Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03_03_16 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesfiurg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 3, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, March 3, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Brian Boucher, Karen Cicalese, and Shelby Caputo 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, Harper, Kidder, and Robinson Absent: Commissioner Burk and Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Hat -per Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) February 18,2016 Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Barnes Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked the Commission Members for coming and noted that she would try to move through the agenda items efficiently to avoid people having to drive home in adverse weather conditions. PETITIONERS None Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Harper noted that she had distributed an article from the Nature Conservancy February /March 2016 issue entitled "Our Urban Future" which she thought would be of interest to the Commission members. Commissioner Kidder attended the EAC meeting. They have 3 new members, including Ron Campbell, who reported that a cemetery has been found by the airport; the location could interfere with plans for the new runway. Commissioner Babbin attended the EDC meeting which was primarily about the strategic plan. They did approve Town Council's efforts to revise the ordnance to allow alcoholic beverages to be served on the newly widened sidewalks on King Street. The have also appointed Monifa Hamilton as liaison to the Planning Commission. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS Snow Removal Enforcement Commissioner Babbin explained that the CIP contained a number of projects that involved sidewalks and there had been some discussion regarding sidewalk improvements. She had expressed concerns that there were a number of sidewalks in Town that were habitually impassable during the winter months. She noted that she had discussed an email; that had been forwarded to her; from Kaj Dentler, Town Manager, saying that there was no budget for enforcement of the Town Ordinance regarding snow removal. The Town Ordinance requires the removal of snow from public sidewalks within 24 hours after the snow has ceased falling; with some exceptions for disabled individuals. It is the responsibility of the property owner or the property management company to remove the snow from the sidewalk frontage of their homes and businesses. The Town is supposed to send notices to violators; if they do not comply the Town will remove the snow and bill the property owner. There is also a provision that would allow the Town to place a lien on the property to cover the cost of the snow removal. This Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes policy could be enforced with minimal cost to the Town as the snow removal costs are recoverable. Town Council has discussed this issue; however no action has been taken. It was suggested that she draft a letter from the Planning Commission to Council voicing their concerns. A copy of the draft letter was included in their agenda packets and she requested that the Commission Members discuss the letter and determine if it would be appropriate. Commissioner Kidder noted that she was uncomfortable with the Planning Commission taking action on this issue as she did not feel it was appropriate because it is not a Planning Commission issue. Commissioner Barnes expressed concerns regarding the difficulty in policing and enforcing the requirement as well as potential litigation against the Town arising from the enforcement of the snow removal policy. Commissioner Babbin responded that it is unusual for the Planning Commission to get involved in maintenance issues but felt that it was something the Commission should comment on due to the strong positions taken in rezonings and the CIP supporting a walkable community. She is not advocating whether or not a property owner should be cited and questioned whether or not a 24 hour rule was even practical. It was her opinion that something needed to be done during the budget process which Council is involved in currently. The Planning Commission is concerned about a walkable city which is why she felt this issue was within their purview and appropriate under the circumstances. She suggested adding or removing language to the letter to make the Commission's concerns clear. Commissioner Barnes suggested that Commissioner Babbin go before Council as a private citizen and express her concerns as well as concerns expressed during Planning Commission discussions. Commissioner Babbin did not disagree; however it was her opinion that Council action was more likely if multiple avenues were used to get this issue before them. Commissioner Robinson noted that she supported Commissioner Babbin as the limited use of the sidewalks, due to the snow not being removed, presented health, safety, and general welfare concerns. She did have some concerns regarding the language in the letter as she was not in support of not building the proposed sidewalks in order to fund this enforcement. She suggested the language reflect finding other sources of funding to accomplish this. Commissioner Harper agreed that this needs to be brought to Council's attention and agreed with Commissioner Barnes' recommendation that Commissioner Babbin bring this forth to Council and members of the Planning Commission could attend the meeting in support of her petition. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Attorney, Town of Leesburg, explained that health, safety and general welfare are the duties and powers conferred upon the Planning Commission. What is not conferred upon the Planning Commission is the interest in and comments about the budget. She suggested that the Planning Commission members can individually write letters or attend a Town Council meeting rather than submitting one letter, as a whole, from the Planning Commission. Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Babbin agreed to make changes to the letter by removing any reference to the budget and put forward the following motion that the letter she submitted to the Planning Commission be sent as a letter from the Planning Commission with one change to delete the reference to the budget. Additionally, Members of the Planning Commission that see fit will go forward to the Town Council as individuals and discuss this letter. Commissioner Robinson noted that she had some other changes which she felt referenced the budget and would like to have a discussion on those changes. As there was no second, Commissioner Babbin withdrew the motion to enable further discussion of Commissioner Robinson's changes. Commissioner Robinson proposed additional language changes which Commissioner Babbin was agreeable to. Commissioner Babbin made a motion that the letter under discussion with the changes discussed be sent by the Planning Commission to the Town Council. Commissioner Robinson seconded the motion. Commissioner Barnes noted that he was not in support of the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that a sidewalk clearing issue does exist but did feel uncomfortable sending a letter from the Planning Commission. She noted that she would attend a Town Council meeting as an individual and fully support Commissioner Babbin's petition. The motion failed 4-2-1 (Nay: Barnes, Harper, Kidder and Welsh Chamblin; Aye: Babbin and Robinson; Absent: Burk) Two -over -Two Work Session Discussion Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that this has been discussed a number of times by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had asked Staff to put together some performance standards to apply to two -over -two dwelling units to address what they feel to be negative aspects of this particular unit type. During prior discussions held during meetings on July 2, 2015 and September 3, 2015 the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding lot size, driveway length, proximity to single family units, building materials, screening, parking, and building appearance. The Staff Memo, dated March 3, 2016, includes some examples or performance standards that address these issues and could be added to Section 9.3.15. If there is consensus amongst Commission members, a recommendation can be made to Town Council to initiate a resolution to direct Staff to work on creating performance standards for the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Harper commented that the Zoning Ordinance combines two -over -twos and townhouses in the same category. Two -over -twos are considered to be condos and should be treated as multi -family in the zoning ordinance. She expressed additional concerns regarding construction; quantity, and the impact on parking and traffic. Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Babbin commented that the Town could have these same problems with other unit types and was not sure if this particular unit type should be singled out. She expressed concern regarding the lack of flexibility afforded to developers, staff and the Planning Commission if performance standards are used and noted her preference for using guidelines. Guidelines would allow more flexibility as well as give an applicant an idea of what the Planning Commission is looking for in terms of this unit type. She asked if the Planning Commission was able to set guidelines that did require Town Council approval. Mr. Boucher answered that guidelines are not legally binding and he would hesitate to say that the Commission could or should do that. Planning staff and applications are supposed to be creatures of the zoning law; any standards that will affect a particular type of unit should reside in the ordinance. Commissioner Babbin opined that quite often confusion arises due to an applicant not being aware in advance of what the Commission is looking for. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that there are guidelines for the historic district which have been applied to some of the recent applications that have come forward and suggested looking at those guidelines as a basis for their discussion. Ms. Caputo explained that the guidelines Chairman Welsh Chamblin was referring are conferred by the Town Charter. The Town Charter lays out the design guidelines for the Old and Historic District. Commissioner Babbin asked if Staff had internal guidelines that they use to insure everyone is coming from the same place. Mr. Boucher answered that they did and felt that Staff did a good job in terms of doing so. In his experience, confusion arises when an applicant requests changes to what is specified in the zoning ordinance; Staff is not always exactly certain how that change will look. There are some areas where the ordinance is not as clear as it could be such as architecture. Staff has the right, under the State Code, to consider architecture when reviewing rezonings. There are specific guidelines for the H-1 because the State Code allows this by Charter. There are also architectural controls in certain corridors coming into Town. There are no specific guidelines when it comes to general architecture for the Town. Staff will generally use language in the ordinance that states the use of superior architecture that is not monolithic and repetitive which can be interpreted differently by staff and an applicant. Mr. Boucher addressed concerns on the number of two -over -twos and explained that there are currently three approved applications that will have two -over -twos; Village at Leesburg Land Bay C has 86 units; Potomac Station has 42 units; and Crescent Place has 64 units; for a total of 190 units. In terms of the number of two -over -twos in relation to townhouses; Crescent Place has 137 townhouses; Potomac Station has 61 townhouses; and the Village @ Leesburg Land Bay C has an 84(84 split with 84 townhouses and 84 two -over -twos. Crescent Parke, which the Commission is reviewing now, is proposing 100 two -over -twos and 189 townhouses. The champion of the two -over -twos is the proposed Leegate application, which proposes 148 two - over -twos to 93 townhouses. This amounts to 564 townhouses in rezonings; either approved or proposed; and 438 two -over -twos. Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Babbin asked if the staff guidelines he referred to were in writing Mr. Boucher answered that when it comes to planned development rezonings that are not located in the historic district; the ordinance says we want them to be characterized by superior architecture which is translated to be materials; traditional elements; etc. There is some language in the planned development districts which is what staff uses for guidance. Commissioner Babbin responded that if there were no precedent for the Planning Commission issuing guidelines for staff to use; perhaps it would be better to have a discussion in which the Planning Commission tells staff what they would like to see when they get two -over -two applications. This approach is less formal and allows greater flexibility. Ms. Caputo felt that the informal discussion would be the better approach. The State Code and Zoning Ordinance do not confer upon the Planning Commission the ability to establish guidelines. An informal discussion could allow staff and the commission to work together more efficiently on applications containing two -over -twos. Commissioner Kidder asked for clarification regarding performance standards versus zoning ordinance. Mr. Boucher clarified that performance standards are in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Robinson noted that she had a number of concerns regarding two -over -twos and townhouses in general and included resident and guest parking, driveway length; garage size; soundproofing; storage; mixture of unit types; and lateral living. Mr. Boucher explained that a number of her concerns fall under the building code with regard to the interior of the units soundproofing, storage, and arrangement. Typically the two -over -twos have come through the rezoning process which is the best process we have to discuss how any type of use operates. The Town does require applicants to meet the parking requirement specified in the ordinance. The ordinance does not count a single car garage space as a parking space and two car garages only count as one space. Developers of urban communities within the Town have asked for this to be amended to count the garage space as one parking space; their argument being that people will use their garage if over -parking is not provided. None of the approved two -over -twos have been built so it is difficult to determine how big of a problem this will prove to be. There is a standard parking space that is applied to every type of residential use which is 9' x 18'. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that one way to alleviate under panting concerns was to address it during the rezoning process where applicants request modifications to reduce the number of required parking. Guest parking is a big concern and she is less likely to grant any exceptions to parking requirements as they stand today. Mi•. Boucher noted that the parking reduction requests do not change parking requirements outside of these developments. The applicants are asking for specific rights within the development. The Planning Commission can recommend denial of a parking reduction modification. Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Harper expressed concerns regarding Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studies, in general, being waived. Mr. Boucher responded that he was not aware of any TIA being waived for new residential development. The Crescent Parke applicant is revising their TIA because there were a number of issues raised by the public and staff. What has been done on, some of the planned developments, is to allow a modification to the parking standard to count garage spaces differently which has led to less surface parking spaces outside of the units. Commissioner Kidder noted that this unit type is very popular and felt it would be logical to have some performance standards on the very basic, obvious factors such as parking; exposed utilities; monotony, and lack of greenery. It was her opinion to address these obvious flaws to ensure that they are avoided which will save time in the review process. Commissioner Baines expressed concerns regarding unit widths and guest parking. He would like to make it mandatory that a guest parking area be provided. Mr. Boucher noted that there have been several discussions on this topic and referred to the motion in the Staff Memo dated March 3, 2016 in which the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to Town Council that a Zoning Ordinance text amendment be initiated to add performance standards to provide development guidance of two -over -two units to address such things as adequacy of lot size and driveway length; diversity of housing types within a residentially planned parcel or development; proximity to single-family attached units; and quality building materials. Staff has not come up with specific criteria and he asked if the Commission would like Staff to draft some sample performance standards to address the Commissions concerns. Chairman Welsh Chandi in noted that she had a few comments after which she would go around the dais to determine what the Commission members would like to do. She noted her agreement with Commissioner Babbin as she was not in favor of strict guidelines. Two -over -twos do serve a specific purpose; however development should be varied as well as contain multiple options like single floor dwellings and a mix of unit types. She felt that concerns could be addressed on a case by case basis during the rezoning process and did not support utilizing staff time to develop these standards. After further discussion the majority of Commission members were in support of staff preparing some draft performance standards to address their concerns. NEW BUSINESS Bylaws Revision: Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that she had added this to the agenda to address the 21 day requirement for applicants to submit new or revised materials. She had also asked to have the Town's attorney review the bylaws and make any necessary updates from a general standpoint and to ensure that the Virginia Code and Town Code references were accurate. Lastly she wanted to discuss the section on public hearing procedures. The Bylaws state that after the Chairman's Statement; the applicant will make their presentation followed by staff. She noted that she did not have a preference; however typically staff tends to present first with the applicant following and she would like the Bylaws to reflect what is actually being practiced. She Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes solicited Commissioner feedback and noted that the intent was to discuss revisions tonight but not take action until the Commission had had a chance to review the Town Attorney's revisions which they received this evening. Commissioner Barnes explained that the 21 day requirement was added to the bylaws to allow staff the appropriate amount of time to review new and revised materials. He was in support of keeping the 21 day requirement in the Bylaws. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she did not have a preference on the 3 week/21 day requirement. Her concern was that the time frame be clear to all applicants about when information needs to be provided should they have revisions and that this time frame be implemented consistently. Commissioner Babbin had submitted some proposed language to address this which was included in their agenda packet. Commissioner Babbin explained that her objective was to amend this section so that the rule is workable and enforceable. There did not seem to be any issues with the 21 day requirement for the initial application; however problems do exist when revisions to the initial application are submitted. Some revisions are very minor and should not be held to the 21 day requirement and staff should be given the ability to allow these minor changes to be submitted without disrupting or prolonging the review process. She proposed a 10 day rule for changes subsequent to the initial submission to allow for an application, not acted upon at an initial meeting, to be discussed and considered at the next commission meeting; even if changes to the submission have been made to address concerns raised at a prior meeting. This would allow the applicant, in most cases, 4 days after the conclusion of the meeting to make changes for submission at the next scheduled meeting. Any substantial changes would require more time for the applicant to prepare and would be subject to the 21 day requirement. Mr. Boucher noted that he really appreciated this discussion. He confirmed that the 21 day requirement was put in the Bylaws to allow staff a reasonable time to review and analyze changes. In his experience, the 21 day requirement does not fit every circumstance faced by the Planning Commission. There are times when staff does not need two weeks to review revisions and the Bylaws should reflect this. There have been other situations that have occurred recently; Crescent Parke for example; that have somewhat substantial changes to the application making it impossible to submit the materials to staff within 21 days. Due to maj or changes, this application will need to be referred out to departments outside of the Town and staff has no control over how quickly these departments respond. It was decided during a meeting between staff and the applicant to extend the time frame and allow them to come back later than 21 days; in this case, April. He also had proposed language allowing the Commission to substitute a more reasonable time frame to consider, submitted materials based on the totality of the circumstances. Commissioner Barnes noted that he did not have a problem with adding language to allow flexibility as long as all information comes through staff. Chairman Welsh Chamblin expressed concerns about the language being too vague and stressed the need for consistency in their approach. Leesburg Planning Commission March 3, 2016 Minutes After further discussion it was determined to have staff work with Commissioner Babbin to draft language to address the 21 day requirement. Staff will incorporate this language as well as language changes to allow flexibility in the public hearing presentation order and a draft will be included in the agenda packet. Discussion will continue to the March 17, 2016 meeting with the intent of taking action on the proposed revisions. Retreat Scheduling and Topic Selection: The Planning Commission annual retreat will be held at the March 17, 2016 meeting at 7:00 pm. Topics will include legislative updates regarding proffers and a discussion on the planning process. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:06 PM. Ap roved by: Ka en Cicalese, Commission Clerk L ndsay Welq8 Chamblin, Chairman 9