should be streamlined.
These were things that Council thought at the time. Again, we've now been through Virginia Village, there
might be some different ideas, but that is all I have. I'll just quickly mention that staff can undertake this
effort in-house, but we would definitely recommend the use of consultant resources to have a more robust
public and stakeholder outreach. As far as the feasibility analysis and fiscal analysis, that's something
where consultant resources most likely would be required. That is all that I have.
Mayor Burk: Well, thank you. Appreciate the briefing and your flexibility in regard to it. I have to say a
couple of your comments really rang true. While density is an issue that people in the area were blown
away by, that 649 new residents would be in that particular area, massing was also a huge aspect of it.
We went from looking at a suburban mall kind of thing to all of a sudden these six-story buildings that
were very massive and very different for Leesburg.
They're not different or if you go to the Mosaic District. Those are very similar to what's over in Merrifield
in Mosaic District and other parts. It was an extreme change and that caught everybody's attention and
everybody's concern that had them. I think that discussion about the mass and the density is a very
important discussion that we do need to have and how the buildings look. You gave the South Carolina
example or whatever. Not that that particular design would be 100% accepted, but it most certainly was
more within what I was looking for when I was thinking of the redevelopment of this area.
I think the plan that you have put in place is a great plan that we can begin to make some changes, begin
to hear from the public. That's very important. There's a lot of interest in it. I'm delighted that you're going
to be looking at that and that you're willing to take what you learned and you've got a section of the things
that you learned, and we can use it to make it even better than it is at this point. Thank you for that. I do
appreciate it. Does anyone else have any questions or comments at this point? Mr. Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: I'll go first this time. What's interesting, thank you very much, much
appreciated, is that the Master Plan elements that you had in the beginning of the slides and the guiding
principles I think are still very much intact about expanding the downtown. If we're going to build density in
Leesburg in general, it really should be in the core of the Town where you promote a more walkable
community. I think all aspects are available. Like the Mayor mentioned, that did resonate the perception
of mass versus density. When I think some of the concerns with density, was traffic and parking, so we're
talking about doing the traffic study.
That will tie into this very well. I think that's critical. You mentioned consulting or considering a consultant.
The South Carolina model that you shared up there was created by Bevan & Liberatos, the firm, and
they're based in South Carolina. That might be worth considering. I know they focus very much on
classical redevelopment. They actually do programs globally. Very few firms focus on that. I think
translating those the Master Plan elements and guiding principles into something that's a little bit more
human scale, I think that's one of the key things.
Page 14IMay 9, 2022
I guess one of the key factors we need to consider is, is new development going to be more urban or
Town-oriented versus suburban development? Because suburban development is all about parking, and
a core focus on parking, so I think that that's something that we're going to have to consider when we talk
about public investment or rethinking how we're going to handle parking, or if that is something that's a
little bit more secondary. I think your plan does make sense as well.
Rich Klusek: You hit around a number of points that I'd like to try to respond very quickly. Number one,
when we're talking about potentially reducing the density, if the Town is interested in some sort of public
investment, that might help you reduce the density, because, simply put, a developer has to make less
money because they're investing less in, for example, the streetscape in front of the project. Also,
regarding the Charleston example, I don't have the full history behind that, but I do recall hearing that that
effort was essentially led by an opposition group that didn't like the idea of a big building with a big
parking garage. There's a lot of history there. I don't think it actually ever was deemed feasible because it
didn't include parking and things of that sort. It's just something else to consider moving forward. Thanks.
Council Member Bagdasarian: That was purely conceptual. I think it's a guidepost. This is one way. As
far as density, I would love to find what is the maximum density that we could support because that is
really where the density needs to be, is in the downtown area, in the expansion of that.
Rich Klusek: It might be worth it if we're looking at this slide, thinking about steps two and three, having
perhaps a consultant help us with different density examples, different visualizations that might be part of
any outreach process that is done, where the public and Council, they can pick and choose the elements
that they feel are best in.
Mayor Burk: Great. Have poster boards so they can go--
Rich Klusek: Something to that effect.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Thank you. A couple of thoughts I had. When we talked about the Charleston
proposal design, I really liked that as well. I get it's not Leesburg, but it is a more urban design in
Charleston, and I'd love to see something more in that. I'd like to see the Crescent Design District actually
reimagined to something more like that. I didn't know what I wanted before I saw that. When I saw that, I
knew that's what I think people would like, but, of course, public input is very necessary for that. The other
thought I had was that, I agree with the Mayor that it wasn't just the density, it was the massing and the
height of what we see. It's just big, and I don't understand.
I feel like what led us into the Charleston proposal design from those folks who came, they said that
parking was included in that. I'd like to know more about that. That's what caught my attention is we can
do the same thing, parking and housing, so I want to hear a little bit more about that. Did I misunderstand
or was it included?That's what I thought I heard. The last thought is with the Crescent Design District. I
don't want to see things turn into Tysons Corner here.
This is what I'm seeing with this big project that we have at Virginia Village, which has just passed, and I
would not--Oh, I have a question too, but my last thought was I wouldn't be interested in any sort of
taxpayer funding to developers to lessen density. I just wouldn't be interested in doing that. You said
some of the 2019 allocations have expired. What happened to those allocations? They just get absorbed
back into the general fund?
Rich Klusek: Council was moving in that direction to actually update the zoning ordinance just at the time
that Virginia Village was coming in. The thought was to wait until we had Virginia Village to use as a test
case before making any specific zoning ordinance changes.
Page 15JMay 9, 2022
Council Member Fox: I get that and I respect that. I just was wondering about funding, the dollars that
went toward it. Where is that? Is that on hold or is it just absorbed back, now that it expired?
Keith Markel: Right. In 2019, you all allocated $60,000 to work towards modifications to the Crescent
Design District, but as you mentioned, you had Virginia Village, you had Legacy Leesburg well underway,
a lot of irons in the fire at that point. That money in that resolution rolled over to the following fiscal year.
After that point, it fell back to fund balance. It was never allocated. We never brought a contractor on
board to spend those funds.
That money went back into general fund, but we would recommend to you, I think from the slides here
that you shared, is that if you do want to open this back up again and reevaluate the Crescent Design
District at whatever level you want to reevaluate it, bringing in outside support to provide that public
engagement to provide those illustratives, those drawings, those things that we can't do in-house here to
give more meaning to the document to take that 16-year-old document and bring it forward into today's
vision. That's where we think your money would be best spent with those dollars. We're just sharing that
you had allocated those funds, so even though it's not sitting there as a line item in the 2023 budget, you
could allocate from undesignated fund balance towards that.
Council Member Fox: Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Thanks. Getting back to the presentation from the Charleston group, it
seems to me, if memory serves, what they said regarding their project was they did park the residential
component of that development, but they were leaving the commercial parking to be served on a more
catch-as-catch-can basis, with the assumption perhaps that people coming from outside the development
would do their Uber thing or their Lyft thing, or what have you, or take care of parking one way or another
on their own as opposed to Virginia Village where I think we worked to park both the residential and
certainly a fair proportion of the commercial.
I think that was the difference there. Based on what the Form-based Code Institute told us, then, we do
want to consider form, and there are a lot of ways of looking at it as we obviously can see here. I think
we're not trying to dictate necessarily what's happening inside the buildings, although we certainly are
looking for residential components, but I believe that presentation there was eye-opening. At least it
certainly gave us another way of looking at things and arriving at solutions that we weren't necessarily
considering before. Definitely, something to consider for the future. Thanks
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I want to thank you for abbreviating your presentation and for me, it was nothing to
do with what you are presenting, but more of we've heard a lot of that before already. Also, when we talk
about density, in the past, we normally talk about units instead of occupants per units. You could have
100 units with 400 residents or 100 units with only 100 residents, density changed. I figure we need to
have a better way of defining not just number of units, but try to calculate an approximate number of
people per unit that will talk about be more definitive about how dense it's going to be and what the
requirements for traffic and other things are going to be. That's my little comment, and thank you again.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings.
Council Member Cummings: Thank you. I had a question. Going back to your refining the vision slide,
talking about consultants, resources needed, what are we looking at as far as financials on what this is
going to cost us?
Rich Klusek: The basic version is$15,000, the deluxe, let's say up to$60,000, based on some
preliminary conversations that I have had with our Town Plan consultants.
Page 161May 9, 2022
Council Member Cummings: $60,000, are we opening up the entire Crescent Design District Master
Plan and getting all the way down into the weeds of the look and feel of buildings, public outreach, are we
talking about one event or are we talking about multiples? Looking at neighborhoods, to me, I just don't
feel like we're at a point where we can say yay or nay on moving forward on anything because we don't
really know where we're moving to.
I personally don't believe we need to open up the entire Master Plan and look at it. I think folks are
concerned about density. Folks are concerned about massing. My hope was that tonight we could look at
a few items that we wanted to bring in someone, if that's the way we have to go, to help narrow down that
scope and work on those issues.
Unfortunately, maybe I'm being a little pessimistic, but I think if we open up the entire Master Plan, we're
going to spend a lot more than $60,000 to rehash and relive the Crescent Design District work that was
done all the way back to 2016. I think Mr. Bagdasarian served on one of the Economic Development
Commission members of that effort.
I looked up-- I personally, and I think a lot of my feelings, I look at the Crescent Design District as the
economic engine of our Town. It's where we should put the folks who want to live in Leesburg and let's
not forget that the Metro Washington Council of Government said Loudoun County can expect a 260,900
increase by 2045 in population. Some of those people are going to want to live in Leesburg, not Ashburn,
and so where are we going to put them? I don't think we want--One, we don't have the land to put them
out in another Greenway Farms, or Woodlea Hills, or Woodlea Manor.
We're going to have to put them in a dense area, multiple family living, and so the Crescent Design
District to me is that spot. I just have a real concern, one with financially opening up this can of worms
and having to spend a lot of money to rehash this, and I'm concerned what we're doing is we're ratcheting
down our economic engine by doing that, and so I would hope that if we're going to move forward on
studying the Crescent Design District again, we narrow the scope of that study to a handful of items that
caused concern because I think we can all come up with those. I think we did, and not look to just cast
open the gates and let all everything rain down.
Mayor Burk: We did put together a list. I asked everybody to respond to what their discussion topics
were, and you've got a copy of it, and I think, Mr. Cummings, if you look at it, you're going to end up, yes,
density is the one thing that stands out in every person's comment, but there's quite a bit in here of what
people are looking for, so I think it's going to be hard to limit it to particular topics and not be able to-- I
mean, density most certainly, form is one. ADU is one. Traffic is one. Height is another one. Commercial
and jobs, transportation, doubling residential commercial parcels within, so I think we're going to end up
having to really look at it across the board, but knowing what he has said, if you feel that there is the
possibility that we could--
Rich Klusek:We can, absolutely, if it is the Council's desire to do a more briefer version, we can
absolutely do that. We can do it without consultant resources, however,just listening to the conversation
this evening, when I hear the comments about density and about parking, I feel it's very nuanced, and I
don't feel it's that simple. There's no right or wrong answer here. People love talking about this Charleston
example. I don't, but people love talking about it, and when I look at it, I see there's no parking, yet one of
the concerns that was expressed during Virginia Village was not enough parking.
Mayor Burk: Was parking. Right.
Rich Klusek: We can't simply say, make it look like that and problem solved because that involves a
parking site. There's a lot of complexity to it, which is why we do believe that having a more robust and
informed process with consultant resources would be the best avenue.
Council Member Cummings: That's my concern, that I don't think it's going to just cost us$60,000. I
think it's going to be a lot more expensive than that.
Page 17JMay 9, 2022
Mayor Burk:We don't know that. You can find out that for us, right?
Rich Klusek: Our recommendation would be to do something that's pretty compartmentalized in terms of
the deliverable, where, for example, we can have a series of sketches to illustrate different densities and
how they work economically, but ultimately, it would be the Council that has to decide which path we want
to take forward, and there are many differing opinions. In the research that I've done up until this point, it's
clear that the opinions varied between 2003 and 2022 in many different ways, at different times with
Council Members that come and go, it's just the reality of how it is. That's why, again, we're really pushing
towards that more well-informed background information and studies.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Bagdasarian--Are you finished Mr. Cummings?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cummings, and yes, I was involved back in the day
and I was very focused on form. That was the key and probably thousands of conversations regarding
Virginia Village over the last year or so. I mean, really the thing that keeps emerging in different ways to
define it density form, is the form, and I think it's critical to have some more visual guideposts. This is
what we envision versus just text. I think that's probably what's most intriguing about the-
Mayor Burk: Charleston.
Council Member Bagdasarian: -Charleston, thank you very much. The Charleston model has a visual
representation that, "Ah, I get this. This is what I would like to see,"so I think form is key, and the other
major thing that keeps coming up is traffic, and the timing works well with the traffic study we discussed
earlier, but I think that those are key things, there are other factors, but I don't think it's a matter of starting
from scratch, because, like I said, the key elements, the elements and the guiding principles are still very
valid today. It's just a few key factors.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Out of curiosity refresh my memory, did we get from FBCI in addition to the
whole concept of Form-Based Code, did we get from them more specific recommendations involving a lot
of these factors?
Rich Klusek:We got specific recommendations regarding changes to the zoning. Very specific
recommendations. The dates of that should be included in your packet. I don't have it in front of me right
now. I believe it was in the August of 2019 timeframe, and it was actually included in one of your Council
packets at that time.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay, but when it comes to this discussion involving density and parking,
did they get into the weeds to that extent as well?
Rich Klusek: No.
Council Member Steinberg: All right.
Rich Klusek: Not to my recollection. It certainly wasn't part of the discussion before the Council. It might
have been in the report.
Council Member Steinberg: Are they the consultant that we might turn back to for that kind of
information? I offer that only because we wouldn't have to bring them back up to speed, they've been
here and they know basically where they are and they might have recommendations along those lines or
are they not the firm for that sort of thing?
Rich Klusek: I don't know the exact procurement process we'd have to undertake.We're suggesting,
essentially, if Council agrees with these six elements, that we would come back to you with a more
Page 181May 9, 2022
specific proposal and work plan. I think it would be desirable to have somebody with prior knowledge
come in, whether that be our Town plan consultants or the Form-Based Code Institute, but I don't know
immediately if that would be possible or if we have to do an RFP or something to that effect.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: All right, Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: Thanks. Just a quick question. We're talking about form. I'm stuck on form right
now, and in less than--Well, which gives the same density as what we've seen in the past. The group that
came and spoke, will they let us ask them more questions? Is that something we can do with them?
Rich Klusek: The Form-Based Code Institute?
Council Member Fox: No. The ones that came to Lightfoot.
Mayor Burk: The architects. The two architects.
Council Member Fox: Yes.
Rich Klusek: Oh.
Keith Markel: The Charleston example.
Council Member Fox: Because, I was wondering, we might have questions which we've been hearing
answers to, that's what I need to know.
Rich Klusek: I suppose we can invite them, but, again, from what I've heard, that was an effort that was
led by opposition group, I believe, to something else that was happening in Charleston. I'm sure they
have talented people, but I think we have to be conscious of all the factors surrounding that particular
instance, as well as what we have to deal with in Leesburg.
Council Member Fox: You're saying no?
Rich Klusek: No, I'm not saying no at all. I'm saying we can absolutely invite them.
Keith Markel:We don't have a contract relationship with them. They came in at the request of a private
business owner, so we didn't contract with them and have no relationship with them.We were just invited
to the event along with the general public.
Council Member Fox: Okay. If I wanted questions answered, I just reach through that avenue then,
that's correct?
Keith Markel: Yes. That would be probably the best, yes, probably the local business that brought them
in.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Do you feel comfortable with where you need to go from here?
Rich Klusek: Well, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Council wants to go through,
essentially, these five elements here and if there is some general support for consultant's resources. If
that's the case, what I would suggest is giving us a bit of time to come back with something more detailed
that essentially scopes out these five elements and gives Council a cost estimate for actually getting
those consultant resources on board.
Page 19IMay 9, 2022
Mayor Burk: All right. Are there four people that are okay with doing that?
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to say, we'll do exactly what Rich said, and I have a lot of
confidence in Rich, but I also am concerned that staff, we do have a habit of promising that we can hit all
the marks that you want, we have a heavy workload. I do think it's going to cost you more than what you
may be tossing, but we will work through that. I want to make sure we have a very solid work plan that
when we come back to you, so you can make your decisions of what you want to do. The one concern I
heard from Rich tonight was that we can do a lot of this in-house or my interpretation.
I just want to make sure-- I'm not sure that's the case. We'll do a very thorough scrub of the work plan and
the consulting costs so that we deliver you a proposal that we feel is realistic. Not a promise so we can hit
all the marks on some timetable that you may wish. We're all going to have to work together on it. I'm just
throwing a little bit of caution. That's all. We'll be back in probably two weeks or--We'll flush it out either
two or four weeks. We'll figure it out. We'll be back.
Rich Klusek: Okay.
Kaj Dentler: Then we're good.
Mayor Burk: Are there four votes if you want to proceed that way?All right. Ms. Fox, Steinberg, Martinez,
myself, and Bagdasarian. Sorry, Mr. Bagdasarian, that's you. I'm sorry. I called you Bagdasarian.
Rich Klusek: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is there any additions to future meetings?
Anyone? I have one that I would like to put on the agenda for our next work session. It is to review the
idea of setting up the committee to--not the committee. I got to use the right term. The two people that
will meet with the two Board Supervisor people to discuss revenue sharing. Can we have that discussion
on the next work session meeting?Are there four people that are willing to do that? Okay. That's
everybody.
Kaj Dentler: Is that tomorrow night?
Mayor Burk: Two weeks. I said work session.
Kaj Dentler: Two weeks?
Mayor Burk: Yes. Then, at the request of Supervisor Umstattd, she suggested that we do a letter to the
Chair once we have designated the individuals. A letter to the Chair thanking them for meeting with us
and identifying who are the two people that will be representing the Town and giving dates. I didn't think
there'd be any problem with that, but are there for people that would be okay with doing that at that point?
Okay. Everybody. All right. Any motion to adjourn?
Council Member Bagdasarian: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Beat you, Mr. Bagdasarian. [laughs]
Vice Mayor Martinez: No, I'm sharing the wealth.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes.
Mayor Burk: All in favor? Opposed?All right. We're done.
Page 20IMay 9, 2022