HomeMy Public PortalAbout01_21_16 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesburg in Virginia
Leesburg Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 21, 2016
The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, January 21, 2016 in the Town Council
Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan
Berry -Hill, Mike Watkins, Irish Grandfield, Liz Whiting, Shelby Caputo and Karen Cicalese.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Kidder,
Harper, and Robinson
Absent: Vice Mayor Kelly Burk
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Commissioner Robinson
Second: Commissioner Kidder
Vote: 7-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Kidder had contacted Karen Cicalese, Planning Commission Clerk, earlier in the
week and requested that her comments regarding the lack of specific language in the Justification
Statement be included in the second paragraph on Page 17 of the January 7, 2016 minutes.
Motion: Commissioner Kidder
Second: Commissioner Babbin
Vote: 7-0
DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS
Commissioner Burk disclosed a meeting with the Crescent Parke Applicant
Commissioner Babbin disclosed having several telephone conversations with Dewberry
representatives and Peter Hargreaves, from Loudoun County, on the court house expansion
project, as well as a meeting with the Crescent Parke Applicant.
Commissioner Harper disclosed a meeting with Peter Hargreaves, a gentleman from Dewberry,
and members of St. John's Church.
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
Chairman Welsh Chamblin gave a brief statement noting that she was honored to serve as the
Chair of the Planning Commission and is looking forward to collaborating with members of the
1
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Planning Commission, Staff, and the public on issues that come before the Commission. She also
gave an overview of the land development review steps which include an initial staff review
followed by staff working with the applicant to resolve any issues; the application is advertised
for a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission holds the
public hearing to receive public comments regarding the proposal, discusses the issues raised by
the public as well as those issues identified by Staff and makes its' recommendation to Town
Council; Town Council holds a public hearing on the application and considers the public input
received along with recommendations from the Planning Commission and Staff and makes its
final decision on the application.
PETITIONERS
Karen Cicalese, the Planning Commission Clerk, called for John Burnham who had requested to
be signed up to speak during the Petitioner's section; however, he was not in attendance at the
meeting at that time.
PUBLIC HEARING
TLZM-2013-0006 Crescent Parke Public Hearing, Mike Watkins, Sr. Planner
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:04 PM and gave a brief overview of
the public hearing process.
Michael Watkins, Sr. Planner noted that they would be reversing the order of presentations with
Staff going first and the Applicant following. He explained that this was a continuation of the
review of the Crescent Parke rezoning application which is a request to rezone portions of the
property from the CD -C (Crescent District—Commercial), CD-MUO (Crescent District—Mixed-
Use
istrict Mixed -
Use Option), and CD -OS (Crescent District—Open Space) to CD-RH (Crescent District—
Residential
istrictResidential High Density). The subject property is predominately located east of South King
Street, north of the Bypass, south of the T.W. Perry property, and west of the Virginia Knolls
property. This application came before the Planning Commission with a Town Plan Amendment
and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which have both been adopted by Council which means
that the planned land use for the property now include residential and the Gateway Drive
designation was reversed so it is no longer an Urban Boulevard. The application before you has
been revised to address'both of those items. Mr. Watkins discussed the current zoning of the
property noting the location of the proposed CD-RH sub -district which is to include the
following uses and densities:
• A combined total of 159,725 sf. of non-residential uses to include a 2,000 sf. community
room and 380 dwelling units comprising of multi -family, two -over -twos, and
townhouses; broken down as 45,100 sf. of retail/office; an 88,000 sf. building to be used
as either a hotel or office; the mixed use component includes 26,625 sf. retail and 96
multifamily units; and 196 townhouses and 88 two -over -twos south of Tuscarora Creek.
As background information, Staff noted that the Applicant is currently processing two plans
through the Town's Department of Plan Review. One is a site plan for 60,000 sf. of office
located in approximately the same area as the proposed 88,000 sf. building and 35 duplex units.
Pi
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
These plans are by -right development options in the event the Crescent Parke proposal is not
approved.
Mr. Watkins explained that he facilitated his review of the application by breaking it down into
four different areas; Creekside Retail, Crescent Parke Commercial, Crescent Parke Mixed -Use,
and Crescent Parke Neighborhood. This property is located in the Crescent Design District
which has codified zoning requirements that the Applicant must meet; however, it is a design
district and design features will be discussed.
1. Crescent Park Commercial
This is the location of the 88,000 sf. hotel which would be subject to a subsequent special
exception request; and/or office. It would be a single four story building that includes
structured and surface parking and the Applicant has provided conceptual detailed
architecture. Its' general appearance meets the required design themes established in the
Crescent District; and exhibits the appropriate amount of articulation, modulation, and
massing along the street.
Conflicts include the street section, pedestrian access and building frontage. Staff
recommendations include dumpster relocation; amenity feature relocation; landscaping
opportunities; and increased pedestrian connections.
2. Creekside Retail
This is the location of 45,100 sf. of ground floor retail and upper story offices. These
would be three story buildings which would appear to be three stories from the rear and
two stories from the front due to differences in topography. The buildings incorporate
structured parking on the lower floors and the Applicant has provided detailed conceptual
architecture.
Conflicts include pedestrian connections from surface parking; frontage requirements;
required street section; street trees; and site lighting. Staff recommendations include a
provision for safe lighting and amenity area opportunities.
3. Crescent Parke Mixed -Use
This is the location of 28,625 sf. of ground floor retail with 96 upper story residential
units and a 2,000 sf. community room. The buildings are five stories and have "Tuck -
Under" and surface parking and the Applicant has provided detailed conceptual
architecture.
Conflicts include the street section and trees; frontage requirements; and on -street
parking credit. Staff recommendations include wider pedestrian connections; dumpster
relocation; increased site lighting; and amenity and amenity area reconsideration.
4. Crescent Parke Neighborhood
The area contains 196 townhouses; 88 stacked townhouses; a linear park; and pocket
parks and the Applicant has provided detailed conceptual architecture.
3
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Conflicts include access requirements; access points; active recreation; and pedestrian
trail. Staff recommendations include recreation ratio; and changes to Park 1, Park 3 and
the Developer's Option Park.
Mr. Watkins explained that Staff is working with the Applicant to resolve the following
comprehensive technical issues:
• Updated traffic impact analysis
• First Street off-site improvements
• Off-site grading
• BMP locations
• Underground detention facilities
• Gateway Drive Street improvement transition
• AC unit locations
• Mailbox clusters
Mr. Watkins discussed the following proffer revisions:
• The recreation contribution has been revised as the typical $1,000/dwelling unit has been
removed and the Applicant is requesting that their purchase of the Izaak Walton property
be used to facilitate compliance with that proffer guideline.
• The off-site transportation contribution remains the same however; there was a
contribution to a traffic signal at South King Street and the Bypass interchange which has
been removed.
Further proffer analysis demonstrates the following:
• No phasing of commercial square footage or residential units
• Insufficiency of right-of-way for required street sections
• Staff objection to base -paved roads for mixed traffic
• Increased width for Greenway Reservation Area for buffering
• Timing for South King Street intersection improvements
• Reduction of $200,000 towards South King Street Route 15 By-pass improvements
• Uncertainty with off-site right-of-way acquisition and required road improvements
• Require dedication of Izaak Walton property prior to first occupancy permit
• No proffered improvements to the Izaak Walton property
Mr. Watkins noted that there were several modification requests:
• TLZO Sec. 11.3, Parking Spaces: Limited 2/2 units to count interior garage space — Staff
objects due to the lack of available parking in the vicinity of the units
• TLZO Sec.7.10.11 Streetscape Requirement:, Davis Avenue as a general street — This
modification is not necessary, Gateway Extended can be a General Urban Street
• TLZO-Sec.7.10.6, Building Specifications, roof form: cross gables versus dormer
windows- No Staff objection
• TLZO Sec.7.10.5, Amenity Area Design: shaded area modification less than 50% -
Recalculation of the shaded area is needed for each park amenity
0
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
• TLZO Sec. 7.10.11, Street Trees: street trees at intersection due to sight distance — Staff
has no objection as this is required for safety reasons
• TLZO Sec. 12.8.2, Buffer Yards Adjacent to Certain Streets: reduce the planting material
requirement for Buffer Yards E -F, adjacent to Route 15 By-pass — The buffer yard
requirements of TLZO Sec. 12.8.2 do not apply in this instance; therefore, the
modification is not necessary
• TLZO See. 12.8.3, Matrix Rb to Re: Buffer Yards D -E (Virginia Knolls) reduces the
width of a buffer yard — the buffer yard requirements of TLZO Sec. 12.8.3 do not apply
in this instance; therefore, the modification is not necessary. However, Staff has noted
concerns regarding inadequate buffers to the future Greenway Extension.
• TLZO-Sec. 7.10.5.A, Parking exceeded the maximum number of commercial parking
spaces required by ordinance — Staff has no objection
Mr. Watkins concluded with a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission schedule
a work session(s) to facilitate detailed discussion of the zoning and design related items
presented in the January 21, 2016 Crescent Parke Staff Report.
Christine Gleckner, Land Use Planner, Walsh Colucci, discussed the changes made to the
application as follows:
Overall Density
Number of Units: 6% decrease (19 unit reduction)
Density: .76 dwelling unit per acre reduction (11.8 du/ac to 11.04 du/acre)
Open Space: 7% increase (.63 acre); 34% is open space and 42% of site is open space if
the Greenway Extension right-of-way is included
Unit Mix
CD-RH: 105 20' townhouse units (37%)
91 16' townhouse units (32%)
88 two -over -two units (31%)
Each townhouse stick will have intermixed unit widths
CD-MUO: 96 multifamily units
Tree Save and Buffers
2.34 Acre Park Parcel: Open space increases from 22% to 45% (.52 acre to 1.05 acre)
Units reduced 32% (15 unit reduction from 47 to 32)
Tree save area included in open space
Right -of -Way 10' buffer added along reservation area
Reservation Area: Trail included in buffer rather than reservation area
Tree save area increased within right-of-way reservation area
Active Recreation: Use integrated amenity areas as gathering spaces and tot lot
Active recreation located adjacent to stream valley at edge of
neighborhood
5
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Active playing field is provided in the Developer's Option
Neighborhood Park
Proffers:
Up -front construction of Davis Avenue Extension to Gateway Drive (including construction of
bridge over Tuscarora Creek) $9,000,000
Cash Contributions:
Schools:
Parks:
Off-site Transportation:
Fire & Rescue:
Total Cash Contributions:
$11,974/SFA x 196 = $2,346,904
$6652 2 -over -2 x 88 = $585,376
$5,100/MF x 96 = $489,600
Total: $3,421,880
$6,092/unit x 380 units = $2,315,000
$2,021/unit x 380 units = $76800
$100/unit x 380 units = $A000
$6,560,940 ($17,218/unit)
Jim Sisley, Leesburg resident, came forward and noted his support of this application as it was
his opinion that retail follows residential. In his opinion, the Town does not have enough
residents to support the number of square feet of retail that has been approved for occupancy in
the Town.
Gem Bingol, 1508 Shields Terrace, and Leesburg, came forward and noted that she did not
support this application, as it was her opinion that we should not convert land which is planned
for commercial and retail use to residential use. Concerns expressed included lack of phasing
and increased density.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited clarifying questions from Planning Commission members.
Commissioner Barnes asked the Applicant if the construction of Davis Avenue was necessary in
order to develop the property. Ms. Gleckner answered that they do need the road for
development but did not need the entire road built up front for this development.
Commissioner Barnes asked the Applicant to disclose the amount of funds being utilized from
the school fund to purchase the park. Ms. Gleckner answered that no funds were being taken
from the school contribution and they were fully funding the school contribution.
Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the Parks and Recreation proffered
contribution. Ms. Gleckner explained that there is a customary $1,000/unit park proffer and the
Applicant is using that amount for the park purchase plus an additional $5,000/unit.
Commissioner Robinson asked if it were possible to have all of the updates, including the traffic
study, by the date of the work session, and if not, when they could expect to receive them. Ms.
Gleckner answered that when the traffic study was prepared and scoped with Town Staff and
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
VDOT; it was assumed that the bridge would be opened and it was the Applicant's opinion that a
new traffic study was not warranted.
Commissioner Kidder commented that she was very impressed with the Staff recommendations
as this was a very complicated application. Staff has enhanced the understanding of the
application as well as provided suggestions to make this project livable.
Commissioner Babbin wished to clarify the funding for the purchase of the park. Ms. Gleckner
answered that customarily $380,000 would have come to the Town in a cash contribution of
$1,000 at a time with each permit issued for the construction of each dwelling unit. This is also
an up -front proffer as they are under contract to purchase the park approximately within a year of
zoning approval for $2,300,000. There is an additional proffer of $1,900,000 to fund the park
purchase.
Commissioner Babbin asked if the Town currently leases the property and if there was a cost
saving to the Town by the Applicant purchasing the park and dedicating it to the Town. Ms.
Gleckner answered that the Town currently leases the property from the land owner for $100,000
per year and there is an additional cost of approximately $40,000 per year in property taxes due
to Loudoun County. The $140,000 saved could be used to invest in park improvements.
Commissioner Harper asked the Applicant if the Town will be responsible for mitigating the
pond among other issues to make it a viable park amenity once it has been dedicated to the
Town. Ms. Gleckner answered that the Town could choose to do so; currently they are making
lease payments each year and are not improving the park. Once the Town owns the land it will
be responsible for it's' maintenance.
Commissioner Burk noted that the Town is obligated to pay lease payments and asked if it was
known how many years were left on the lease. Ms. Gleckner answered that it was her
understanding that there were fifteen years remaining on the lease. Hobie Mitchell, the
Applicant, answered that when it was originally executed it was a thirty year lease. Fifteen years
have expired so there is approximately fifteen years left on the lease. It is also subject to annual
appropriations from Council.
Commissioner Kidder stated the she would like the Applicant to provide information on how
this balances out in terms of what the Town is getting and what the Town is spending as well as
updated estimates on the cost associated with improving and maintaining the pond at the
upcoming work session.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked what the critical action date was for this application.
Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Planning and Zoning, explained that Council has directed that this be
brought to them prior to or by March 8, 2016 for a public hearing.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 8:08 pm and asked for a motion to move
this application to a work session.
Commissioner Kidder motioned to move discussion to a work session.
7
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Robinson seconded the motion.
Commissioner Barnes opined that this could be handled at the next meeting and a special
meeting was not needed.
Commissioner Burk asked if Staff and the Applicant had received enough guidance to be ready
for the work session. Mr. Watkins answered that he would speak for Staff and noted that there
are some technical issues that need to be worked through. Staff had made some
recommendations which the Applicant can choose to include if so inclined.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin clarified that the discussion would be continued to a work session at
the Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting on February 4, 2016 and called for
the vote. The motion passed 7-0.
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
None
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
None
ZONING
TLZM-2015-00032, TLZM-2015-0003, and TLTA-2015-0001 Courthouse Expansion Work
Session
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the work session at 8:18 pm and explained that at the
beginning of the meeting there is a Petitioner's section in which any member of the public can
address the Planning Commission on any topic other than a public hearing. The public hearings
on these three applications had been closed; however, she offered the opportunity for a brief
Petitioners sections to those members of the public who wished to speak to these applications.
John Burnham, 114 Slack Lane, Leesburg, came forward and asked to have the hours of
construction changed to reflect a starting time of 7:00 am as opposed to 6:30 am. He also
expressed concern regarding the parking garage and suggested creating a community garden
which would create green space on top; soften the look, and add value to the community.
Commissioner Kidder asked for clarification of Mr. Burnham's suggestion. Irish Grandfield, Sr.
Planner, Town of Leesburg, Department of Planning and Zoning, clarified that he was suggesting
using a portion of the parking garage on the top deck along the south face, where it is closest to
the homes along North Street, for greenery such as a green roof, and more specifically a
community garden.
Becky Hanrahan, 280 Ariel Drive, Leesburg, and owner of Hanrahan Properties Real Estate
Company came forward and expressed concerns regarding the roof top lighting; the wider
sidewalk's impact on property values; parking garage utilization by courthouse employees and
law enforcement officers; and tunnel use restricted to employees and law enforcement.
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Diane Lawhorne, 203 Wildman Street, Leesburg, expressed concerns regarding the lighting,
appearance, and policing of the building.
Sarah Dorfman -Markel, 119 Harrison Street, Leesburg, and employee of the courts system, came
forward and expressed concerns regarding parking on both sides of the street during the day and
pedestrian safety.
Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner, gave a brief review of the three application as follows:
• TLTA-2015-0001 is a Town Plan Amendment to change the Pennington Lot Planned
Land Use from Low Density Residential to Downtown
• TLZM-2015-0002 is a concept plan and proffer amendment of the approved Courthouse
rezoning that would have resulted in an 80,000 sf. courthouse on this site.
• TLZM-2015-0003 is a rezoning of the Pennington Lot from R6 to GC (Government
Center)
The objective of this work session is to answer Planning Commission questions raised at the
public hearing and to resolve outstanding issues. The work session will be divided into six
sections.
1. Updates: Staff report corrections, revised plans and proffers (Staff)
2. Traffic; Volume, routing, safety, intersection analysis and improvement
recommendations (Applicant)
Parking Garage: Mass, size, architecture, screening, North Street exit, top deck lighting,
operational controls (Applicant)
3. Miscellaneous Issues: Sidewalk maintenance, shuttle, stormwater management, fiscal
impact, waivers, wayfinding, Mt. Olive Lodge, proffers (Applicant)
4. Construction Issues: Hours, street closures, blasting, cemetery access (Applicant)
5. Outstanding issues: (Staff)
6. Recommendations: (Staff)
1. Updates:
There is one correction to the Staff Report. Staff is requesting two traffic driver feedback
signs; not four. Staff believes they would be effective on Harrison and North Streets; it
would not be effective to put them on Church and Cornwall Streets.
There are eleven updates to the Staff Report which include:
• Proffer to provide 2 driver feedback signs to help control speeding
• Proffer to underground utilities along Edwards Ferry Road
• Plans revised to have North Street entrance to garage as emergency access only
• $400,000 proffer for each of two intersection improvements (was $253,000)
• Top deck lighting operational controls
• Top deck lighting poles increased from 22' 9" to 25'
• Blasting notification proffer increased to 450' radius (was 300')
• Commitment to limits on proposed lighting modifications at courthouse
• Native plants
Z7
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
• Wayfinding signs reference "Court Parking"
• Modification for building height at courthouse to allow 55' instead of 45'
At this point Mr. Grandfield invited the Applicant to address traffic, parking garage, construction
and miscellaneous issues.
Rich Brittingham, Dewberry, gave an overview of the changes that were made to address public
and Planning Commission concerns as follows:
• Pennington Lot
■ 18' curb line shift; 20'— 30' landscape buffer area to address concerns expressed
regarding appropriate screening from residents along Church Street Extended and
those that front on King Street
■ Converted exit only on North Street which was 3 0 feet wide to an emergency
access only which is 20' feet wide, which enables the Applicant to increase the
tree save along North Street and add supplemental plantings behind the tree save
and around the emergency access
■ Eliminated proposed pedestrian route down to North Street to address concerns
regarding mid -block crossing to Semones Lot
■ New pedestrian path that runs along the south side of the garage
Commissioner Robinson asked if the emergency access was 20' wide from the garage to North
Street and what materials would be used. Mr. Brittingham answered that it was and it would be
made of Grasscrete, which is a pervious surface concrete block that allows grass to grow through
it.
Commissioner Robinson asked if this type of surface enabled the flow of water to be addressed
as Staff had recommended. Bill Ackman, Director, Plan Review, answered that it is not the way
Staff has recommended. Staff met with Dewberry representatives earlier in the day and are
running through some calculations; however Staff is continuing to promote taking the water
down North Street instead of behind the units.
Mr. Brittingham clarified that he was referring to the new apron allowing the channeling of water
across the entrance as it is no longer a commercial entrance.
2. Traffic:
Tushar Awar, Project Manager, Gorove/Slade, addressed traffic volume, distribution and
intersections beginning with an overview of the Traffic Study which was conducted based on
agreed upon scope discussed and approved by Town Staff and included a comprehensive
study area. There were three peak hours analyzed; AM, PM and Mid-day. The open year
scenario and the build out conditions and planning level (+20 years) conditions were also
analyzed. Mitigations necessary to meet DCSM's Level of Service (LOS) criteria was
identified and the intersections at North/King Streets and at Edwards Ferry Road/ Catoctin
Circle did not operate at an acceptable level of service so a traffic signal was recommended.
The Traffic Study did not analyze the North Street exit.
10
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Kidder noted that she understood the necessity for the proffer of a signal and
asked if it would be possible, when it is determined that there is a need for the signal at North
and King Street, to conduct a flow analysis and evaluate if another option such as a four way
stop or circle would work.
Mr. Grandfield answered that the Planning Commission could ask that the proffer include the
condition requiring a re -consideration of other options at this intersection prior to the
installation of a traffic signal. The proffer is for the money to come to the Town; the Town
then decides what improvements will be made. The Town has an established CIP process
where concerns, such as this, are raised and Council will consider the issues.
Calvin Grow, Transportation Engineer, explained that the peak hour traffic at that
intersection warrants a traffic signal. Staff has evaluated an all way stop at that intersection
and it was determined that would not work due to the balance of the traffic volume on North
Street versus King Street. Traffic volume is much higher on King Street.
Commissioner Robinson asked about the location of driver feedback signs. Mr. Grandfield
answered that the proffer is to provide $30,000 to the Town so the Town can provide driver
feedback signs on Harrison and North Streets.
Commissioner Robinson asked about improvements to the Edwards Ferry Road/Church
Street/Market Street intersection. Mr. Awar explained that it is a 5- way intersection with
Church Street being one way on either side. The Applicant has looked at the possibility of
installing a traffic signal; but it was determined that it would serve to worsen conditions at
that intersection. The impact from their site traffic is minimal and does not significantly
impact that intersection. Commissioner Robinson suggest a "No Stacking" condition at that
entrance to prevent drop-off/pick-ups and further stall traffic.
Commissioner Robinson asked if the Applicant had considered a traffic circle at the Catoctin
Circle/Edwards Ferry Road intersection. Mr. Brittingham answered that Staff has not asked
then to analyze signal versus circle versus other mitigations; however they have increased
their proffer from $253,000 to $400,000. Mr. Grandfield explained that Staff specifically
requested that the proffer refer to an intersection improvement which leaves open the
possibility of it not being a traffic signal. The Town will make that decision as part of their
established CIP process.
Mr. Brittingham discussed the Staff Report and the Applicant's responses to Staff Comments
as follows:
• Traffic Speed/Resident Safety - $30,000 for "Driver Feedback" signage
• North St./King St. Intersection Improvement - Proffer increased from $253,000 to
$400,000
• Edwards Ferry Road/Catoctin Circle Intersection Improvement — Proffer increase
from $253,000 to $400,000
• Public Comment for Restriction on Public Road Use — Staff Response: Cannot legally
limit traffic
11
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Parking Garage Size/Mass — No changes to garage at this time; increased buffering to
mitigate street views
Alternate Parking — Harrison and Liberty Lots are over 2,000 LF away. Town of
Leesburg Staff are unsure about current availability for courts use
Commissioner Welsh Chamblin noted that some of the parking in the Pennington
Garage was intended for government use and asked if the Harrison Lot would be
closer in that case. Mr. Brittingham answered that it would be.
Mr. Brittingham explained that their lighting consultant would discuss the parking garage
architecture, lighting and operational controls in detail.
Damien Walker, Walker Parking Consultants, discussed lighting, noting that current zoning
prohibits light poles on top of parking garages. In determining the proposed lighting plan, code
requirement and industry recommendations were considered. The code requires a one foot
candle average maintained in the path of egress. The Illumination Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA) has a publication entitled "Guideline for Security Lighting, People, Property
and Public Spaces" which recommends three foot candles average maintained with one foot
candle anywhere on that surface as a minimum with an average to minimum value of four to one
as a ratio. He explained that their goal, in an effort to limit potential liability for patrons and
owners, is to provide that level of lighting which also complies with what is required by code.
The following methods were analyzed and evaluated:
• No lights on top —creates safety and security issues
• Spandrel mounted light fixtures — creates dark areas, causes glare and does not meet
IESNA guidelines
• Bollard mounted light fixtures — does not meet IESNA guidelines
• "Hockey Puck" type lights at floor level- creates safety, security and liability issues
• Addition of a roof/trellis — effectively adds one more tier which is understood to be
undesirable
• Centrally located light poles — does not meet zoning requirements
• Extremely short poles mounted centrally and at perimeter — does not meet zoning code
Commissioner Kidder asked if the same standards would apply if only County owned vehicles
were parked on the top deck. Mr. Walker explained that the code does not differentiate,
however, safety and security is an operational concern for the owner and as a designer it is their
recommendation to meet IESNA guidelines to adequately protect both owners and the public.
Commissioner Welsh Chamblin asked if prohibiting access to the top deck after hours would
have any effect on their recommendation. Mr. Walker answered it is difficult to limit access and
he will address this in more detail when they discuss operational controls.
Commissioner Barnes asked about the ceiling height on the covered floors and the proposed
height of the light poles on the top level. Mr. Walker answered that it is 12' floor to floor and
the recommendation for pole height on the top floor is 25'.
12
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Kidder asked for a description of the trellis. Mr. Walker explained that from an
engineering perspective, it would need to be constructed with steel beams and open webbed
trusses to provide support and would appear to add another level to the garage.
Mr. Walker discussed the proposed lighting concept plan which includes 6 internally located
poles, LED lighting, and a maximum mounting height of 25' which meets IESNA full cut-off
standards.
Mr. Walker also discussed proposed operational controls which include the top deck being
reserved for County Employee parking only; card activated roll -down bar at vehicle ramp; card
activated elevator access; top deck lighting to be motion activated after a specific time; and
security notifications for motion sensed without card activation.
Mr. Brittingham discussed the following Staff Report comments and the Applicants response to
those comments.
• North Street Exit from Garage — exit has been removed, emergency access provided
• Garage screening from North Street — increased tree save and buffering with exit removal
• "Green" garage — cost prohibitive; can't be evergreen in this climate;
• Sidewalk maintenance — Proffer for County to provide snow removal
• Shuttle — Shuttle shall be provided during construction
• SWM Routing/Flooding — Elimination of exit road allows existing berm to be enlarged,
existing drainage divides remain; no longer requires the capture of stormwater along
North Street
• Fiscal Impact Analysis- Staff Response: tax exempt entity
• Screening walls — wall removed at Pennington Lot; Wall at Church Street is for screening
and security and is subject to BAR approval
• Native Trees- Proffer revised: Native plantings shall be used, except where precluded by
conditions including, but not limited to salt, pollution and drought
Commissioner Kidder noted her understanding that the County is a tax exempt entity; however,
she questioned the need to approve this application being based on the justification that it will
have a negative fiscal impact on the Town if the courts expansion is not approved. Mr.
Brittingham explained that the Applicant did not provide a fiscal impact analysis because of the
tax exempt status. Their request for a waiver sited several examples from the Town Plan which
spoke to the goals of keeping the courts facility and government facilities in downtown Leesburg
as well as the economic drivers of those facilities.
Mr. Brittingham noted that they had been asked to discuss the waiver and buffers modifications.
He explained that the Pennington Lot initially had more modification requests; however with the
elimination of the exit only ramp the requests for modifications has been reduced to one; the
allowance of light poles on the top deck of the parking structure. This is needed to meet the
IESNA standards with minimal impact.
The modification requests and justifications on the Church Street lot were addressed as follows:
13
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
• Reduce all yards and setbacks to 0' — Allowable in GC district per Section 7.3.3 if
"Harmonious with compatible uses"
• Allow off-site parking in excess of 500' of non-residential uses — Expansion of existing
County owned parking facility, adjacent parcels unavailable
• Reduce required loading spaces to 1— Existing facility will handle bulk of loading
demands
• Exclude Church Street frontage from 0.5 foot-candle minimum — pedestrian connection
between courts facilities needs 3.0 foot-candles for safety standards
• Allow lighting fixtures within 10' of property line along Church Street — Allow flexibility
for final BAR approval of courts building entry and stairway
• Exclude parcel from Tree Canopy minimum — Allowable for law enforcement agencies
(courts) per Section 12.3.2.C.9
• Increase average maximum building height to 55' — In response to BAR comments
• Reduce Buffer Yard `B" from 25' to 12' — driveway alignment and 8' brick screening
wall
• Eliminate 10' S-2 Buffer Yard "C" —per section 12.8.5.A of the Town of Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance, properties in the H-1 Overlay District may be eliminated at the
discretion of the Land Development Official,; security limitations; and landscaping
strategically proposed
• Reduce Edwards Ferry Street Trees to 1 per 100' and eliminate the required minimum
street trees along Church Street - Creates flexibility for BAR review of approval of
ultimate Common Green and entryway
Commissioner Robinson noted that the professional condominiums to the east will have very
little buffer. Mr. Brittingham explained that they are providing some landscaping on the north
side; however, adjacent to the building there is no landscaping provided due to security reasons.
Commissioner Kidder asked for the reasoning behind the tree canopy modification. Mr.
Brittingham answered that Staff agrees with the Applicant's interpretation of the ordinance that
the courts facility qualifies as a law enforcement agency and that is the justification for this
request. This modification would apply to the entire plan; not just one specific section.
Commissioner Kidder noted that she would like to see the effect of the modification on the
overall tree canopy. Mr. Brittingham responded that they could provide information on the tree
canopy being provided and how that compares to the requirement,
Mr. Brittingham discussed the remaining Staff Report Comments and Applicant responses as
follows:
• Construction Hours — Staff Response: Town Code allows 6:30 am start and Staff
recommends keeping it at 6:30 am for enforceability issues
• Church Street Closures — Proffer revised to notify two weeks prior to road closure and
one week prior to re -opening of Church Street
• Blasting hours and impact — Increase written notification from 300' to 450" radius;
surveys within 150' radius per Town Code
• Cemetery Access during construction — Applicant will coordinate with contractor and
Church to ensure access is available as needed throughout all phases of construction
14
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Kidder asked if exceptions to the allowed construction hours have been made in
the past. Mr. Brittingham explained that Staff has advised not to change the time and that is how
the Applicant is proceeding. Commissioner Kidder asked if the County could reconsider. Mr.
Grandfield responded that he thought that would be possible. Ms. Berry- Hill asked the Town
Attorney if it were possible for the Applicant to proffer a start time that exceeds the ordinance
requirements. Liz Whiting, Attorney, answered that it was within the whole concept of proffers
to put additional restrictions on the application beyond the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Peter Hargreaves, Design Program Manager, Loudoun County Department of Transportation and
Infrastructure responded that he would be change the start time to 7:00 am.
Mr. Brittingham summarized proffer changes as follows:
• North Street/King Street signal — Proffer increased from $253,000 to $400,000
• Edwards Ferry Road/Catoctin Circle Improvement — Proffer increase from $253,000 to
$400,000
• Driver Feedback Signage — Proffer $30,000
• Blasting Notice — Increase written notification from 300' to 450'
• Tunnel Construction Notification — Revised to notify one week prior to re -opening of
Church Street
• Native Plantings — Native plantings shall be used, except where precluded by conditions
including, but not limited to salt, pollution, and drought
• Snow removal along pedestrian route — Proffer for County to provide snow removal
• Garage Operational Controls — Top level reserved for County vehicles; keycard accessed
elevator controls; stair lock -out gate; and motion sensor lighting
• Underground Utilities — Revised to include utilities along Edwards Ferry Road frontage
Commissioner Kidder would like to change the language in the North Street/King Street proffer
replacing the word "signal" with "improvement" to allow the same flexibility as the Edwards
Ferry Road/Catoctin Circle proffer. Mr. Hargreaves agreed to revise the proffers.
Commissioner Harper noted that the blasting noticed radius had been increased and asked if that
notice would include the dates of the blasting. Mr. Hargreaves responded that he would look in
to that.
Commissioner Kidder expressed concerns regarding the tunnel and safety issues. Mr.
Brittingham answered that it would be a secured tunnel accessible only by courts personnel.
Commissioner Robinson expressed concern regarding the light pole in the sidewalk on Church
Street and requested that it be moved. Mr. Brittingham said he could look in to that possibility,
but felt that the sidewalk improvements proposed would provide an enhanced pedestrian
experience.
Commissioner Welsh Chamblin asked the Commissioner members to express any additional
concerns and comments as well as whether they felt they had enough information to take action
tonight.
15
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Harper wished to see issues addressed in writing and was not prepared to take
action tonight.
Commissioner Babbin noted that the Town needed a parking garage in order to have a viable
downtown area. She expressed concern regarding the impression that the Planning Commission
is stalling on this application and continued bad press if action is continually deferred. She
cautioned that it was necessary to look at the big picture and the need to move this application
along for the sake of the Town's businesses and citizens. She noted that it was her intention to
make a motion on all three applications tonight.
Commissioner Burk noted his agreement with Commissioner Babbin and that he was ready to
vote tonight. It was his opinion that if they were not going to vote tonight that the Commission
should mandate strong guidelines regarding when they are going to act to alleviate the
impression that the Commission is stalling.
Commissioner Robinson noted that she was not ready to vote tonight. She expressed concerns
regarding the garage mass, lighting design, screening, and location.
Commissioner Kidder noted her agreement with Commissioner Robinson regarding the
importance of the garage appearance as well as concerns regarding the impact of the lighting on
the surrounding neighborhoods and the inexact language in the Justification Statement. It was
her opinion that more time is needed and she was not prepared to vote tonight.
Commissioner Barnes felt that they needed to take action at the next meeting in order to allow
the Commissioners time to review the changes.
Commissioner Babbin asked if it were possible to include the action date in the motion.
Commissioner Burk answered that they could make a motion that binds the Commission to the
intention of doing so.
Commissioner Welsh Chamblin commented that the courthouse is and has been the heart of
Leesburg and stressed the importance of keeping the courts in downtown Leesburg. She
suggested having a special meeting on January 28th to consider this application solely.
Commissioner Babbin made the following motion:
I move that the Planning Commission delay a vote on the three applications before us regarding
the courthouse expansion and the Pennington parking garage and continue discussion to a special
meeting to be held at 7:00 pm on January 28, 2016. At that time it is the intention of the
Planning Commission to vote on all of three applications and not delay these votes any further.
Commissioner Robinson seconded the motion
Chairman Welsh_Chambl � polled the Planning Commission members regarding their
availability on January 28 to ensure that a quorum would be present. All Planning
Commissioners stated that they would be available to meet on January 28th
16
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Robinson proposed an amendment that no new information pertaining to this
application be submitted to the Planning Commission within 24 hours of the meeting.
Commissioner Burk seconded the amendment.
The Planning Commission voted on the amendment and the amendment passed 7-0.
The Planning Commission voted on the original motion as amended and the motion passed 5-1-
1. (Nay -Harper; Abstain — Kidder)
Mr. Hargreaves wished to address comments regarding surplus parking stalls in the parking
garage. He explained that the parking calculation was not just based on the courthouse. The
County also included parking required for the government center as well as future expansion.
COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
None
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
STAFF DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Inclement Weather Resolution
Commissioner Welsh Chamblin asked the Town Attorney to explain the need for this resolution.
Shelby Caputo, Assistant Town Attorney, explained that the State Code 15.2.22.14 states that if
the Planning Commission pass a resolution, preferably during the first meeting of the year,
stating the in the event of inclement weather any cancelled meeting would occur on a fixed
number of days. This would alleviate the need to re -advertise public hearings.
Commissioner Robinson moved to adopt the inclement weather resolution.
Commissioner Kidder seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0.
The following resolution was adopted was presented and adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-001 ADOPTED January 21, 2016
A RESOLUTION: TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONTINUE
MEETINGS IN THE EVENT OF INCLEMENT WEATHER
17
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-195 of the Leesburg Town Code, and Section 1.2 of
the Bylaws and Rules of Procedures, the Planning Commission holds regular meetings on the
first and third Thursdays of each month; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2214 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes
local planning commissions to adopt at a regular meeting a resolution that "fix(es) the day or
days to which any meeting shall be continued if the chairman, or vice-chairman if the chairman
is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous
for members to attend the meeting"; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2214 further states that when such finding occurs, it shall be
communicated to the members and press as promptly as possible; and all hearings and other
matters previously advertised for such meeting shall be conducted at the continued meeting and
no further advertisement is required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission wishes to adopt a resolution that will allow it to
continue commission meetings in the event of inclement weather in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of its members and the public.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of Leesburg, Virginia, as
follows:
1. Planning Commission meetings shall be continued if the chairman, or vice-chairman if
the chairman is unable to act, declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is
hazardous for members to attend the meeting; and
2. Such Planning Commission meetings shall be continued to the next regularly -
scheduled meeting; and
3. The commission shall cause a copy of such resolution to be inserted in a newspaper
having general circulation in the locality at least seven (7) days prior to the first meeting held
pursuant to the adopted schedule.
PASSED this 21 day of January' 2016.
Lyndsay W sh Chamblin
Chair, Lees g Planning Commission
j
EST:
k of Commission
Leesburg Planning Commission
January 21, 2016 Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 PM
Ar
oved by:
*"�t c
n Cicalese, Commission Clerk
4ndsay We h Chamblin, Chairman
19