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