Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03_17_16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 17, 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 Susan Berry -Hill, Debi Perry, Scott Parker, Brian Boucher 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, Baines, Burk, Harper, Kidder, and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 7-0 (Burk absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 3, 2016 Commissioner Harper noted that she had spoken with Karen Cicalese, Commission Clerk, regarding corrections about concerns she had expressed about traffic impact analysis during the Commission's discussion of two -over -twos found on the bottom of Page 4. These edits had been completed prior to tonight's meeting. Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk abstained as he was absent from the meeting) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None Com: G7i'i►T/ll�fi.X`111IYY flu 1 �1►11y Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked all for attending as well as whoever was responsible for leaving the St. Patrick's Day goodies on the dais and wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day. PETITIONERS None Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes PUBLIC HEARING TLSE-2015-0014, Ugarte Home Daycare Public Hearing, Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:05 pm. Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager explained that this was a special exception request for a family day home to be located at 187 Alpine Drive, SE, in Evergreen Meadows. Over the last few years, due to different Virginia State licensing requirements, it is necessary to have local zoning in place prior to state licensing daycare centers for 6 to 12 children. This use is allowable by special exception in residential zoning districts and Staff has analyzed the proposed use at this location. No new building improvements are proposed with this application. The interior and operational aspects of the daycare center are licensed by the State of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Social Services. Mr. Parker discussed the site conditions which include a. 18 acre single family detached lot; two neighboring homes on either side; homes across the street; and an HOA open space behind the house which is a storm water management facility otherwise known as the Stower's Pond, typically not containing water. The Town Plan has designated this area as low density residential and is zoned PRC (Planned Residential Community) in the Zoning Ordinance. There are two specific use criteria for child care facility under Section 9.4.7.0 (TLZO 9.3.4 was formerly used and is referenced in the Staff Report). Section 9.4.7.0 defines family day home and parallels language used by the State. General approval criteria for special exceptions under TLZO Section 3.4.12 include the following: 1. The Family Day Home shall comply with any and all requirements of the Town and State Codes, including without limitation, obtaining a Home Occupation Permit, maintenance of a Town Business license, and obtaining a State Family Day Home License in accordance with the State Code as applicable. — Once the special exception has been approved, the Applicant will update as required. 2. The Family Day Home shall comply with any and all requirements of the County and State Building Codes. - The Applicant has acknowledged this requirement 3. If the proposed location of the Family Day Home is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for a Homeowners Association (HOA), then prior to the issuance of the Home Occupation Permit, the Family Day Home provider shall provide the Town with documentation whether or not the use is allowable under applicable HOA Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. - The Applicant has provided HOA documentation and there are no issues related to the HOA. 4. The Family Day Home lot must be at least 6,000 square feet in size. — The Applicant's lot size is .18 acres or 7,840 square feet. 5. There shall be no more than two employees for a Family Day Home. The Applicant shall demonstrate availability of employee parking onsite or along the street. — The Applicant has one employee and parking is provided on the street. 6. Child drop-off and pick-up locations shall be designated to enhance the safety of children as they arrive and depart. A designated arrival and departure zone shall be located adjacent to the Family Day Home Center in such a manner that children do not have to cross the street to enter or exit the home. - Children will be dropped off in the driveway and arrival/departure areas are adjacent to the home. No street Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes crossings are necessary. 7. Family Day Homes shall stagger pick-up and drop-off times such that there are never more than two vehicles picking -up or dropping -off at one time. — The Applicant has indicated that her pick-up and drop-off times are staggered. 8. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the Family Day Home or lot nor other visible evidence of the conduct of a Family Day Home other than what may be required by the State Family Day Home License or provisions elsewhere in this Zoning Ordinance. — There will be no changes to the outside appearance of the home. 9. Seventy -Five (75) square feet of outdoor play area must be provided on-site per child except as follows: No outdoor play area shall be required on-site when the applicant can demonstrate the Family Day Home is located within 1,000 feet of an existing park or play lot that is at least twice the area otherwise required for the home care service. The park or play lot must be public or owned by the homeowners' association to which the residence belongs and must be accessed without crossing an arterial or collector road. The outdoor play area must be shown on a plat to scale submitted at the time of application for the permit. — Per the ordinance, 900 square feet is required on site. The Applicant provides 3,200 square feet within the rear yard. 10. Fencing: Outdoor play area must be enclosed by a fence with a minimum height of four (4) feet. — The outdoor play area is completely enclosed by a wooden fence that is six (6) feet in height. 11. Play Equipment Location: No play equipment shall be located within the required yard setbacks. — There is no play equipment within the side yard setbacks. 12. Pathway to Facility: There must be a continuous hard -surface pathway/sidewalk connecting the drop-off and pick-up location to the entrance of the Family Day Home. The pathway shall be kept free of any snow or ice. — A pathway to the home is provided. Special Exception Approval Criteria TLZO Section 3.4.12 have all been met as there is no adverse impact to neighboring properties; the uses comply with Zoning and Town Plan; development of nearby lands is not hindered; and traffic generation does not create a problem. Conditions of Approval outlined in the Staff Report dated March 17, 2016 have been met and include substantial conformance; no implied waivers; recreational fencing maintained in good repair; maximum number of children (12); no play equipment located within setbacks; drop-off and pick-up times are staggered; hours of operation: 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday thio Friday; and termination of use clause indicating that this special exception use does not stay with the property should the Applicant move. Mr. Parker concluded with Staff s recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend approval of TLSE-2015-0014, Mary's Daycare, subject to the conditions of TLZO Section 9.4.7, Family Day Homes and TLZO Section 3.4.12, Special Exception Approval Criteria, as well as other conditions of approval contained in the March 17, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked the Applicant if she had anything that she wished to present. Mary Ugarte, the Applicant, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be a child care provider. She noted that she had her next door neighbors with her this evening that can speak on her behalf and answer any questions the Commission may have. Amy Rodrigues, 126 Balch Springs Circle, Leesburg, came forward to share her experience with Mary's Daycare. Her 7 month old son goes to Mary's Daycare. Mary is a neighbor and had been recommended to her by several other neighbors. Mary is very loving and compassionate and is wonderful with children. She requested that the Planning Commission send their approval of this application. Heather Woods, 187 Alpine Drive, Leesburg, came forward and noted her support of this application. She explained that her daughter goes to Mary's Daycare and the neighbor's child who lives across the street does as well. Mary is an excellent provider. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the termination of use. Mr. Parker explained that it is in the zoning ordinance and has been included in a number of applications. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning further explained that Family Day Home applications are of such a personal nature and that often the use in a particular residential neighborhood depends somewhat on how it is being operated under Virginia Department of Social Service rules. These special exceptions will automatically terminate and don't run with the land. Typically special exception approvals run with the land; i.e. a fast food restaurant can be replaced with another fast food restaurant in that same location. Commissioner Babbin noted that she had spoken with Mr. Parker earlier in the day regarding one of the conditions being that there would be no disturbance to the neighbors in terms of the Leesburg Noise Ordinance and asked why it was not included in the list of conditions. Mr. Parker explained that this condition is covered in TLZO Section 3.4.2, Use Standards, as the first one states no adverse impact to neighbor properties. There are provisions where the noise ordinance does apply and he researched this after they spoke earlier. There have been no noise complaints, to his knowledge, with home based child care centers. Going forward, if there is a problem; it will be treated as a zoning violation as it will not be in compliance with the special exception approval. If the violation were to continue; action could be taken and the special exception use could be revoked by Town Council. Commissioner Harper asked if the maximum number of 12 included the owner/operator's children. Mr. Parker answered that it did not; however there were no children residing in the home. Commissioner Harper asked how many children were currently at this child care center. Mr. Parker answered that there are 5 children currently. Commissioner Harper asked if they were all under the age of two. Mr. Parker answered that there are 3 children under the age of 2. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was really impressed with the letters of Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes recommendation sent by the neighbors and asked if any objections, either oral or written, had been received. Mr. Parker answered that he had not received any objections Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 7:26 and solicited Planning Commission discussion and comments. Commissioner Barnes commented that it was a straight forward application and had no comments or concerns. Commissioner Kidder commented that she thought this was an excellent application. Commissioner Babbin commented that she had a basic problem with home daycare for this many children; however the ordinance allows it and the State has allowed for it. This is an unusual application; and she noted that she was very impressed by the letters from the neighbors. She expressed concern regarding the impact on the neighbors. She referenced a recent application for a day care center at the Village at Leesburg and noted that the Commission had expressed concerns regarding the noise impact on the apartments above the play lot. It was her opinion that the noise impact in this situation would be minimal because of the geographic setting of this house. She noted that she would be voting for this application; however she will do so with some hesitancy and would like to stress the uniqueness of this application. Future applications should be looked at very carefully in terms of potential noise impact. Commissioner Harper stated that it was a great application and appreciated the neighbors' encouragement. She expressed concerns regarding the number of children; limited help and state regulations regarding assistance for children under 2; enforcement of staggered drop-off and pick-up; noise; and traffic. Due to her concerns she could not support a daycare center for 12 children. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move that special exception application TLSE-2015-0014, Mary's Daycare be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of conditional approval, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report dated March 17, 2016 on the basis that the approval criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 3.4.12 and 9.3.4 have been satisfied and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Commissioner Robinson proposed an amendment to replace Section 9.3.4 with Section 9.4.7. Commissioner Burk explained that this was a correction and not an amendment. Vote: 6-0-1 (Nay—Harper) Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS Bylaws Discussion and Action Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that they had not received the updated code references and wished to defer action until that information had been updated in the bylaws. Commissioner Burk noted that on Page 3, Section 1.3.5 currently reads "Vacancies in any office shall be filled by the above election procedures". The proposed change to that is "Vacancies in any office shall be filled as set out in Section 2-194 of the Town Code." Section 2-194 of the Town Code refers to filling vacancies on the Planning Commission; however this section of the bylaws refers to vacancies of the officer positions. He was under the opinion that Section 1.3.5 should remain unchanged. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney agreed that the language should remain the same and explained that she had mistakenly read it as vacancies on the commission. Commissioner Babbin wished to discuss Section 2.5. It was discussed at the last meeting and both she and Mr. Boucher had proposed language. She had spoken with Mr. Boucher earlier and both were in agreement of keeping the language simple. There is a revised sheet that was handed out at the dais with the revised language to Section 2.5. Mr. Boucher explained that the purpose of the revised language is to give certainty to the development community of what is expected of them when resubmitting materials to the Planning Commission. After further discussion the Planning Commission agreed to replace "3 weeks" with "twenty-one days" and to add the following proposed language: Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes "Notwithstanding the above, the Commission authorizes staff to substitute a more reasonable time frame to consider submitted materials based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the particular case." Commissioner Barnes inquired about the code reference changes. Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that that was what she had referred to in her initial comment. There are a number of comments where updates are needed; however the language had not been provided and she would like to postpone voting until the updated language has been provided. Ms. Caputo explained that not all the code references are recent, and for whatever reason, were not included in previous bylaw updates. The Zoning Ordinance itself still refers to the old Chapter 13 of the Town Code. That will be updated during the next Batch so she is unable to provide an amended zoning ordinance provision. The next Batch will include Chapter 2 and take out Chapter 13. Commissioner Kidder wished to include language that would require the Commissioners to address additional information requests to the Chair so that all Commissioners had an opportunity to opine on the request to determine its' appropriateness. Should direction be given to the applicant or staff, it would be given from the Planning Commission as a whole and not from an individual member. She suggested the following language be inserted into the bylaws: "Individual commissioners may make suggested changes or request additional information from applicants or staff during the discussion of land development applications or other agenda items. If a majority of the Commissioners agree that such a request is reasonable and appropriate, the Chair will give the direction to the applicant or staff to consider the suggestion or obtain the additional information." The majority of the Planning Commission members were in support of adding this language to the bylaws. Commissioner Robinson referenced Page 8 of the bylaws and asked if the Town has any designated corridors of State significance. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning answered that she thought Route 7 / East Market is a corridor of State significance. Commissioner Robinson noted that when she looked at the map she didn't see a corridor of State significance listed and felt that section could be eliminated. Commissioner Robinson referenced Attachment Three of the bylaws regarding recommendations on rezonings and asked if any proffer amendments were relevant on rezonings. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that the section she was referring to related to Ordinance Text Amendments and not applicant initiated land development applications; however she would review to determine if this section should remain in the bylaws prior to the next meeting. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there were any other changes to the bylaws that needed to be discussed. Seeing none, she noted that the Commission would vote on adopting the bylaws at their next meeting on April 7, 2016. Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Annual Retreat General Assembly Actions — Senate Bill 549 — Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Mr. Boucher gave an overview of the new proffer legislation. On March 7, 2016, Senate Bill 549 was signed into law by Governor McAuliffe. This will become effective on July 1, 2016 and is generally intended to protect residential developers from unreasonable proffers inflicted upon them by the locality. This legislation applies only to residential development. In a mixed use development; it will only apply to the residential component of that development. The legislation defines two types of unreasonable proffers; one is an on-site proffer which is a proffer addressing an impact on the property to be developed and does not include cash proffers. The other is off-site proffers which address an impact outside the boundaries of the property and includes all cash proffers. The legislation also defines when a proffer is unreasonable under this statute. An on-site proffer is deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for. An off-site proffer is deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact to an off-site public facility such that (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements. One of the significant changes in this legislation deals with the burden of proof. Through time, in case law, when legislature acts; i.e. Town Council, it was presumed reasonable. Which meant that if someone was challenging a land use decision that the Town Council had made, that person had the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was unreasonable. This legislation reverses that presumption. If a claim is made that a rezoning was denied because the developer failed to comply with what they consider to be an unreasonable proffer; the burden of proof is on the Town to demonstrate that the reason for denial was reasonable. A second significant change deals with remedies. If a locality loses a legal action, the applicant may be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. Also, the locality may be ordered by the courts to approve the rezoning without inclusion of the proffer found to be unreasonable; and will have no more than 90 days to approve the rezoning from the date of the court's order to do so. This law, which becomes effective July 1, 2016, is not retroactive and will only apply to residential rezoning applications submitted after July 1, 2016. There are a number of rezonings in the land development application process currently and this law does not technically apply to those; however, should they get approved and in the future an amendment is proposed, the Town will be held to the new standard. Mr. Boucher discussed the impacts of this legislation. Major concerns regarding the bill were summed up in a letter sent by the Town to Governor McAuliffe before the bill was Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes signed into law; a copy of which was included in their packet. Specifically, the bill prohibits a constructive and collaborative development process for rezonings; eliminates the ability of localities and developers to adequately mitigate impacts of development; shifts the costs of necessary public facilities from new developments to existing taxpayers; and reverses the longstanding presumption of reasonableness that otherwise attaches to local legislation, by creating and imposing a new presumption of unreasonableness with respect to local governing body's rezoning decisions. Another concern is that some of the language is open to interpretation. The Town, as a locality, will err on the side of caution when dealing with the developer and proffers. The ability to negotiate proffers will be more limited after July lst. Proffers that have been accepted recently or are in the process of negotiation may, under the law, not considered to be reasonable. For example, Crescent Place which was approved several years ago; has a proffer for capital facility improvements to be used for whatever public improvement the Town deems necessary. The proffer does not specifically state that it goes to schools or off-site transportation, or parks. The proffer, as written, lacks a connection to a specific impact from the development. When a developer proffers a cash contribution; it must be linked to a specific capital facility improvement and it needs to demonstrate a plausible connection. This is the process generally practiced by the Town. What is troublesome about this legislation is that sometimes an applicant will voluntarily offer a proffer, such as an amenity, that may not link but is thought to be a good idea. For example, Crescent Place proffered to extend the trail through Raflo Park and add some art to improve the park. Under this legislation a connection to impacts resulting from the project is not made. Should the developer decide not to develop the park; and a future developer doesn't want to develop the park; it would be difficult to make that connection. Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. Boucher to go into more detail regarding how this law affects mixed use development such as Crescent Place which is a vertical mixed use development. Mr. Boucher explained that he was unsure of what the answer was. This is one of the things that the localities will be discussing at their meeting in April. This meeting will be between the locality attorneys and planners as they work to figure out what this law means and how will it apply to cases like Crescent Place. Commissioner Babbin asked for an example of an on-site unreasonable issue. Mr. Boucher answered that an example would be the Town not approving the application unless the applicant gives the Town a statue on the site. If the applicant did not agree this could be considered unreasonable even though the Town can argue that it gives benefit to the site. Commissioner Robinson asked if a development was on a two lane road and the developer offered to make it a four -lane road; could that be considered to be unreasonable. Mr. Boucher explained that clearly this would be a benefit everyone; but it's not really required to handle the transportation solely by this developer. We have a rezoning now where the applicant is proffering a park. If the rezoning is approved and the land is sold; the new owner can come back and say that that proffer is unreasonable. The new developer would look to see what the Town normally gets as a proffered contribution to Parks & Recreation in more dense developments that may not supply all Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes their open space. In this case it exceeds what the Town has asked other developers to do and the developer can challenge the proffer. The burden of proof falls on the Town to demonstrate that this proffer is reasonable. A rezoning approved today can be challenged in the future. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if this law would be retroactively applied to applications the Planning Commission sees and acts on prior to July 1st. Mr. Boucher answered that the law would not be retroactively applied. Commissioner Babbin wished to comment on this issue and explained that this law was not as drastic in change as one might think. In 2013 the US Supreme Court said almost the same thing in their review of a Florida case. It gave some very broad language saying that the proffer has to have an essential nexus in proportionality to the effects of the proposed new use of a specific property. She felt it was important to keep all the issues in mind when acting on current applications. Mr. Boucher agreed that there had to be a nexus; however the proffer language a few years ago dealt with unconstitutional proffers; the new legislation has language that speaks to unreasonable proffers. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the Town was going to evaluate the required contributions in light of this new legislation. Mr. Boucher answered that it had been discussed but feels more technical data is needed to support the suggested contribution amounts. Commissioner Kidder noted that the Zoning Ordinance guidelines and standards become more important with this type of legislation. Mr. Boucher agreed and explained that proffers in the past have been more of a wide open negotiation. The Koontz case talks about that nexus connection; the State Code has some language that speaks to a nexus as well. With this new legislation, localities are going to need to have more basis for their proffer recommendations than previously. Commissioner Babbin noted that it is going to be important to create an evidentiary trail to support the burden of proof shift; a well as to not create any negative evidence. Commissioner Robinson asked what the alternatives would be if a Council or Board of Supervisor member did not feel, that under the new legislation, the impact is fully mitigated. Mr. Boucher answered that is now more important to judge the dividing line between the impacts that the developer is being asked to address and what the actual impacts are. Commissioner Robinson asked if Council has the right to say that in their opinion; the impact is not mitigated. Mr. Boucher says Council does; however if an applicant feels that their rezoning was denied because of an unreasonable proffer, they can file suit and the burden of proof falls to the Town. Council's opinion should be based on more concrete evidence. If a developer decides to file a suit against a locality, the locality has to be able to provide solid evidence as to why an application was denied. It is fair to say that this legislation will change how we do things. One of the solutions may be that we have to become more sophisticated about what we are asking applicants for. 10 Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes 4 Commissioner Babbin suggested a change in the approach to proffers could be to do it as a contract. One way to avoid retroactive litigation is to do a separate contract with the developer with a condition that the contract would be null and void if the application is not approved. She requested that this possibility be explored when the localities meet in April. Mr. Boucher answered that getting a separate document outside of the application has been discussed and will be discussed at the meeting in April. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there was any additional questions and/or discussion on this topic and seeing none she moved to the next Retreat topic. Comprehensive Planning Commissioner Kidder explained that she requested this topic as it is one her pet projects. She would like to revisit form based code to see what is and isn't working. She would also like to look back at plans that have been completed and problems associated with those plans such as designating areas for office use that are not supported by the current market. Commissioner Harper asked how many applications have utilized form based code. Ms. Berry -Hill answered that the Town has approved one; Patriot Self Storage on Fort Evans Road. There are other applications that are under review which include Crescent Parke; Leesburg Plaza, and Big T on Old Sycolin Road. Commissioner Harper commented that a lot of time and money was spend developing the Crescent District Master Plan and expressed concern that it had already been changed with the first application that came in. The Crescent District Master Plan took over 5 years to develop and utilized a lot of staff resources and was intended to maintain the H-1 District and its surrounding environment. Commissioner Barnes expressed concern that the Town was too quick to approve Town Plan Amendments and rezonings and asked how it would be possible to control proffers without putting the Town at risk. Mr. Boucher explained that zoning can be changed and the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed every 5 years and amended at any time. There is no real way to determine; that once a rezoning is approved; how it will be developed. The possibility for change is always there. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked the Commission members if they had further discussion on form based code. Commissioner Kidder explained that she used form based code as an example. At one time, there had been a Comprehensive Planner on Staff which she found to be very useful in terms of helping the Commission make decisions. She wished to develop a Commission policy to routinely do a review of planning instead of having all the meetings be about zoning. 11 Leesburg Planning Commission March 17, 2016 Minutes Commission Babbin requested clarification. Commissioner Kidder explained that State law requires that the Town Plan be reviewed every five years; however the Planning Commission and Town Council are often called upon to change the plan. She is suggesting that the Planning Commission take sections of the Town Plan and review them on a more regular basis. This will ensure that the Plan would be more up to date and eliminate approving Town Plan Amendments that may not be appropriate. Ms. Berry -Hill commented that she was glad they were having this conversation as work has begun on a comprehensive planning project known as Envision East Market and noted that information on this project was included in their agenda packets. Staff has started work on research/data collection and work will begin soon on public engagement. Once the information is gathered the intent is to bring this project to the Planning Commission to get feedback and direction. The project is focused on three main areas; (1) Land Use — The key factor in this process is to revise, update, and/or change regional office land use policies; (2) Transportation — There are two interchanges; Fort Evans Road at Edwards Ferry Road and Route 7 at Battlefield. Both changes impact this corridor and Route 7 will be restricted access. (3) Design and H-2 Guidelines — need to be reviewed and revised as part of this process. Council initiated repeal of H-2 and we need Planning Commission input; mainly if the H-2 Guidelines are repealed; should it be replaced by other guideline. All the Planning Commission members supported Commissioner Kidder's suggestion and discussion was held regarding forming a sub -committee to review the Town Plan. It was determined to discuss comprehensive planning issues amongst the Planning Commission members at their regular meetings and should they choose to delve more deeply into a specific topic, a sub -committee would be formed. Commissioner Robinson requested that an updated briefing on Bill 549 by Town and County staff be scheduled for December. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 PM. 4re roved by, n Cicalese, Commission Clerk L ndsay Welt Chamblin, Chairman 12