HomeMy Public PortalAbout2023_tcwsmin0911Council Work Session September 11, 2023
Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk
presiding.
Council Members Present: Ara Bagdasarian, Todd Cimino -Johnson, Zach Cummings,
Kari Nacy, Vice Mayor Neil Steinberg, Patrick Wilt, and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Town Attorney Christopher Spera,
Assistant Town Manager Kate Trask, Director of Planning and Zoning James David,
Director of Plan Review Bill Ackman, Parks and Recreation Director Rich Williams, Parks
and Recreation Outreach and Events Manager Linda Fountain, Senior Planner Rich Klusek
and Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Item for Discussion
a. Summer JAMS Concert Series
Mr. Rich Williams presented Council with the history and attendance overview
of the various summer concert programs over the years and the current state of the
Town's Summer JAMS Concert Series. Additional discussion was held regarding
the sale of alcohol at the events or allowing concert attendees to bring their own
alcohol.
Council and staff discussed the current Summer JAMS concert series. Council
expressed a desire to continue the program with additional consideration being given
to increased marketing and potentially limiting or changing the day of the week to
hold the concerts at a time to avoid conflict with music offered at other downtown
venues. Staff were directed to obtain the necessary permits to offer a pilot program
to allow concert attendees to bring their own alcohol for personal consumption.
It was the consensus of Council to continue the Summer JAMS program and for staff to
prepare a resolution to memorialize the direction given to staff to seek the required permits to
allow attendees to bring their own alcohol. Resolution to be added to the September 11, 2023,
Council meeting consent agenda.
b. Affordable Housing Incentives Discussion: Fee Waivers and Expedited Review
Mr. James David and Mr. Bill Ackman discussed affordable housing incentives
specifically as they relate to fee waivers and expedited site plan reviews by Town
staff. Council and staff discussed the fiscal and personnel impacts of fee waivers, the
impacts of expedited reviews and the overall need and benefits to receiving quality
site plans from applicants on their first submission. Mr. David and Mr. Ackman
noted the feedback received from affordable housing developers is that expedited
review is the more desirable of the two incentives. Staff also noted Loudoun County
recently hired an Affordable Housing Ombudsman. Town staff intends to
coordinate with the new Ombudsman to discuss and review options and synergies
available to the Town as affordable housing is a regional issue.
11Page
Council Work Session September 11, 2023
It was the consensus of Council to provide staff with the following direction regarding
affordable housing incentives:
• No fee waivers at this time;
• Pursue options for expedited review inclusive of an advance third party review of
plans prior to first submission;
• Pursue 100% affordable housing projects;
• Coordinate with Loudoun County on affordable housing options; and
• Include an expedited review process in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget discussions.
c. Crescent District Master Plan Update
Mr. Rich Klusek provided an overview of the Crescent District Master Plan
update and the actions completed to date. Those actions include a development
feasibility study, a fiscal impact analysis and meetings with residents. Mr. Klusek
shared preliminary recommendations resulting from these actions.
Mr. Klusek reviewed the Planning Commission feedback and
recommendations.
It was the consensus of Council for staff to continue with the following recommendations:
• Simplify the plan;
• Remove some of the arbitrary boundaries;
• Prioritize walkable activity centers;
• Provide more attention on the streetscape;
• Obtain more meaningful public spaces;
• Revitalize commercial corridors along Catoctin and East Market; and
• Have an area plan that activates redevelopment.
2. Additions to Future Council Meeting
a. Proclamation Requests
i. None
b. Future Council Meetings and Agenda Topics
Vice Mayor Steinberg inquired if staff needed additional direction on the overall
expedited review process.
Mr. Markel and Mr. David noted staff has sufficient direction to proceed and that any proposed
changes would be discussed during the Fiscal Year 2025 budget discussions.
Council Member Wilt requested current year spend data versus the current
fiscal year budget be included in future Quarterly Budget updates.
Mr. Markel agreed the data can be included in future updates and that the Finance team will
contact Council Member Wilt if additional direction is needed to complete his request.
2IPage
Council Work Session September 11, 2023
Council Member Wilt requested a timeline and project plan for the Zoning
Ordinance rewrite project.
Mr. David noted the consultants are currently undergoing an audit of the Town's code. He
advised there's an upcoming joint meeting with Council and the Planning Commission on October 19
to hear the findings of the code audit from the zoning consultants. He added that a timeline and
project plan is available and that he would circulate it to Council after the meeting.
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Bagdasarian, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:33 p. m.
Clerk of Council
2023 tcwsmin0911
3IPage
[September 11, 2023] — 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: I need to read this to the public. The Town is experiencing an audio-visual issue
that is preventing video from displaying on the cable TV channels and on the Web cast. Town staff is
working to correct the issue as quickly as possible. In the meantime, if you need closed captioning or
a copy of tonight's presentation, please visit the Council agenda page on the Town's Web site. Thank
you.
Our first item for discussion tonight is the Summer Jam Concert series.
Rich Williams: You're ready?
Mayor Burk: We're always ready.
Rich Williams: Thank you. [laughter] Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council, Rich Williams of
the Department of Parks and Recreation. Tonight, we're here to hold a two-part discussion on the
Summer Jams Concert series. The first part of our discussion came out of the annual Council work
plan, which identified a discussion regarding the continuation of the event.
The second component to this discussion tonight was result of counsel receiving a request or
requesting that we hold a discussion as to whether alcohol should be permitted at this event. It's a
two-part decision point for today. To move forward a little bit of the history of the program first of all.
The first concert was held in 2004, and it was a program that was started under the name of Acoustic
on the Green, and it was run by Stilson Green.
Back in 2004, there was not a whole lot happening in downtown Leesburg, so this event was brought
in place in order to help revitalize downtown and to get feet on the street and to bring people into the
businesses. Stilson ran the event by himself up through 2009, and at that time, he partnered with the
Town to help with the production of the event.
That relationship went on for about 10 years, and then in 2019, Stilson went ahead and stepped back
and turned the event over to the Town in its entirety. The Town has run the event since 2019. 2020
hit, that was COVID. Obviously, there was no event, everything shut down. We came back in 2021
hosting the event, and then in 2022, at the conclusion of that season series, Stilson decided to revoke
the actual trademark privilege for the Acoustic on the Green name.
His feeling was that the event needed a rebranding. In 2023 June, we launched the event as the
Summer Jam Series concert series. That's how we got to where we are today. Both events, Acoustic
on the Green as well as Summer Jam run a similar series of concerts with a performer that runs 10 to
14 times per summer season.
Attendance fluctuates for the event. However, we have seen that the initial first 10 years of the
program, there was a higher attendance rate than we've seen in the last 10 years of the program. In
terms of addressing the goals that were originally put forward for the event, currently, we average
about 125, this past year, 125 spectators to the event.
We are bringing 125 participants into downtown Leesburg. We are contributing to the vibrancy of
downtown by bringing those folks in. In addition, through random surveys that were conducted during
the 2023 season, it was found that about 70% of the participants that do come down for the event
actually dine in downtown after the conclusion or before the event starts.
We are contributing to the economic success of the businesses in downtown so we're meeting that.
Then of the people that do come downtown, those 125 that are coming for the event, 66% of those
Page 1ISeptember 11, 2023
folks are Leesburg Town residents based on our survey information. In that essence, we are
contributing to the quality of life for our Leesburg residents by providing this option for them.
With the successful meeting the goals and everything, obviously there are some challenges we've
had to deal with this event. We have experienced lower attendance, especially coming out of COVID,
we did experience lower attendance, but we have seen a growth of about 20% to 22% since we came
out of COVID in our attendance numbers.
Some of the reasons for that lower attendance could be attributed to, there's more options downtown
for what people want to do on the evening. There's more restaurants with music so different choices
for folks. There's also more options where you can see the performers, the local performers that play
these types of events at local wineries, local breweries, so they can be seen out in other locations so
you may not necessarily be making a dedicated trip to see a specific performer. As with everybody,
we go through a staffing challenge, trying to find staff to work this event. That is a challenge we deal
with. Again, I spoke a little bit about finding fresh performers, not the normal group that follows the
winery or brewery circuit. There are financial considerations. The event costs the Town about $16,000
per year to run. That is just something to consider. As well as it's an outdoor event, so we are
dependent on the weather and our attendance numbers can be impacted if it's a really hot day or
there's chances of storms or whatever like that.
Those are considerations and challenges we have dealt with. Just to give some brief event statistics
for the past eight years, you can see in 15 and 17, we had real high attendance numbers. Then right
before COVID, we were down a little bit, but we were still in line with that 16 range. COVID came and
we came out of COVID with a low number. One could make the argument that might've been
attributed to folks just maybe not necessarily feeling comfortable being in a crowd environment at that
time, but the numbers were what the numbers were.
Like I said, since '21, we have increased our attendance average by about 22%, so we're now up to
125. The low number in '22, that's a little skewed in that there were two weather days that were really
border and iffy weather days whether the event was even going to be held. [coughs] Excuse me. As a
result of that, we only had about 30 or 40 people come out to those two events so that really skewed
that number.
If you take those two out of the mix, it's right around 105, 110 -person spectator average for that year.
It was just two dates that did skew that number. This just gives you a look at what some of the crowds
look like at our series this past season. Going from a low in the low 90s to a high in the low 200s just
gives you an idea that there still are a good number of folks that come out to this event and enjoy the
event as a whole.
The second part of our discussion relates to the alcohol and whether people should be permitted to
bring their alcohol to the event or have alcohol at the event. If Council decided to go forward with this,
there would be certain ABC requirements we would need to follow in order to allow the alcohol on
site. A perimeter barrier would need to be installed or temporary a barrier would need to be installed
around the Town Green, and there would need to be signage that would identify no open containers
of alcohol beyond this point, and that would be managed.
In addition, the Town would need to secure an ABC permit or license for the event. There would be
additional staffing needed from the Parks and Rec standpoint. We would need one additional staff
member to assist with the installation of that temporary boundary. As well as since we're bringing
alcohol into the mix here the Police Department feels they would need two officers on site to provide
supervision for the event.
As it relates to insurance, the Town is covered for this type of event through their current policy, so
there would be no additional requirement needed from the Town for this. The Parks and Recreation
Commission did discuss both of these concepts and provided recommendations for Council
consideration on both questions. The first they felt that they support the continuation of the Summer
Jams Music series with potential modifications in order to ensure that the event is a viable event.
Some of the modifications they'd suggested that for consideration would be, do you look at moving it
from a Saturday to a midweek day where there's not as many options for folks to recreate? Another
Page 2ISeptember 11, 2023
option they presented was, do we look at purchasing all the sound equipment and hire our own staff
to run the sound? Thus, trying to bring the overall financial costs down.
Those are just some of the ideas that they had identified for open discussion. Then as it relates to
alcohol, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission does support allowing folks to bring their
own alcohol to the event. From a staff perspective, staff does support the continuation of this event,
feel there's value with having this concert as a free series for the community, and we also do
recommend that attendees be permitted to bring their own alcoholic beverages as long as it's in
accordance with the ABC regulations and doing it for a trial basis for this next season, and then revisit
it and see how it went.
That being said, available to answer questions. I've also got Assistant Town Manager Kate Trask and
Events and Outreach Manager Linda Fountain here, and those were the two who were actually put on
this event, so if you get in real detailed questions, I'm going to have to look back for them to help me
out here. That said, I'm open for it.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you for the report. Does anybody have any questions? Council Member
Cimino -Johnson.
Council Member Todd Cimino -Johnson: Thank you for the presentation, Rich. Just a couple of
questions. First, is this something we envisioned the Main Street program taking over once it's in full
fruition?
Rich Williams: It's not something we've envisioned at this point, but if it was something that the Main
Street program decided they wanted to take on, we would be open to discussions for either a
partnership or them taking over the event.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Yes, that's what I'm used to Main Street programs doing, is
running events like this to bring people downtown. The second question is, are people asking for
alcohol at this event?
Rich Williams: We have not been asked as staff. I know Council has received some inquiries about
it.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Councilwoman Nacy.
Council Member Kari Nacy: Thank you. I just wanted to share. My parents moved down to North
Carolina and the city that they live near, they don't live in Sparta, North Carolina, has something
similar. They do it once a month. It's called Music on Main. They partner with their arts, what we
would consider our COPA, their equal part in there. They raise money both from the Town of Sparta
itself, but also from donors obviously. They put on this event.
They have a little area that they rope off, that you can go and stand at cocktail -like tables and you can
purchase from a local brewery, a beer or some wine or whoever's there. It's not like open, bring your
own alcohol, it's a contained area. I wanted to share that because I think there's some potential
takeaways that we could consider for this. Instead of so often maybe we move it to once a month, we
really put behind more marketing and put some effort into letting people know about it.
I would venture to guess most people don't even know this exists unless they've been to it before or
they've heard word of mouth. It's not something that I feel like is out there a lot and we could probably
garner some more interest maybe if we pare it down potentially to just once or twice a month, and
then really put behind some marketing to get people to come. Just some thoughts.
Mayor Burk: Would either of the ladies in the audience like to respond to that? You don't have to, but
I didn't know if you would-- As you're the organizers of it, what would be your reaction?
Linda Fountain: I would agree that we need to step up our marketing a little bit. We did try something
different this year. As far as marketing the program, we have always partnered with Loudoun Now,
Page 3ISeptember 11, 2023
the newspaper and we run weekly ads in addition to having a full -page ad in Get Out Loudoun, their
magazine. We do a full -page ad at the beginning of the season with the entire schedule.
If you've been coming to Town Council meetings all summer, there was a signed board out front of
Town Hall that had the entire schedule. We also increased our Facebook marketing, which seems to
be our best marketing source, people seeing it and sharing it. This year we really did step up our
marketing and I feel that that was seen in the result in the attendance numbers that went up this year.
Council Member Nacy: I put the onus on us too as Council, we all have Facebook pages that we
could share it on as well to help garner interest in it. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Council Member Bagdasarian.
Council Member Ara Bagdasarian: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. Just maybe I missed it, but
why has the cost increased in the last year or so?
Rich Williams: The cost, I believe it was for sound. Sound went up. That was basically a contractual
increase that went up and hit us hard.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Okay. It's funny. Kate and I were chatting this morning about how 20
years ago there was only one live music option for Leesburg. It was the Bluemont Concert Series. It's
amazing that we have so many options now. This is one of many options. We have so many venues
downtown that offer music. This is just something to think about. I think we should absolutely continue
the program, no doubt about that. Considering different formats, something that is unique to what the
different venues are offering as far as a format of music like jazz or classical, bluegrass, something
that's a little bit different. The Summer Jams is just a very different experience that you'd see from any
of the other venues downtown. Something to think about as far as programming and-- That we should
look just at least consider as we move forward. I think we should absolutely continue the program. We
have a stage right in front of Town Hall, we got to utilize that.
Rich Williams: Initial thought I have is, maybe we don't offer it on First Fridays because there is an
influx of music that goes on downtown on First Fridays, just offered on the other weekends.
Council Member Bagdasarian: That's the thing. The key thing is offering something unique that you
don't experience otherwise and in the downtown. I think that there's so much potential with that, let's
put it that way, so thank you.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Neil Steinberg: Thanks. Just a quick question. When we talk about the perimeter that A,
B, C would require, would that just be a fence across the back of the area?
Rich Williams: It could be a fence, it could be stanchions, whatever. It's just something that needs to
designate that area specifically and has some level of a boundary to --
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Ok, fairly simple. You mentioned the potential of purchasing sound
equipment. Have we really looked at that in terms of the cost of that and the maintenance and the
storage?
Rich Williams: To be honest, that would be something I personally would not recommend because
you would have to hire somebody to still run your sound. You'd have to hire a staff member to do that.
We're still in a challenge of hiring staffing and that's a very specialized skill and you'd need to get that,
that sound right. My recommendation would be to continue going down the road of contracting that
with a professional.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: To echo Councilman Bagdasarian, I was also going to bring up the Bluemont
Concert Series, which was a very successful program I would offer. Interestingly it was on Sunday,
late Sunday afternoons when there was-- Of course there was much less going on in Town, but it
separated the early part of the weekend from the latter part of the weekend. I'm not sure that we've
ever actually achieved the vibrancy that the Bluemont Concert Series had over its considerable
Page 4ISeptember 11, 2023
history. I'm not sure, have we looked at that in terms of how did they market and gather such a large
audience? Was it simply because there were fewer options you think in the downtown at that time?
Rich Williams: I think a lot has to do with fewer options. When Bluemont left, the downtown was not
what it is today.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Given that there's already so much activity on Friday evenings and Saturday
evenings, have we explored what we might consider if it were on a Sunday evening?
Rich Williams: That was one of the things that came out of the Parks and Rec Commission as their
recommendation was to explore potentially different days. That would be something we'd need to
evaluate.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Yes, because I'm not sure midweek is going to be as successful with school
and jobs and all of that, but Sunday it might be something we would want to consider. I agree, I think
we should keep the program going. If it takes a year at least of a pilot to see how the alcohol aspect of
it works out, then that would probably be worth exploring as well. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Burk: As one of the volunteers of the Blue Ridge Concert Series, I can tell you towards the
end there, attendance was very, very low. It started out pretty dynamic and then things fell apart
towards the end, and that's why they decided to stop. That was one of the reasons they started to
stop and they were looking at changing it from a Sunday to Friday at the time when they were
considering what they were going to do.
Appreciate the input from the Parks and Rec staff and the fact that they're willing to look at bringing in
your own beverage or alcoholic beverage as a pilot to consider what-- If that can work or not. I have
had people ask me about it and I know that people bring it anyway, but I'd never tell. I think that this is
something that as a pilot is a good idea. I would like to see that too. I love the idea of doing something
different, because a lot of the same entertainers were doing it were there every single year, and they
had a fan base and that was great, but it also started to wean as people could see them at other
places, like you said, at the different wineries in the different locations in Town.
Having different programs, I think might be an interesting thing to try to see if they can make that
happen. Then the equipment cost was a question I had, but you answered that already. Do you feel
that you have enough direction from us to move forward? Obviously, I think everybody here feels very
strongly that they would like to continue the series, and to pilot the-- Bring your own alcoholic
beverage. But the other ideas that we had about different programs and stuff like that, is that
something that you need more direction from us?
Rich Williams: In terms of modifications to the program, you've given ideas and that's definitely stuff
we can move forward with consideration. I don't know if a vote has to be taken to regarding the
alcohol component.
Chris Spera: Madam Mayor, I would just suggest out of an abundance of caution and so we have an
official action of the elected officials to give to the ABC folks if they want it. It certainly could be on the
consent agenda, but we could prepare a resolution for you authorizing staff to explore the getting the
permit for bring your own alcohol to these events.
Mayor Burk: All right. Does anybody-- I 'll get to you.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Of course.
Mayor Burk: Does anybody have an objection to talking about this tomorrow, voting on this
tomorrow? Now, Mr. Council Member Bagdasarian.
Council Member Bagdasarian: One final thought just to wrap everything up. No. One of the key
things is looking for gaps and the Bluemont Concert Series filled the gap in Leesburg because there
was no other live music. Now we have so many live music options, rock and Americana. You name it.
Is there a gap that's not being met as far as a genre or type of music when we talk about different
varieties of options that this program can fill? I'll leave you with that.
Page 5ISeptember 11, 2023
Rich Williams: Absolutely. We had great success this year with the Pain Masters. That's a popular
group.
Mayor Burk: Very different. Okay. Thank you very much.
Rich Williams: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Linda and Kate. All right, the next item for discussion is
affordable housing incentive, fee waivers and expedited review.
James David: All right, well, good evening, Mayor and Members of the Council, James David here
joined by Bill Ackman to continue our discussion about affordable housing incentives and specifically
fee waivers and expedited review. Recall that we started our conversation about affordable housing
incentives at the end of last year, Council Member Cummings circulated a memo with some ideas on
how can you spur affordable housing construction in the community.
The Council did add affordable workforce housing to your Council goals in January. In April, we had
the official first discussion on the memo and there was some general direction given from the Council.
Just to recap, the Council did not want to change the area median income targets for affordable
housing. The Council was interested in revising the density bonus structure as part of the Zoning
Ordinance rewrite for affordable housing.
The Council wanted more discussion on fee waivers, more discussion on expedited review, direction
to continue to work with Loudoun County, our housing partner to look at parking requirements for
affordable housing as part of the rewrite, and then finally do not pursue payment in lieu for affordable
housing. Out of that April 10'h discussion, we came to July 10th and brought back some general
background information on fee waivers and expedited review, the Town's authority to waive fees, the
County's fee waiver program that they just kicked off in July as well as some examples of other
jurisdictions doing expedited review.
The two main questions that came out of that discussion are up on the screen here. For fee waivers,
the question was, where does the money come from for an affordable housing fee waiver program?
Then for the expedited review, what are the specific staffing needs for an affordable housing
expedited review program? That's where we're going to focus the rest of our discussion tonight.
Looking at fee waivers, staff looked at some multi -family housing projects recently that went through
the permitting process, and $75,000 was a good average cost estimate for site plan zoning permit
fees for a project of about 50 to 70 units.
Staff is putting on the table if the waiver amount per project was $75,000, and let's say the Council
wanted to target about two projects each fiscal year, that would be a total of $150,000 in fee waivers.
Well, that means $150,000 in foregone fee revenue annually if this is a program that is reoccurring. If
we instituted that program now in fiscal year '24, it's difficult to tell where we would cover that loss. It's
too early to tell if other revenues are going to exceed projections, and then it's not really too advisable
to use one-time resources like your unassigned fund balance to cover operating expenses for an
ongoing program. Really if the Council wanted to look into the fee waiver program, staff is
recommending wait until fiscal year '25. What that does is then we can subtract out that $150,000
from our projections for fee revenue, and then we can have a comprehensive look at balancing the
budget as part of our fiscal planning process. Just for a side note, the order of magnitude between
Plan Review, Planning and Zoning the fee revenues in fiscal '23 were about $967,000, so $150,000 is
about 15% of that revenue number.
Okay, expedited review. When you talk about expedited review, you talk about the work plan impact.
Right now, the Town is adequately staffed for our current trends in workload in terms of permits, site
plans, grading permits coming through the development process. With an expedited review program,
what you do is you move the affordable housing projects to the top of the list, and you compress
those timelines. However, when it comes to site plan review, the projects that are currently in
progress can't be delayed.
We have State -mandated deadlines that we have to adhere to, so because of that, really the answer
is if you're fully staffed and you're at capacity and you want to go quicker and move things to the top
Page 6ISeptember 11, 2023
of the list, then you've got to look at adding staffing resources. That is if you want the program to be
year -over -year and ongoing. To determine how many staff resources you might need, we took a look
at the engineering review division, Mr. Ackman's division, because that would be the department or
the division that is most impacted since they're the ones that are working on the site plan review.
These estimates are for an apartment complex of average size and a townhouse project of about 100
units. The estimates are about 1,000 staff hours are spent on an apartment complex, and about 1,850
staff hours are spent reviewing a townhouse project. That is not just one staff member, but portions of
six staff members that are involved from the beginning to the end. The pre -submission meetings, all
the different submissions for referral, then the plat reviews and the bonding process, and then as well
for the townhouses, they come back in as individual lot grading plans as they get sold off.
Looking at those staff hours, to get to full-time equivalence, you can assume that in a given calendar
year, staff is working 37.5 hours a week. That's about 1,950 work hours in a year. Subtract about 300
hours for things like sick leave, annual leave, other meetings, not reviewing plans, and you get to
about 1,650 work hours. Then to do the math, that roughly estimates to 0.6 FTE for the apartment
complex project example, and 1.1 FTE for townhouses.
What does all that roll up to? It depends on the scope of the expedited review program. If the Council
would like to just do expedited review one time, one time only for a legacy project, we think we can
absorb that with current staffing levels. If the Council wanted to expand the scope of the program and
do one to two affordable housing projects in an expedited review annually, and staff is recommending
at least one additional FTE is added to that engineering review staff.
If the scope expands further, then multiple FTEs are likely needed, because now you have a more
detailed and larger program, and what we saw when we looked at other jurisdictions is you add
reviewers, and then you also add someone that's like the program manager providing the oversight.
Actually, the County just did this. They hired an Affordable Housing Ombudsmen in May of this year,
and that person is overseeing the fee waivers and working on an expedited review program for the
County, but much larger organization, much larger activity.
Okay, so that leaves us with the Council direction that staff would hope to get tonight. Circling back on
the two questions, establishing fee waivers will result in foregone development review, fee revenue
that might be difficult to cover in FY24, but we could plan for it in FY25, and then staffing needs for
expedited review really depends on the scope of the project if the Council would like to do that
program at all. Tonight, staffs looking for should the Town grant affordable housing fee waivers? If so,
about how much and how often? That'll give us some direction to go off and develop the program.
Should the Town pursue affordable housing expedited review? If so, is this is one time only, is this
annual, about how many projects would we like to see per year? That'll give us some parameters to
go off and work on the program, and then any other thoughts on qualifying criteria? When I say that,
are we talking about 100% affordable housing projects, mixed use projects that have commercial and
affordable? Are we talking about 50/50 market rate and affordable units? I'll tell you the County is
focusing on 100% affordable housing projects for their fee waiver program. That is my comments for
tonight. Any questions? Happy to answer them.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. I appreciate that. Council Member Cimino -Johnson.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple questions on
this. Where did the $75,000 come from?
James David: What we did is we looked at two multi -family projects that recently went through our
land development process and we broke down where are they paying their fees? We lumped site plan
zoning permit fees together and they totaled about $75,000. In fact, that number was in Mr.
Cummings memo as well. He pegged it right on the mark. As far as what are the-- Is that site plan,
grading permit, zoning permit fee cost. It doesn't include water and wastewater, which is much higher.
We're not so sure that waiving those fees is a good idea since that's the enterprise fund and those
fees replenish our Utilities department.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: What happens if we hire people, and no one applies for this?
Page 7ISeptember 11, 2023
James David: I think that you wouldn't just have someone sitting and waiting for housing projects to
come through that the staff is at capacity, and we could certainly keep them busy with other projects
that are coming through the pipeline.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Do we have any in the pipeline right now, 100% affordable
housing?
James David: We do have one project that's in the pipeline right now. It's in the rezoning phase. It's
tied to Oaklawn, so it's 100% affordable housing unit project. It's not affordable dwelling units,
because they're trying to qualify with State LIHTC funding, low income tax credit. That's a piece of a
larger Oaklawn rezoning that's going on. There's also some changes on the table to rezone one of the
land base for data center, or flex industrial at the same time. It's a little bit tied to one another right
now, but it's at that entitlement phase because the current parcel they'd like to put the affordable
housing project on is actually zoned for neighborhood commercial.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Okay, I do support this. This is something I ran on last year
when I campaigned, and I heard from everyone how they wanted to have more affordable housing in
Leesburg. This is something I fully support, but like you said I think waiting until July of 2025, and
giving us time to ramp it up and see what we need to put into the budget makes the best idea for me.
Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Cummings?
Council Member Zach Cummings: Just a couple quick questions. In a non -affordable housing
application and an applicant, at what percent of the total cost of staff time versus the fees that they're
paying do they cover?
James David: Bill, you want to field that one?
Bill Ackman: Yes. Well, we don't necessarily in our time sheets document a case -by case or a
project by project. I would say my best guess estimate is it is probably about 60% to 70% capture.
Council Member Cummings: My other question I have are-- Beyond adding staff to cover if there
were multiple projects per year through a program like this, are there any other opportunities that we
could engage in say third party review of plans and plats?
Bill Ackman: That's a great question and just about every applicant that comes in and asks for
expedited review, what I tell them is the very best thing you can do is hire a third party on your own
and they would review the plans. Do the QC for the applicant so that when the plans come in, they
come in in much better shape. What we're seeing across the board are plans that aren't ready to be
submitted when they come in and staff ends up being the QC. By eliminating that, probably eliminates
at least one if not two reviews just by getting the plans right the first time.
Council Member Cummings: Do we incentivize folks to use a third -party review for quality control?
Bill Ackman: I don't have a mechanism to do that at the moment, but what we do is inform them if the
plans come in and they're in good shape, they tend to be what I call low hanging fruit, so we try to get
to them a little quicker. They may bump ahead of a plan that is sloppily done. It has a lot of errors in it,
but as James mentioned earlier, I also have a mandatory State review time. With the volume of things
that are coming in right now, it's hard for me to bump something ahead because it's a manhour thing.
Council Member Cummings: Then finally, James mentioned the County is working through this and
putting their own plans in place. Is there any opportunity for us as the Town and the County to work
together to share resources? [laughs]
Mayor Burk: Oh, really? [laughter]
Council Member Cummings: Maybe I'm Pollyannaish. [laughter]
Page 8ISeptember 11, 2023
James David: I believe that is Council Member Cummings, we've already met with the new
Ombudsman, talked to him about how housing and affordable housing as a regional problem, and
we're going to continue to grow that olive branch and that bridge for housing services. Now, the
expedited review, it's tough to work together on because it really affects both camps and both staffing
resources.
Mayor Burk: The County doesn't provide that yet. They're looking at creating a program to do an
expedited review?
James David: That's correct.
Mayor Burk: They've had to hire additional people to do it?
James David: Yes. When the County adopted their unmet housing needs strategic plan, I think it was
in 2019. They staffed up a lot of different departments to implement those 150 different action items
that are in that plan. Part of what they did was they added some staffing to the zoning review division.
They added some staff to the building division and they created the new housing department and
added some staff there as well.
Mayor Burk: Interesting. You feel like if there was a request for an expedited affordable housing
program that if it was one a year you could take it on now, but if it becomes any more than that, that
would require additional staff?
James David: I was actually saying once and one time only, so- [crosstalk]
Mayor Burk: One time and one time only, okay.
James David: -not year over year. [chuckles]
Mayor Burk: We don't have a whole lot of room, [chuckles] so that might not be unrealistic. I'm not
sure. The State also has programs for affordable housing to incentivize. I know Senator Boysko talked
to me about a number of those different programs. If the County is offering an incentive and the State
is offering an incentive and now the Town is offering an incentive of a waiver fee, would that
developer be allowed to take all three?
James David: Certainly.
Mayor Burk: The State also has programs that helps developers, incentivizes them financially from
my understanding, that they can get so many units or they have so many units they can get this
amount of waiver or whatever from the State?
James David: That's correct, yes. The one I'm familiar with is called the Low Income Tax Credit. It's
one that you apply for and there's certain rounds of application and review and funding, but it seems
to be one that really drives these projects home. One of our local affordable housing developers has
utilized it a few times in the County.
Mayor Burk: Why is affordable housing more expensive than, or is it more expensive than regular
housing?
James David: In terms of construction costs?
Mayor Burk: We're looking at doing these waiver fees and these expedited -
James David: Oh, I see.
Mayor Burk: -programs.
James David: I think the profit margin is pretty razor thin and so every little bit helps with affordable
housing developers. There are some pretty high standards actually, if you do get that LIHTC funding
Page 9ISeptember 11, 2023
for architectural treatments to the affordable housing projects, like real Masonry and four-sided
architecture. I think that because you restrict that sale price or that rental price and you're not selling
them at market rate, any little bit helps.
Mayor Burk: Is affordable housing-- Does that, I keep saying cost more, but the margin of profit is it
smaller than regular housing [crosstalk] or regular housing development? The capture, what I didn't
quite understand that Council Member Cummings asked you about the capture rate, I think was term
he used about the cost, and you said it covered 60% to 70%, could you explain that a little for me?
Bill Ackman: Sure. My understanding of the question was if we get a $75,000 fee, it probably actually
costs us about $100,000 to $120,000 to actually go through all the reviews.
Mayor Burk: We're not covering our costs with a regular development?
Bill Ackman: Correct.
Mayor Burk: Most certainly, we wouldn't be covering it at all with an affordable development.
Bill Ackman: Correct.
Mayor Burk: Then my last question centers around-- I have a philosophical conundrum because I
have experienced places that had 100% affordable housing, and they ended up turning into more of a
project -type situation. My philosophy changed at one point that it was better if you had a mixed use of
50%, 50% mixing in with not having everybody who needs affordable housing in one location.
I'm not sure, that's just from my experience, and so I don't know if that's accurate. I don't know if
that's-- So I'm very torn between the 100%, which sounds attractive if you're going to really invest in it,
then let's really invest in it and get 100% affordable. At the same time, we don't want to create
something that in the end is going to be detrimental to the Town. I don't know where to get the answer
for that, that's what I guess I'm trying to say, and it's just a philosophical experience I've had. I can't
say that it's accurate.
James David: Well, you're not alone. Many jurisdictions have gone back and forth on that very
philosophy. Some jurisdictions require what they call a dispersion of the affordable housing units
amongst the market rate and make sure they don't look any different. Then recently when I was at the
County, we learned that to qualify for some of that State funding, it needed to be a 100% affordable
housing project. In fact, I think it was back in 2018, the County removed their dispersion requirements
and said, "Yes, you can do 100% affordable projects." That really opened the door for some of their
affordable housing production in the LIHTC support.
Mayor Burk: Interesting. I'll have to read some more on that one. I do like Council Member
Cummings' idea of perhaps reaching out to the County and seeing if there is a possibility that we
could work together on these projects to work with each other and help each other.
James David: Absolutely.
Mayor Burk: I'm much skeptical, but I will throw it out there with him. Council Member Wilt.
Council Member Wilt. Thank you, gentlemen. I just wanted to get clear, I seem to recall from an
earlier meeting, we'd gotten some input that what was valuable to the affordable housing developers
was really the expedited process, and the actual fee waiver anything was not so significant. Is that
correct, or I misunderstood that?
James David: No, that's accurate. That's what I've heard anecdotally from affordable housing
developers as well that the fee waiver is a nice token to use their term, but really where the value is, is
that expedited.
Council Member Patrick Wilt: That giving any kind of discount on a fee is not really a motivator, it
sounds like, so maybe our focus is on expediting the process. Then in that regard, I think what Bill you
were describing is that they can, in some ways, control that with third -party review to bring their plans
Page 101September 11, 2023
in a clean fashion. They can help their own case in that matter, so that pathway is already available to
them without us adding staff or doing anything. Is that a conclusion?
Bill Ackman: Yes, a good example of that is K2M, or Stryker, when they came in, they use the third -
party, we were done in one submission, a little bit of tweaking and signature sets. It was very well
done -
Council Member Wilt: Okay.
Bill Ackman: -so it can be done.
Council Member Wilt: We inform folks of this alternative to use a third -party reviewer and polish up
their plans, right?
Bill Ackman: Every pre -submission meeting, which I'm involved in, I always suggest it, but I can't
require it. A lot of times what we hear is the developers want to get the plan in before they have
geotechnical reports, before they have all the final architecturals done. They just want to get the
process going. The plans come in and they're not 100% because they know they need to make
changes anyway. We get what we get and really 90% of the time, a second submission is usually an
okay, first submission, if that makes sense, in reality.
Council Member Wilt: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Bagdasarian?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes, to your point.
Mayor Burk: Going once, going twice.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Oh, wait. I'm here. To your point, Madam Mayor, and I know this is
not part of the specific discussion, doesn't the Town have the ability to increase the affordable
dwelling unit requirements for certain projects? Would that aid in the whole mixed use between
affordable and market -rate dwellings?
James David: Certainly, we can evaluate that as part of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Right now, our
current requirements are if your development yield is over 24 dwelling units per acre, if it's single-
family detached or single-family attached, it's 12.5% ADUs is required. With that, you get a 20%
density bonus. If it's a multi -family attached product, 6.25% ADU is required, but it's a 10% density
bonus. That all can be evaluated as far as that rewrite.
Council Member Bagdasarian: I think that'd be worth re-evaluating. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Thanks. Well, it seems like everybody's kind of honed in on some of the really
important aspects of this whole conversation. The first one being, what would be acceptable to us that
constitutes an affordable dwelling or affordable housing project. Right now, we have only one legacy
project. Is there any way to anticipate, given the available land and understanding that we're looking
at redevelopment in many respects, how many projects we might realistically see over, say, a 10 -year
period?
James David: That's a tough one. I can tell you we have one officially that's been submitted, but
there's two others that have approached the Town. One, a senior affordable housing project of
roughly 60 units, and then we just had a pre -application meeting. Someone was taking a look at the
old Wolf Furniture site and it was considering over 200 units there. I think the interest in affordable
housing is picking up, but I couldn't tell you how many would anticipate.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: We know there's a range of projects. There's also a range of developers and
some seem to handle this process better than others in the one legacy project that we do have. This
Page 11 (September 11, 2023
developer knows what he's doing and knows what is required. Is there any way to get-- I'm trying to
think of how to ask this question. Is there any way to smarten these developers-- These applicants up
so they understand what we might be looking for and what they might better propose in order to make
everybody's life easier?
James David: In terms of the quality of the plans?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Yes.
James David: What we heard from our zoning consultant is the best way to do that is to be a little
tougher upfront with what you accept. Really, that has to happen all the way up and has to happen at
the Council level as well because staff says, "Sorry, that's not quality," and then they give the Council
Member a call next, kind of needs that unified front.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Well, this conversation, I think, has opened up the greater conversation is
one we probably want to have. You're telling us that we are only capturing 60% to 70% of our fees in
the first place, and we're not seeing quality applications even with that. I think the concept of getting
tougher and simply demanding that these applications be in better shape when we get them, and I
don't know. I don't know how we do that, that's the conversation that we need to have. That seems to
be a big part of this. I'm glad that we're probably going to wind up pushing this until the next fiscal
year when our budget conversation starts up in a couple of months.
It's not that far off anyway, as we shape this thing, I think there are aspects of it that are very
attractive. I'm offering that we need to also have the greater conversation about how we stop wasting
everybody's time and hear all these complaints. Is there for the Town, given that we're not likely to
see a great number of these, I mean, we're not going to be flooded, is there any way for us to hire or
outsource the review process and avoid hiring full-time staff in order to make this happen?
Bill Ackman: Well, that's a great question and through our RFQ process, we did go out to bid a
couple of months ago for a staff enhancement project where we could bring staff in from a consultant
and sit at a staff member's desk, so to speak. We would actually enhance our staff that way. What
happens is for about what my consultant budget is, I can bring in somebody for about a month and a
half, two months, and the money's gone. That's all I have. Now I have no more money for any other
special projects that may come up. They're very, very expensive. Engineers right now are in very high
demand, and their salaries are through the roof.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Well, I recognize per hour it's more expensive, but when you factor in a full-
time employee plus benefits and so on, on an annual basis, permanent annual basis versus the
occasional expense, if we were to factor that into our budget, is it realistic or are we really better off
with a full-time employee?
Bill Ackman: You're almost better off with a full-time employee, because when you bring in
somebody, you don't know who you're going to get from that consultant. If they just send a warm body
then there's a significant amount of training that goes into place so that they understand the Town
standards. Once that occurs, then yes, that could be a benefit moving on if you get the right person.
Otherwise, you may be paying for somebody to sit in a seat that's actually taking more staff time to
train them. It's really one of those, you don't really know until you try it.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Cummings.
Council Member Cummings: I just wanted to quickly point out one thing. Council Member Wilt
brought up that previous discussion with developers on what do they want more, expedited review or
waiving of fees. One, we've heard that, I'm not going to disagree with it, but the one thing I will say is
with the LIHTC program especially, part of the calculation on how much State and Federal funding
they're going to receive is a local government support, that money.
That is both expedited process as well as any kind of fee waiver goes into showing the State or
Federal agencies who are looking at those applications the commitment of the local authority. I think it
Page 12ISeptember 11, 2023
is, both are important, but I think that's why I really want to-- The fee waiver program I think is
important, because it goes back to that LIHTC program which is really the catalyst for a lot of the
affordable housing happening right now. Just this popped into my head as we started talking about
third -party review, and I know you mentioned you don't have any vehicle yet at this point to encourage
that, but is there, beyond saying, it will cut your time down hypothetically, have you worked in
municipalities? Have you saw any efforts underway to really use third party review to help expedite
time, but also help with staff?
Bill Ackman: I think it goes back to having the developer pay for their own third party review. That
way, they're holding their original consultants accountable. Because my experience from being in the
private sector for many years, if I sent my plan out to another firm to be QC'd, I would never want
them to come back with the comments that they would get from a local government, because it would
just be embarrassing. That would pinpoint to my client that I'm not doing my job. I think instinctively it
makes the original engineer do a little better job.
Council Member Cummings: Is there any opportunity to have a programmer or programming isn't
the word, to say if you use third party review, this will in black and white expedite your time when
presenting your plans to the Town.
Bill Ackman: Yes. We've already developed a draft of just such a thing, and it includes a kick -out
clause that if the plans come in even after being reviewed by a third party, they're not worthy, that
sounds high and lofty, but they're not worthy of a qualified, or an expedited review, they get bounced
out of the system. It comes down to being able to staff that type of a program, because once
everything becomes a priority, nothing becomes a priority.
I could be here all night telling you how many phone calls a day I get from developers saying, "Can't
you put mine on top. Mine's important because," and I could give you a thousand reasons what I hear
every single day. We do the best we can, and typically the tipping point for me is the quality of the
plans. If the plans come in and they're good, yes. If I get a directive from this body or the Town
Manager's office and it says, "Hey, Bill, try to put this one a little ahead. Bump it," usually it's for
economic development reasons. It's not because, "Hey, my buddy wants a favor," but it has to have a
real reason. We try to do that and especially when it's low hanging fruit and it's things that we can get
done very quickly, I try to get that off my plate, because it makes sense for me as well as the
developer in that particular case. It's a win -win.
Council Member Cummings: Yes. No, I appreciate that. I will just say, I appreciate the Vice Mayor's
question about looking forward 10 years. I think this is one of those wagging the tail is are we- is the
dog wag the tail or is the tail wagging the dog situation, because if we can put these incentives in
place to really truly bring affordable- truly affordable housing, not just pennies below market value
housing, then I think we'll be in a strong position. Thanks.
James David: One program you might want to look at is Fairfax County, they have an expedited
building plan review program. They require you to hire a Fairfax County certified peer reviewer. If you
do everything right, you can get up to 50% reduced review time.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Cimino -Johnson.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: I just want to follow back up. If we did put in this affordable
housing incentive expedited review, can we require that they have third party quality control?
James David: Yes.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Okay.
Bill Ackman: Yes. I certainly would create a document that we would run by legal that they would
have to sign. It would be a contract per se. You have to do X, Y, Z, A, B, C in order to qualify first of
all, and then to stay in the program, you have to maintain quality.
Council Member Cimino -Johnson: Okay. Excellent. Thank you.
Page 131September 11, 2023
Mayor Burk: Council Member Wilt.
Council Member Wilt: I just wanted to probe a little bit more on the earlier discussion and that if -
everything's -important -then -nothing's -important -response. If I think of the work hours numbers, so
currently we're doing 1,850 at work hours for a townhouse project of 100 units and that's in an existing
current state. Someone comes in with a townhouse project and they've gone through a third party
peer review and they've got a great set of plans. Do we still spend 1,850 hours on it or are we
spending 800 hours on it?
Bill Ackman: It would be probably a third less.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. There is a benefit to us in freeing up staff capacity by having folks do
this and do it with a certified professional engineer and bring us something, because we're not re -
engineering these, we're reviewing them. If the engineering's done, that takes work off us. That does
seem like a nice carrot for us to encourage us and to prioritize these, and it actually frees up capacity.
We're not talking that about adding FTEs. We're talking about we're increasing productivity and
getting more done. I think that's a good recognition.
Bill Ackman: Yes. It actually, even if the fee waiver were not there, it still saves money, because
once you get past the second submission there are additional review fees, resubmission fees. If those
plans are being approved quicker, not only are they saving money with the bank through carry costs,
but they're also saving money in review fees.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Should the Town grant affordable housing fee waivers? Do we have four people that
want that to be part of the program? Okay. That doesn't move forward at this point. That doesn't mean
that we can't bring it up and talk about it at another point. Should the Town pursue affordable housing
expedited review and I would assume we're going to say with the third party review associated with
that. Are there four people that are interested in doing that, so that's everybody, but Mr. Wilt, no.
Council Member Wilt: We should pursue that as a general productivity improvement for our entire
process. Not limited just to one specific application.
Mayor Burk: You don't object to it doing affordable, but you would've like to see it done across the
board. I understand.
Council Member Wilt: Correct.
Mayor Burk: Not a bad idea, but we're not talking about that right now.
Council Member Wilt: I understand.
Mayor Burk: All right. Does that help you? Do you feel like you have --
James David: Yes, that helps. I think we've gotten the direction to go forth and start researching and
developing the framework of an affordable housing expedited review program. Was there any
thoughts on, is it 100% affordable? Is it a mix? You don't have to give me a number, just some
guideposts.
Mayor Burk: How many people would prefer it be 100%? Okay, so 100%.
James David: Fair enough. All right. Thank you very much.
Mayor Burk: You will, of course, reach out to the County and make friends.
James David: Certainly. Yes. They're developing theirs right now as well, so we'll work together.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Thank you
Page 14ISeptember 11, 2023
Keith Markel: Madam Mayor, if I can ask, are you looking to have this brought back as part of the
budget discussion for '25 or something sooner than that?
Mayor Burk: I would assume so. We're not going to do it now.
Keith Markel: Okay. We'll try to incorporate this into a proposal within the '25 proposed budget.
Mayor Burk: Right.
Keith Markel: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Great. The next project- the next presentation, excuse me, has asked for five additional
minutes. Does anybody object if they go 15 rather than-- Okay. You're up.
Rich Klusek: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Got pressure.
Rich Klusek: I'm going to do my best to go through this in 15 minutes. Just for some background,
Mayor Burk, you are actually at the public meeting. We actually took about an hour and a half to go
through this and we had a lot of dialogue. I've shortened the presentation and I'm bringing it down to
15 minutes. I'm going to go rapid fire here to the extent that we do have any questions, by all means
we'll talk about that after on. My name again is Rich Klusek, with Planning and Zoning. Here to give
you a little bit of an update on the Crescent District Master Plan, to talk a little bit about what we've
done to date and ultimately to begin to seek some direction from you all in terms of moving forward, at
least to get some initial reactions.
Some of the efforts that we've completed to date for this project include a development feasibility
study, a fiscal impact analysis. We've conducted those neighborhood meetings and we've developed
some very preliminary recommendations which we'll be presenting at the end. We're looking to just
get some initial reactions from you all. With this effort, we have the community input, we have that
taken care of already. We have the data and analysis that really comes into the form of the feasibility
analysis. We have some best practices and case studies work that the consultants have put together,
and we're looking to get the Crescent District Master Plan policy to get into that, really the middle spot
of where we want to be, having considered all of those different things.
In terms of a little bit of background, I know that some of you were not here when this project was first
initiated. The Crescent District essentially extends from Mom's Apple Pie to the bypass on East
Market Street and then all along the length of Catoctin Circle essentially from East Market Street all
the way out to South King Street.
The purpose of this effort is to update and refine the Crescent District Master Plan. That plan was first
adopted in 2006 and is now over 15 years old. There have been several piecemeal amendments over
the last 15 years, but nothing that really takes a more comprehensive look at it. There's also some
concern about the development form following some recent development projects, more specifically
Virginia Village, which was approved by the Council a couple months back.
We're really looking to see does the master plan address current sentiment and market realities?
Given some of the project history, the 2013 zoning that is intended to implement this master plan isn't
entirely consistent with the original master plan document and vision. A couple of projects that have
taken place in the Crescent District include Virginia Village on the larger scale, as well as a couple of
smaller projects like 338 East Market Street and the Starbucks on East Market Street.
With this project, we're also looking at some opportunities for Town partnerships. The original master
plan document was very specific in saying that the Town will not participate financially in any of the
development activities. With some of the recent Council discussions, we're taking a closer look at that,
perhaps the Council to contribute to constructing parking facilities. Performing some streetscape
improvements along some of the roads, new parks and open spaces, as well as affordable housing
partnerships.
Page 151September 11, 2023
Town Council directed at the master plan update addressed a couple of very specific things, the
guiding principles, opportunities for public investment, opportunity sites, density land use, graphics,
illustrations and visuals to better illustrate the overall intent. Building heights public input and
outreach, fiscal analysis, building form, affordable housing, and a feasibility analysis.
With the master plan, we're really taking some of the work that was done with Legacy Leesburg and
refining the master plan document to make sure that it is consistent with the overarching vision that's
set forth in Legacy Leesburg. Then ultimately with the zoning and ordinance rewrite that's taking place
right now to have the implementation tool that provides the regulatory framework to achieve that
vision. When you look at the master plan area right now, there's really a lot of different districts and in
some cases the boundaries that are drawn here might be considered arbitrary. That's actually some
of the feedback that we've heard here. An overall need to simplify the different planning designations,
because you don't always have projects that fit perfectly within the box or the area that's drawn on the
map. Similarly, there's very specific planning designations for the height within the Crescent District,
but the vision overall is to set the stage for long-term redevelopment, create a district that is respectful
of the historic core of Leesburg while providing a transition to the more automobile -oriented parts of
the community, and developing a setting for a true mixture of uses that recognizes Leesburg's role as
a center of retail office and residential uses for Loudoun County.
Those are three of the vision statements from the document as it stands right now. For that matter,
Council's direction was to not change that overall vision, but rather to look more closely at the way we
get to that vision. With that getting into some of that case study research part of this effort is all about
making sense with an S as well as cents with a C of that planning district. There are many trade-offs
that we need to consider when we're looking at redevelopment in the Crescent District. There's a lot
of different competing priorities, affordable housing, managing traffic, creating new parks and
amenities, building form and design, timing of redevelopment.
How quickly does it all occur? Increasing walkability, maximizing tax revenues for the Town,
improving the streetscapes so that the area looks more attractive. There's a lot of things on this list
and they all cost money, and ultimately somebody has to pay for those things. Part of this effort is
also about weighing the trade-offs of development. Then we have to consider the value captured if the
Town does actually invest in this area. How do we recoup that? How do we create development yields
so that the tax revenues coming out of a project make it worthwhile?
Design and character, it's been proven that when buildings look better, they're generally worth more
money and they create more revenues for the Town. Active properties to the extent that there're
activities taking place, not just from nine to five, but also in the evening. That helps the Town get
greater revenues out of a project as well and making sure that people can get there through a variety
of mobility options. Then there's making sense with an S where we're simply talking about creating
places that people want to go, places that are attractive, that people really want to visit.
Whether that be in the daytime or in the evening, creating a place that's really meaningful and special
and a place that all of us would be proud to call home and encourage people to come visit. With all of
those things, we performed some development feasibility studies to get a better sense of the kind of
development that is needed to really pencil out essentially. For this study, we looked at one particular
piece of land. This was done pretty randomly discussions with our consultant team just to look at
something that actually made sense for redevelopment based on how the street grid lays out and
things of that sort.
We looked at three different density scenarios, low, medium, and high, essentially. These scenarios
aren't necessarily what we must do. We're not trying to say that we must pick one of these, but rather
they're intended to provide some lessons learned and to give us a sense of what different types of
development mean in terms of how they affect the performer. These three scenarios looked at were a
low -density scenario, which essentially looked at by -right zoning. The by -right zoning, that's the
zoning that you can get without coming to the Council.
Looks at a heavy emphasis of office and retail along Catoctin Circle with low -density townhouses 12
dwelling units per acre in the rear or behind the Catoctin Circle or behind East Market Street. The
medium -density scenario would require rezoning. That's essentially looking at four-story buildings,
and the high -density scenarios essentially looking at five -story buildings. The way this pencils out, the
Page 16ISeptember 11, 2023
three-story scenario gets you 112 units. The four-story scenario gets you 817 units more along the
lines of multi -family and condominium -style development, and the five -stories gets you 1,022.
I won't go through the full details of these numbers for the sake of time right now, but the point being
this was done strictly to get those lessons learned, to see what we can glean in terms of how the
economics work. We're not asking you to look at the specific numbers and say that's too much or
that's too high, because in reality, we know that what you would probably end up with is a greater mix
or a combination of all of these different things. A couple of things that we looked at, obviously if you
go up on a property, you can get additional parkland within the center of that site.
The lower -density scenario has the least amount of parkland or the higher -density scenario has the
most parkland. Again, looking at it from a development perspective, you're talking about additional
residents and in many cases, additional people coming to this site as you get to higher densities.
From a revenue standpoint, the low density scenario is still fiscally positive to the Town. These are
actually some numbers that were generated in-house, but the higher density scenario results in the
highest net fiscal impact of the Town. The more we develop on a property, the better off it becomes
from the Town. That's just one of those many trade offs that I mentioned earlier. A couple of the
lessons learned surface parked office is very difficult to build and 12 dwelling units per acre is
probably too low.
The lower density scenario really doesn't pencil out. The medium density scenario does work. The
higher density scenario also works to a certain degree, but when you begin to get into that level of
structured parking at $30,000 or $35,000 worth of space, it begins to get even difficult to do those
higher density buildings unless you truly do go up.
A couple of other lessons learned. Again, office is challenging in this market. Retail is also quite
challenging in this market. As I mentioned the scenarios are simple and they're conceptual in nature.
We do expect that it'll be a range of housing some mix of multifamily and townhouse development
would probably make the most sense. Also retail and Catoctin Circle would be challenging given the
way the road looks right now. There's not a lot of interest from the private sector to put your best
facade on Catoctin Circle when across the street you don't necessarily know what you're going to be
looking at. There's a lot more interest in creating things interior to the site where it all gets
redeveloped at once. Value from an economic development perspective is about creating good
places. There would be a need to really focus on creating that good place where people want to come
and visit and spend money and that generates value for the Town.
We took all of that information and that was again the rapid fire version of it. We took all of that
information we shared it with the community and we tried to get their perspective on what it all means.
We asked a number of different questions and I'm just giving you a very brief sampling here. Which of
these things are most important to you? In general it was difficult to get any very specific direction, but
there were two things really that came out as priorities. Well one really it was increasing walkability.
No matter how we answered or asked that question, there was definitely an interest in increasing
walkability making the area more pedestrian friendly. We asked how important would it be to for these
things to occur quickly for the Town to incentivize development. There really wasn't a lot of interest or
the Town should allow more residential development to respond to market conditions. There was
really mixed. You can see the scale bar at a 4.2. There were some people that voted zero and some
that voted 10.
That makes our job incredibly difficult, because the reality is that there are and there probably will
continue to be people on both ends of the spectrum with very strong feelings. This is just another
graphic that demonstrates what some of the priorities were. People were given the opportunity to vote
for three different things. Again you could see that increasing walkability was the highest score. This
by the way is only one of the two sessions that we conducted. We had a morning and an evening.
These are the results from the evening session. We also tried to get to the very specific issue of
height and density. Which of these photos do you think best represents what you'd like to see in the
Crescent District? Does anybody want to take any guesses?
Which one came out most popular? It was the one with the two stories. Despite the fact that we
shared all of these lessons learned about how the two stories might not be feasible that's the one that
Page 17ISeptember 11, 2023
many folks picked. We asked it a number of different ways with illustrations. Again the lower density
ones are the ones the low I shouldn't say lower density. The lower height ones. You can't tell the
density from these images, but the lower height ones were the ones that more typically got picked.
However, when we asked a question like this which of these best demonstrate your vision for the
Crescent District on the left side being the giant shopping center with Books -a -Million there or the
Village at Leesburg? Overwhelmingly there was an interest in something that looked more along the
lines of Village at Leesburg. There clearly is an interest in changing something about the Crescent
District. A couple of project milestones to let you know where we are in the process right now. We're
in the fall. We're doing a quick little check -in to get some initial feedback from you all. In the fall we're
going to put together a second public meeting with a draft document that'll be available for their
review. We'll come back to Council at some point in the winter ultimately getting to a Planning
Commission and Council public hearing in the winter. Some of the preliminary recommendations, and
Madam Mayor, I will need about another two minutes to get through this.
Mayor Burk: That's all right. Go ahead.
Rich Klusek: These are essentially back of the napkin sketches that were developed by the
consultant team to start to think about different ideas and how we can make this work. The two circles
that you see, there are essentially two nodes of higher -density development that were envisioned by
our consultant team with our help, of course and the areas in blue are areas that are designated for
commercial corridors, areas that are more likely to remain the way they are right now. Not only from a
land use perspective, but also looking at it at the constraints in those areas.
You have narrower lot depths, so you can't really build all of those parking garages and things that
you might be needed. Those areas in blue would, again, have lower densities. When you look at it
from, on this image, you have the mixed -use residential areas, the areas in the, the pinkish shade,
those represent the circles or the nodes as we've been calling them. These are areas where you
might begin to see four or five -story development where you actually see change happening. In the
areas in blue, those commercial corridors would not have the five stories that you see in the current
regulations. In reality, it doesn't look a whole lot different from the current Crescent District map, but it
takes into account a little bit more of the reality of what you can actually construct along Catoctin
Circle.
A couple of other initial recommendations that we have begun thinking about are to increase
walkability for the Town to actually invest in some streetscape improvements. Emphasize community
gathering spaces within the areas that do actually develop. In other words, the areas that we are
expecting to see redevelopment, a community gathering space would be a prerequisite for that
development. We're not just allowing four or five stories for the sake of allowing four or five stories.
Instead, it has to come with something that is a true benefit for the Town maintaining the commercial
focus of corridors of Catoctin Circle in East Market Street, in other areas outside of those nodes and
placemaking. Again, creating those places where people actually want to visit. That essentially
concludes what I have. There are a couple of ideas here that Council can think about and talk about if
you'd like. These are things that we shared with the Planning Commission to essentially promote
some conversation, some of the things that we were trying to do or intending to do with this effort.
Happy to take any questions or feedback that you have at this time.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Cummings.
Council Member Cummings: I just had a quick question. You had mentioned, and I may not have
heard, I may have misunderstood you. You talked about Catoctin Circle being difficult for folks to
develop on. Just can you walk me through again what makes it difficult?
Rich Klusek: Sure. This is an image of Catoctin Circle, and suppose you were to be the owner of the
land on the right side here, and you were to, or excuse me, that's East Market Street. The same
principle sort of holds true. If you put your most beautiful facade right along East Market Street, you
don't necessarily know what's on the other side. The feedback that we received from some of the
development community was, I don't want to put my best facade facing that. I'd rather have it
interiorly- or oriented towards the interior of the site so that I can control what's on either side.
Page 181September 11, 2023
Council Member Cummings: It's not the road itself. It's their neighbors across the road.
Council Member Bagdasarian: It's both. That gets to the point of the streetscape improvements,
where perhaps you do begin to consider a landscape center median, improved wider sidewalks, and
treeline streets. Now all of a sudden you're creating something that does look more attractive.
Council Member Cummings: Then my final question, you talked a lot about the cost analysis of- for
private interest doing- to invest in this district. What's the elevator pitch? What did you come up with
as far as the-- You gave us those three densities. Which one, financially, was more feasible for folks
to invest in Leesburg?
Council Member Bagdasarian: It's that middle scenario that essentially is is what the-- At least the
fiscal impact analysis part of it or the feasibility analysis identified as the area we should target. Again,
with the caveat that it's not simply four stories across the board. There would be some variation and
different heights.
Mayor Burk: I did attend this presentation that you had, and it was fascinating. It was very interesting
and I'm looking forward to one in the fall. I'm glad to hear that you're going to do it again and present
this information, and I'd like to see the change to how people will react to it. I hope a number of the
same people will attend, but I most certainly agree with your assessments on where the group was
and how they saw things and I thought it was-- Living off of Catoctin Circle, I know how difficult
Catoctin Circle would be and is to reinvest in and to rezone, but the walkability aspect of it is what
makes what is really lacking there.
It's a very difficult place to walk, and that is something that we know that people are looking for. That
people are moving into localities, because they want to have that walkability. They want to be able to
walk down to the grocery store, and walk downtown and get a drink and come home and that sort of
thing. I think this is a really fascinating study that you put together with the residents, and I think it has
a lot to tell us. As I went through it, I also agreed with the middle --
What do we call it? The middle development component. The medium density scenario. There we go.
The idea that not all of it is five stories. Not all of it is four stories. That it's a mix that makes it different
and unique, and that's one of the things that I really have been sad to see that so many of these
developments that we are putting in place are just cutouts of somewhere else and Leesburg is unique
and different for a reason, and people come here for that reason. I want to make sure that what we're
doing in the Crescent District respects that and makes sure that people can feel like they're in
Leesburg and not in Reston or not in Arlington.
That's a component that's very important to me as we go through all this, but I do appreciate all this
information. Like I said, having been there, I heard all those comments. I think this is recorded
accurately from what I heard and I think it's exciting that people are beginning to think about it and
that we've got some new ways of looking at things and I think this is going to be the next place that
will develop and become very an exciting and interesting place. Mr. Bagdasarian.
Council Member Bagdasarian: Yes, thank you very much. Reiterating the whole walkability factor, I
think that's what's desirable when we talk about what's amazing about the historic charm of downtown
Leesburg, it's because it's walkable, because it was built before cars. I walk Catoctin Circle almost
daily, and you can walk Catoctin Circle, but it's not walkable. It's like, okay, I could physically do this
and it's just not- the whole scale of the buildings, their surroundings, and I do think we should look at,
investing in public infrastructure, investing in- the example here on East Market Street, a median, but
making that, I walk that section too, you walk from the Historic District out to towards Giant and
Starbucks, and it's like, uh, okay, this --
Mayor Burk: We're back to suburban.
Council Member Bagdasarian: You can walk, but it's not really enjoyable. 1 think that's critical and
it's nice to see that was a priority based on your input. I appreciate that.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor.
Page 19ISeptember 11, 2023
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Thanks. Thanks for the presentation, Rich, and I congratulate you on
demonstrating that you can talk really, really fast. That's good. Let me get to my notes. Excuse me.
One of the things that precipitated this conversation, I think for Council, and since Virginia Village
keeps coming up since it is our first and far only project, when we look at the slide that shows the low,
medium, and high density, and in the conversation we say, well, it's the high density that gives us the
greatest amount of open space and so on.
Would you say that is accurately reflected in the project that we got? I'm not trying to cast stones at
this point or anything. I'm just trying to emphasize why we're having this discussion and why for some
of us, that particular one was a little disappointing. Is my impression off the mark, or if I said we didn't
really get what we were hoping for there in terms of open space and amenities and so on, or is there
something I'm missing?
Rick Klusek: Well, that's a very loaded question, but in terms --
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Yes.
Rich Klusek: --of how would that project fits in the low, medium, and high, I think it's a combination of
all of them to be honest, with the high, medium, and low. High being the five -story buildings that
you're familiar with that were approved of Virginia Village, medium with some of the fours, and then
you do get to some townhouses, albeit at higher density. That project does accommodate all three of
those to a certain degree, and it probably reflects a little bit more of the vision that we would expect to
see in the circle areas here, or at least at the consultant's thought we should see.
Having said that, in terms of open space, there was actually a pretty significant open space
component with that project, both with the Central Park in the middle there, as well as with the bridge
crossing over the creek and things of that sort, and the amphitheater that's created there. That is a
pretty significant open space investment, at least from my own personal perspective. Having said that,
it's your perspective that matters, not mine.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I think one of the things that makes this whole conversation just a bit more
difficult, and I understand we can't come in and conceptually really design. When I look at, for
example, some of these slides about making sense of the Crescent and I look at what I see here and
it to a certain extent doesn't, in my view, accurately represent the area. These looks are always very
grand, and, of course, the highest buildings are always pushed way back into the background, and so
on.
Sometimes then, when you see what you actually get and you go, "Oh, that doesn't look anything like
this picture that I was presented in the public meeting." I think that sometimes creates disappointment
in the end. I don't know if there's any better way of presentations so that we can say, this is probably
closer to what you might actually get without completely designing a project. Then to echo the
comments that have already been made and you have made, I'm not sure how we're going to get
there without a certain amount of public investment.
When we look at the slide of East Market, I just think without the public investment, that's going to be
a long time coming, especially when we view the nature of the streetscape itself and all of the power
lines and we constantly talk about burying utilities, never get to it because of the expense of it. I think
in the end that's also going to be an important component of this whole thing. Thank you for your
presentation and I look forward to the draft plan. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Do you have anything you need from us tonight?
Rich Klusek: We are not looking for anything specific, it's just general feedback. Again, there's these
six specific things that we identified for the Planning Commission when we did something very similar,
simplifying the plan, removing some of those arbitrary boundaries, prioritizing walkable activity
centers, more attention on the streetscape, obtaining more meaningful public spaces, revitalizing
commercial corridors along Catoctin and East Market, and having an area plan that activates
redevelopment. It's those things that we're intending to build the meat around with this draft plan
document, and we're just looking for general nod of the head from Council Members if- making sure
we're on the right track.
Page 201September 11, 2023
Mayor Burk: Oh, I think you heard most of us talking about almost all of those things. I think you're
right on next to where you're going.
Rich Klusek: Great. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Appreciate it. That takes us to-- Eileen, we don't have any proclamation.
Does anybody have any future agenda items that they would like to put on? Mr. Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: I didn't, but I do now, I think. I would have to ask a question first, and that
question is, does staff need direction from Council pertaining to the discussion we had about
affordable housing and recovering fees and third -party reviews, and so on? Does staff currently have
the tools required if we want to tighten up that whole process or start making requests or demands of
developers, or is this direction that's required from Council?
Keith Markel: I think what I was hearing was we've got a good consensus of some of the elements
that you're looking for. I think our thought at this point would be to put that together and some options
for you to come back and present to you a package. If you all want to get into it sooner than the
budget discussion, or if you have more specifics or you feel you need to get to a tighter idea of what
you all are cohesively looking for, then --
Vice Mayor Steinberg: This is actually outside affordable units specifically and more about general
process.
Keith Markel: I see.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Meaning, do we need to give staff better tools for making stronger demands
from applicants that these applications don't come to us half-baked, for lack of a better phrase. Or do
they have the tools and we simply need to be more firm in our commitments?
James David: I really appreciate you bringing up that topic. As I said before, I think the best tool you
can bring is that political support. If we do move in the direction of tightening up our checklist, being a
little firmer on rejecting the plans that aren't to quality. Then, as Council Member Wilt said, if we look
at it holistically and come up with this kind of expedited peer review process, that would be another
item we can bring back for discussion. I think at this point, with the merger into Community
Development, we're going to be looking at process improvements, and it's a good time to revisit that
topic as well.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: That so. Do we need a specific conversation about it, or are we good where
we are for now?
James David: I'm good if you are.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: Okay.
Keith Markel: Good. I think we've got good direction this evening from you all on this one and
definitely more to continue the discussion on, but we'll bring some things back to you I'm sure over the
months ahead.
Vice Mayor Steinberg: All right. Thanks.
Keith Markel: Great.
Mayor Burk: Wilt?
Council Member Wilt: Just two things that maybe you're under the heading of information request, in
some fashion. I appreciate the Quarterly Budget updates provided. There's a comparison of current
spend year -on -year comparison. I wonder if we could also get the current year spend and forecast
versus the approved budget as part of that.
Page 21ISeptember 11, 2023
Keith Markel: I'm sure. Yes. We've got the dashboard that you get attached to --
Council Member Wilt: Yes, and then with the executive summary discussion of the variances.
Keith Markel: Yes, and we can have Finance staff talk to you about specifically just get exactly what
you're looking for so we can incorporate that in.
Council Member Wilt: Okay. Thanks. The next thing was the Town ordinance rewrite was mentioned
tonight.
Mayor Burk: The what?
Council Member Wilt: The Town ordinance rewrite project.
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Council Member Wilt: Is there a cadence for reporting on the status of that at times? Because I'm
not even sure if it's kicked off yet or anything about it at this point.
James David: We were talking about the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. It was kicked off a few months
ago, and the consultant came and visited with Planning Commission. Right now they're working on
what we call a code audit, which is they're looking at our code, and they're pointing out deficiencies,
areas we could improve based on their vast knowledge of doing this across the country. We have
planned on your upcoming agenda a joint session with Council and Planning Commission on October
19th to hear the findings of that code audit from our zoning consultants.
Council Member Wilt: Okay, and there'll be-- It's a two-year project. There'll be some sort of high
level work plan in terms of -
James David: Certainly.
Council Member Wilt: -what's attacked or order of priority and over what time frame and that kind of
thing?
James David: Yes. I do have a project plan. I'm happy to circulate it after the meeting to the Council.
Council Member Wilt: That's great. That answered my question. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a motion?
Vice Mayor Steinberg: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Second?
Council Member Bagdasarian: Second.
Mayor Burk: All in favor?
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Anyone opposed? All right. We are done tonight.
Page 22ISeptember 11, 2023