HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 07 16 PC Minutes.of LETS
VIRGIN��
The Town of Leesburg in Virginia
Leesburg Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2016
The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, April 7, 2016 in the Town Council
Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan
Berry -Hill, Brian Boucher, Scott Parker, Brandon White, Mike Watkins, Bill Ackman, Calvin
Grow, Shelby Caputo, Liz Whiting, and Karen Cicalese
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Harper,
and Robinson
Absent: Commissioner Kidder and Vice Mayor Burk
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Commissioner Harper
Second: Commissioner Robinson
Vote: 6-0-1 (Kidder absent)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 17, 2016
Motion: Commissioner Harper
Second: Commissioner Barnes
Vote: 6-0-1 (Kidder absent)
DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS
Chairman Welsh Chamblin disclosed a brief telephone conversation with Jay Sotos regarding
speaking at the meeting this evening.
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked all for attending and noted that she was looking forward to
having a good discussion about the proposed text amendments and the Crescent Parke
application. She also hoped to move the Commission's Bylaws forward.
PETITIONERS
Sarah Richardson, 349 Shenandoah Street, Leesburg, came forward and expressed concerns
regarding run-off and traffic. She noted that this project faces many hurdles including
engineering and stormwater management. However, if it were to be approved, it would be a
great opportunity to take this project in a direction that would turn it into something very
beautiful in terms of addressing native plants and tree preservation.
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING
TLOA-2015-0005 Text Amendment Temporary Portable Storage Units — Brandon White,
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:10 PM
Brandon White, Deputy Zoning Administrator, gave an overview of the proposed amendments
which include amendments to Article 9, Section 9.9.5, Use Regulations and Article 18, Section
18.1.186.1 Definitions. He explained that in December 2015, Town Council had initiated that
Staff begin work on a Town Plan Amendment pertaining to temporary portable storage units that
would address issues such as duration of storage, size, condition of storage units, etc. The
purpose of this Town Plan Amendment is to encourage safe use and storage habits for portable
storage units and discourage poor storage habits; establish regulations for efficient and temporary
use of portable storage units; craft language that is understandable, sufficient, and provides the
necessary administrative guidance; and addresses existing and future nuisance issues. Existing
regulations, Section 9.1.4, Unlisted Uses, require a Zoning Administrators Determination;
Section 9.5, Temporary Uses, primarily regulates special events and temporary sales; and
Section 10.4.5, Minimum Yard, applies to accessory structures such as swimming pools, fences,
decks and patios. The proposed amendments provides the term "Temporary Portable Storage
Unit"; and defines it as a commercially constructed, purpose built container designed for
vehicular transport and storage of equipment, building materials, or household goods. For the
purposed of this Zoning Ordinance, a temporary portable storage unit is neither an "accessory
structure" nor a "trailer" as defined in Article III (Storage, Construction, and Sales Trailers) of
the Town Code. Mr. White discussed the Use regulations which are broken down into six
subsections as follows:
1. General Standards
• Temporary use permit required
• On-site storage required, subject to Town Code exception for public right-of-way
encroachment
• 128 sq. ft. size limitation (16' x 8')
• Placement on paved surface
2. Duration
• 60 cumulative days within a calendar year
o Exception for active construction
3. Number
• Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached: 2 units or 128 sq. ft., whichever is
less
• Multi -family: 1 unit per dwelling unit with property management approval; 2 units or
256 sq. ft., whichever is less, for property management
• Single non-residential use lot: 2 units of 256 sq. ft., whichever is less
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
• Multi -tenant non-residential or mixed-use lots: combination of multi -family
requirements, subject to Zoning Administrator's discretion.
4. Location
• Non-residential and multi -family lots:
o Excess parking/loading areas
o Undesignated areas
o Not allowed in required parking/loading areas, buffer/landscape areas, or
sidewalk
5. New regulations will be applicable to new and existing units, upon approval by Town
Council
6. Additional exclusion for officially declared emergencies
Mr. White ended his presentation with a Staff recommendation of approval and explained that
the Planning Commission is tasked with determining if the term "Temporary Portable Storage
Unit" is an acceptable term; if the definition provided is suitable; and if the regulations proposed
are adequate.
Commissioner Barnes noted that some driveways are not paved; and asked where a unit could be
placed in these situations. Mr. White answered that a change had been made to last year's batch
recognizing earthen driveways and that language could be added to this amendment to include
earthen driveways to the surface requirement. The units are not permitted in the street; however
right-of-way encroachments are handled through the Town's Public Works Department and a
permit would be required in addition to a cash bond.
Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the numbers allowed for multi -family. Mr.
White explained that multi -family units are allowed one unit per dwelling unit. The property
management company can have up to two units.
Commissioner Burk noted that the proposed language in Section 9.5.C.2 does not list specific
unit size and suggested that it be added for clarity.
Commissioner Babbin expressed concern as to the fairness of the location requirements as those
residents residing in homes without a driveway would be prohibited from utilizing a temporary
portable storage unit. She asked that staff look into the appropriateness of allowing the units to
be placed on a flat grass surface in these instances. She was also concerned with the sixty day
duration as she felt it was excessive. Mr. White explained that this time frame was simply a
proposal by staff and the Planning Commission could recommend a different length of time.
Commissioner Babbin asked about the permitting process and its' enforcement. Mr. White
answered that enforcement is generally complaint generated; however Staff does have the ability
to address issues that they see during their travels through Town. Commissioner Babbin noted
that she did not see the necessity for the permitting process since enforcement is complaint
3
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
driven and it was her opinion that it would place an additional burden on the homeowners. Mr.
White explained that the permitting process would enable staff to enforce the duration
requirements. Staff will know when the unit will be on the property and the property owner will
know the length of time they can keep the unit.
Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. White to explain the placement of the units on public streets
and the permitting process. Mr. White noted that the proposed regulations require the units to be
placed on a paved surface on their property. However there is an exception that would allow
them to be placed in the public right-of-way through the Public Works Department. Language tc
this effect is listed in Section 9.5.5.A.5 of the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Babbin asked about the exception to the duration requirements for active
construction. Mr. White answered that the time frames for construction projects vary and require
zoning and building permits; thereby making staff aware of the activity on the property. This
provides an opportunity to provide some flexibility in the regulation to address on-going
construction projects.
Commissioner Harper noted that she agreed with Commissioner Babbin regarding the necessity
of the permitting process and its' enforcement.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin invited public comment on this amendment.
John Bolton, 508 Clagett Street, SW, Leesburg, came forward and voiced his support of the
amendment. Concerns expressed included the removal of a POD on his street which has been
sitting on a vacant lot for over a year with no active construction; the exemption for construction
projects; and what controls would be in place to insure this exception is not abused.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 7:42 pm and solicited Planning
Commission discussion.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the HOA typically regulates usage in neighborhoods. Mr.
White answered that they could.
Commissioner Robinson asked if the HOA has regulations regarding this use in their documents;
does the Town or the HOA document supersede. Mr. White answered that the HOA document is
an independent document which can be more restrictive than the Town regulations; but not less.
Commissioner Harper stated that HOA documents always supersede.
Commission concerns included calendar year vs 12 month period; the permitting process; the
location being limited to a paved surface; and an acceptable duration.
Commission Babbin suggested more flexibility on the location of the unit on the property and a
time frame of 2 weeks after which a permit would be required and a determination could be
made as to whether an extension was warranted.
4
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
Mr. White explained that when they initially began drafting the regulations they did have a
specific period of time for the storage to occur un -permitted; once that time limit was reached a
permit would then be required. However, it was decided to simply draft regulations with
reasonable requirements and let the Planning Commission direct Staff as to what it felt to be the
most appropriate for the Town. Guidelines for regulating Temporary Portable Storage Units
vary with each jurisdiction. Mr. White addressed the permitting concerns and explained that the
Town does require permits for some temporary uses such as stages, jump castles, moon bounces,
rock climbing walls, etc. but not for temporary storage units.
Commissioner Babbin stated that she would not be able to support this ordinance as it is
currently drafted. She did not believe it was appropriate to ask our residents to come in for a
permit for such a short term use and asked that staff to revisit this issue.
Commissioner Harper suggested a thirty day duration period with no permit required. She could
not support a permitting process in this instance.
After further discussion Commissioner Babbin made the following motion:
I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2015-0005, Temporary Portable Storage
Units, be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval, on the basis that
the amendments further the objectives of the Town Plan and that the proposal would serve the
public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, subject to the
following changes to the language proposed in the April 7, 2016 staff report:
• Section 9.5.5.C.2 provision be amended to add a limitation of 128 sq. ft.
• Section 9.5.5.A.1 provision be amended to not require a permit for the first fourteen days
of usage; after such time a permit will be required for an additional period of time subject
to the Zoning Administrator's discretion.
• Section 9.5.5.A.5 provision requiring the unit to be placed on a paved surface be
amended to allow placement on any driveway surface.
Second: Commissioner Burk
Vote: 6-0-1 (Kidder absent)
TLOA-2016-0003 Text Amendment Convenience Store/Dining — Public Hearing, Scott
Parker, Assistant Town Manager
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 8:19 pm.
Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager, explained that this text amendment proposal is for an
amended definition of a service station. Town Council initiated this text amendment on
December 8, 2015 to address a current service station trend that allows full service convenience
and sit down dining in addition to fuel which is currently prohibited in the Town's Zoning
Ordinance. Other jurisdictions allowing sit down dining in fuel/convenience locations include
S
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
Loudoun County, Fairfax, Manassas, Winchester, Clarke, Frederick County, MD, and Herndon.
Key points of the text amendment are as follows:
• Fuel Sales as principal use
• Convenience food sales
• Sit down dining (on site consumption) as accessory use
• Specifics
Mr. Parker concluded his presentation with a staff recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Barnes asked if this use would be by -right or special exception. Mr. Parker
answered that it would be as part of a special exception or rezoning.
This was discussed by the Planning Commission members and it was determined that it would
be their recommendation to Council to not require a special exception for this use in an existing
service station provided that there was no change to the building footprint and the parking
requirements were met.
Commissioner Robinson made the following motion:
I move that Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment TLOA-2016-0003 amending the definition
of "service station" in Article 18 be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation
of approval on the basis that the amendments will serve the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice. The proposed language shown in the staff report
dated April 7, 2016 is revised as follows to incorporate the following changes recommended
by the Planning Commission:
A special exception will not be required for the use in an existing service station provided that
there is no change to the building footprint and the parking requirements were met.
Second: Commissioner Babbin
Vote: 6-0-1 (Kidder absent)
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
None
ZONING
TLZM-2013-0006 Crescent Parke Work Session 2, Mike Watkins, Sr. Planner
Mr. Watkins gave a brief overview of the application and progress made to date and outlined the
format for the work session.
Randy Minchew, Attorney, Walsh Colucci, was representing the Applicant as Christine Gleckner
was on vacation. He noted that this application dated back to 2013 and that tonight was the
31
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
eighth time the Applicant was before the Planning Commission. He respectfully asked that the
Planning Commission take action on this application tonight.
Staff distributed four (4) work sheets to be used by the Planning Commission to discuss
outstanding issues. These work sheets addressed: a summary of Planning Commission issues
identified in previous meetings; zoning comments; zoning modifications; and design comments.
Planning Commission Comments from Initial Review
Staff noted the work sheet entitled, "Planning Commission Comments from Initial Review" and
asked if the Planning Commission wished to discuss items on the work sheet. As there were no
comments, staff moved to the next work sheet.
Zoning Analysis
The Concept Plan generally satisfies the technical requirements of the CD -C, CH-RH and CD-
MUO Crescent District zoning requirements. The following inconsistencies were discussed in
the staff report and noted on the Zoning Issues worksheet. Staff stated that these issues must be
revised to meet Ordinance requirements:
1. HVAC Units. Ground mounted AC unit locations are shown within the 18 -foot wide
driveway for a two -car driveway. The AC units must be relocated. As depicted, the
AC unit conflicts with the required unobstructed width of 18 feet for a two -car
driveway.
Planning Commission Action: This remains an outstanding issue for the
Planning Commission.
2. Typical Lot Detail. The typical lot detail for 2/2s on Sheet 4A must be revised to
correct the parking space dimension/rear yard to reflect 25 feet not 18'.
The Applicant agreed to the recommended change.
Planning Commission Action: Issue resolved
3. Typical Private Alley Detail. The typical private alley street section on Sheet 4
depicts 2 separate lanes, which is not correct. The typical section must be revised by
removing the centerline and associated depiction of 2 way traffic on a one way alley.
Additionally, written approval from the Loudoun County Fire Marshall on the
concept design and fire protection regarding the one way alleys must be provided to
confirm that Concept Plan layout can be approved at site plan.
The Applicant agreed to the recommended change.
Planning Commission Action: Issue Resolved
4. Street Tree/Easement Conflicts. The location of underground utility easements
forces the location of street trees in very close proximity to sidewalk potentially
7
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
creating "heaving" issues in the future. The underground utility easements and
associated infrastructure must be revised to eliminate the constrained planting
locations for required street trees.
Planning Commission Action: Supported the modification request
5. Missing Landscaping. There is a large swath of landscaping missing adjacent to
Davis Avenue extended. It appears to follow an existing storm drainage easement,
near Food Lion, that will be abandoned. The required street trees and other
landscaping should be located within referenced "void" area.
The Applicant agreed to provide streetscaping
Planning Commission Action: Issue Resolved
6. Grading/Tree Save Conflicts. Staff notes inconsistencies with the pending mass
grading plan and the tree save areas depicted on the Concept Plan. Differentiate
between the 24,773 SF additional tree save area listed on Sheet 7 and Sheet 8 and the
trees shown to be saved in the future Greenway Extension 90' R.O.W. The 24,773
SF listed appears to be the tree save area shown Sheet 7 minus the trees within the
future Greenway Extension R.O.W., plus the tree save area shown on Sheet 8.
The Applicant agreed to provide a note to require revisions be approved prior to
final approval.
Planning Commission Action: Issue resolved
7. Lighting/Reservation Conflict. The lighting plan depicts provided lighting fixtures
within the reservation area for the Greenway Extension. The light fixtures must be
relocated outside the reservation area.
The Applicant agreed to relocate the lights.
Planning Commission Action: Issue Resolved
8. Outdoor Rec Equipment. The balance beam feature identified on an amenity detail,
Sheet 32, depicts a piece of equipment that is normally found in a gymnasium. The
amenity feature must be revised to provide a structure or piece of equipment that will
more properly function outdoors.
The Applicant will replace the balance beam with play equipment more suitable
for outdoor use.
Planning Commission Action: Issue resolved
9. Pavilion Dimensions. The pavilion depicted on Sheet 33 does not include a
minimum dimension. The detail or proffers must be revised to include a minimum
dimension for the proposed structure.
E:3
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
The Applicant will commit to a structure 20' in diameter and it will be designed
as pictured in the Concept Development Plan
Planning Commission Action: Issue resolved
Modifications
Staff made the following comments regarding the requested modifications and the Planning
Commission provided the following responses.
1. Parking Spaces: TLZO Sec. 11.3 requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, but limits credit
of tandem parking spaces (one inside, one outside) for one -car garages to one space. The
Applicant has requested a modification, under TLZO Sec. 3.18 Interim Waivers, to allow
credit for both (inside and outside the garage, resulting in two provided spaces
i. Staff Response - Approval: Due to the availability of on -street parking
for visitors, a proffered restriction of garage conversions to habitable
space, and recent approvals for other planned development approvals
which included stacked townhouses, Staff does not object to the requested
modification. However, TLZM Sec. 3.18.0 requires supplemental
information that must be provided to Town Council.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
2. Buffer -Yard Modifications: The requested buffer -yard modifications are not required
due to the fact development within the Crescent District is only required to provide the
buffer -yards in conformance with TLZO Sec. 7.10.5.D.2.
i. Staff Response - The applicant should withdraw the requested
modifications.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Withdrawn by the Applicant no action
required.
3. Architectural Modifications: TLZO Section 7.10.6 contains architectural specifications
for buildings in the Crescent Design District. The Applicant has requested modifications
of the specifications to promote uniqueness in architectural design.
a. Dormer Windows: TLZO Section 7.10.6.E.7.c specifies that any grouping of
single family attached buildings shall include dormer windows for a minimum 50
percent of the buildings in each grouping of buildings.
i. Staff Response - Approval: As illustrated in the attachments to the staff
report, the proposed architecture respects traditional Leesburg vernacular,
but provides an identity for Crescent Parke. Staff generally supports the
conceptual building elevations as designed.
E
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
4. Canopy Coverage: TLZO Section 7.10.5.G.6.f requires that each amenity area include a
canopy coverage or "shading" of at least 50%. The modification requests lower
"shading" percentages for the following amenity areas:
a. Amenity Area # 1 43%
b. Amenity Area #2 12%
c. Amenity Area #3 34%
d. Amenity Area #8 33%
i. Staff Response - Approval: As illustrated on Sheets 23 through 30, the
amenity areas have been designed to provide the features identified in
TLZO Sec. 7.10.5.G.5 which. As designed, the referenced amenity areas
provide gathering areas and passive recreation. The amenity areas do
include an appropriate amount of landscaping and facilities the intended
use of amenity areas within the Crescent District. Staff does not object to
the modification as requested.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
5. Street Trees: TLZO Sec. 7.10.11 requires street trees, as large canopy trees, are provided
at regular intervals of 40 feet, or as understory trees at regular intervals of 15 feet. The
Zoning Administrator can determine whether the tree zone is a continuous planting strip
or grates over continuous tree -root trenches. Street tree locations must also comply with
DCSM requirements for sight distance. The Zoning Ordinance also allows the Zoning
Administrator the ability to waive specific locations of street trees.
Staff Response - Approval: The customary practice with legislative
applications to defer waiver approvals to Town Council, so the Zoning
Administrator has not made a determination on the requested
modification. Due to the engineering constraint of potential sight distance
conflicts with street trees, staff supports the requested street tree
modification.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
6. Parking Space Quantities: TLZO Sec. 7.10.5.A states that off-street parking shall not
exceed the amounts as required per TLZO Sec. 11.3. The applicant is requesting to
exceed the maximum amount of parking spaces in the CD-RH by 11 spaces.
i. Staff Response - Approval: The 11 extra parking spaces will provide
additional visitor parking and does not represent an excessive amount of
parking above the required amount.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
10
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
7. Build -To -Line (BTL): The applicant is requesting the maximum Required Build -to
Line as specified in the table contained in ZO Section 7.10.4.C.I to permit a build -to line
up to 45 feet along General Urban Streets and 40 feet along Residential/Optional streets.
i. Staff Response — General Streets - Approval: The applicant's
justification is primarily based on their desire to maintain the maximum
flexibility possible. The applicant has not cited any specific constraints
listed in TLZO Sec. 7.10.12.A.1 that requires the additional BTL setback.
In the commercial areas of the development staff agrees that the
additional setback could accommodate outdoor dining, additional open
space or areas of additional sidewalk, complementing the intended urban
design in the CD -C and CD-MUO districts. For the above mentioned
reasons, staff supports the requested modification for the additional BTL
setback along General Urban Streets.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
8. Build -To -Line (Residential Streets): The applicant's justification is primarily based on
their desire to maintain the maximum flexibility possible. The applicant has not cited any
specific constraints listed in TLZO Sec. 7.10.12.A. I that requires the additional BTL
setback. The requested increased BTL setback for the Residential streets will only
reinforce the suburban appearance of the residential land bays and the proposed grading
plan does not appear to create any unique conditions that warrant the additional setback.
Therefore, staff does not support the increased BTL setback along Residential streets.
i. Staff Response - Denial
ii. Planning Commission Action: Withdrawn by Applicant no action
required
9. Frontage Requirement: TLZO Sec. 7.10.4 requires that buildings occupy 66% of the
Build -To -Line (BTL). This percentage can be modified to no less than 50% when the
building is designed to have an "L" shape providing additional open space, or when the
space that was to be occupied by the building is provided as open space/amenity area.
The modification request will permit the reduction of no less than 50% along the BTL for
Building C-1.
i. Staff Response — Approval: Building C-1 is located on the corner of
Davis Avenue Extension and First Street. The longer side of the building
frontage is provided along First Street with the shorter building frontage
provided along Davis Avenue Extension. The applicant is proposing a
landscaped plaza area as shown on Sheet 30. The proposed design meets
the intent of the provision to modify the required percentage. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the modification.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
11
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
10. Required Street Section: TLZO Sec. 7. 10.1 LAA permits the modification of the
required street section to alleviate a significant engineering constraint. Sections of Davis
Avenue, First Street and General Street "A" are constrained by required geometric design
and sight distance standards which prohibit on -street parking and a street section that is
not consistent with the General Urban Street standard section.
i. Staff Response - Approval: The proposed modification is required due to
the above referenced engineering constraints and is the minimum
necessary to meet required engineering requirements.
ii. Planning Commission Action: Approved
Design Recommendations
The following items are not zoning requirements and are included as recommendations for
consideration by the Planning Commission in order to better meet the intent of the Crescent
Design District.
1. Building "O" Location. Building "O" faces a common open area; however, the rear
yards, which are driveways, are excessively long. Staff recommends staggering the
building to reduce the excessively long driveways which then increases open space.
Planning Commission Action: Supported as proposed
2. On -Street Parking: Staff recommends that the on -street parking on Davis Avenue at
the intersection of Davis Avenue and Gateway drive be removed. Due to the limited
number of travel lanes and anticipated traffic volumes, there is the potential for
unsafe turning movements for vehicles maneuvering into parking spaces and the
turning movements in the intersection itself.
The Applicant agreed to eliminate parking.
3. Sidewalk Widths: Sidewalk widths within open spaces are inconsistent. In some
areas the width is five feet and in other area the width is tem feet wide. A uniform
width should be provided. Due to the shared -use nature of the pedestrian network,
staff recommends six to eight feet, and ten feet or any designed trail which may
include bicyclists.
The Applicant agreed to work with staff at site plan.
4. Commercial Amenity Spaces: The amenity open spaces surrounding the
commercial buildings are dominated by a monotony of raised seating walls with
interior landscaping. The applicant should explore other ways to accommodate
amenity features which are uniquely designed for multifunctional spaces for
assembly, site furniture and landscaping.
12
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
The Applicant agreed to work with staff at site plan.
5. Mailbox Clusters: The location of mailbox clusters does not appear to be equally
distributed throughout residential section south of Tuscarora Creek. Staff
recommends that a note be placed on the plan that prohibits the location of mailbox
clusters within six feet of the curb for any ally or street. The separation will maintain
pedestrian paths and not conflict with street trees.
The Applicant agreed with recommendation to work with staff at site plan;
however the postal service will determine the mailbox location.
6. Silva Cells: Consistent with recent approvals in urban environments, staff
recommends the use of Silva Cells for street trees adjacent to street sections that
include on -street parking. Specifically, Silva Cells should be included for First Street
and the portion of Davis Avenue, north of Tuscarora Creek.
The Applicant was not agreeable to this recommendation.
Planning Commission Action: The majority preferred the use of Silva Cells.
7. Pedestrian Connections: To better facilitate pedestrian connections to the Olde
Izaak Walton Park property, the sidewalk within the Davis Court right-of-way should
be extended to the park property.
Mr. Watkins advised the Planning Commission to disregard this comment as it
was not researched thoroughly.
Subdivision Variation
The requested subdivision variation is to allow the proper access to the west side of the Land
Bay south of Tuscarora Creek to meet DCSM requirements without installing a cul-de-sac.
Planning Commission would need to approve the variation. A decision had been made
previously by the Planning Commission to not hold a public hearing on this issue; however the
variation will need to be voted on.
Stormwater Manal4ement
Bill Ackman, Director Plan Review addressed the following stormwater management issues.
SWM Detention - Given the flooding issues directly downstream of the proposed project, staff
is requesting that the applicant proffer to provide detention of the 100 year storm event to the pre
developed flow. This would exceed the Town's Stormwater Management Master Plan, which has
the goal of detaining the 25 -year storm for the upper watershed of Tuscarora Creek (of which
this project falls into) to reduce the potential for flooding. Additional clarification should be
made regarding detention of the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storm event to less than or equal to the
13
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
pre development flows. There have been a number of Virginia Knolls residents that have
requested the detention of the 100 year storm to lessen the impact on their properties which lie
directly downstream. At one time the Applicant did say publically that they would do this;
however they are now saying that if it looks like they can't detain the 100 year storm due to
economics or other restraints they would like the option to do a comprehensive study of the area
to determine if there would be negative impacts in detaining the 100 year storm.
The Planning Commission was split on this issue with 3 in support of the 25 year storm and
3 in support of the 100 year storm.
SWM Unresolved Issues. The proposed preliminary stormwater management strategy is
incomplete. The following items must be addressed to understand the potential impacts to the
proposed layout.
a. The proposed grading and resulting 10 year and 100 year detention elevations indicate
that the proposed concept may not be feasible. For example, Vault #4 on Sheet 14
indicates a 100 year water surface elevation in the vault to be 306.69', but the proposed
grade over this vault as shown on Sheet 10 shows the proposed grade between 304' and
306', which is not physically possible. Review and revise all grading and/or SWM
computations as necessary to demonstrate that the proposed concept is viable.
b. The proposed easements associated with the underground detention facilities needs to be
revised to provide a minimum of a 1:1 from the invert of the facility to proposed grade.
For example, the proposed easement for the underground detention facilities along the
northern side of the residential area along the Tuscarora Creek appears to require a
minimum of 5' additional width.
Mr. Ackman explained that the Applicant has done a substantial amount of work to demonstrate
how the stormwater management system will work to meet the new stormwater management
regulations; however they are still challenged in some areas. It is conceivable that they will be
able to resolve these issues at site plan and the Applicant could move forward with what they've
proposed on their plans with the acknowledgement that these issues will indeed be resolved at
final engineering. If the issues can't be resolved the Applicant will have to come back to the
Planning Commission and Council under a new legislative application to revise the concept plan.
Mr. Ackman noted that staff would be comfortable with resolving these issues at site plan as it is
at the Applicant's risk.
The Planning Commission was in support of resolving the issues at site plan.
Underground Detention Facilities Modification Information. The applicant's Stormwater
Management/BMP strategy includes underground detention facilities which require a
modification of DCSM Article 5-347.
Mr. Ackman explained that this plan would not be approved if it is not able to meet the required
BMP. This is required by the State of Virginia and the Town is required to enforce this. To
meet the State requirement the Applicant will need to provide all of the BMP on site and not
purchase any of the BMP. The reason for the requested reduction is to provide water quality on
14
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
site which may be one condition the Planning Commission would like to impose. Mr. Ackman
suggested the following language "In order to maintain that 50' buffer (as opposed to a 150'
buffer) they must provide all of their BMP on site."
Typically the Town does not allow underground detention and requires modification approval
from the Director of Plan Review. Staff researched Fairfax County requirements and informed
the Applicant that they would likely issue that modification for underground detention provided
the Planning Commission and the Council are in agreement. There will be conditions listed in
Fairfax County regulations that would need to be met and include a cash contribution to the
HOA and escrow the amount to cover a certain amount of years of maintenance. Staff would
post an additional requirement regarding detention in the underground vaults located in a
residential area; in that as long as it only retains water from the residential section HOA
maintenance is allowable. If those underground vaults also detain water from the commercial
development; the commercial association would be required to maintain those vaults; even if
located in a residential area. Mr. Ackman asked the Planning Commission if there were any
objections to the underground detention with the provisions provided in their agenda packet
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the Applicant was in agreement with this. Hobie Mitchell,
Applicant, explained that the HOA will have responsibilities for post development maintenance
and repair. In this case there will probably be a Master Association with Sub- Associations to
manage this. The Master Association will have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring this
requirement and there will be one entity in control. Mr. Ackman noted that this could be done
when the HOA documents are submitted.
Mr. Ackman responded that he would like the Applicant to agree to follow the criteria set forth
by Fairfax County for underground retention in residential areas. The Applicant agreed to do so.
Intersection Separation. The intersection of Davis Court relocated onto Davis Avenue does not
meet the VDOT minimum spacing of 660' from the intersection of Davis Avenue with King
Street. Table 2-2 MINIMUM SPACING STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ENTRANCES,
INTERSECTIONS AND MEDIAN CROSSOVERS located in Appendix F of the VDOT Road
Design Manual states that the minimum spacing is 660'. One possible solution would be for the
Applicant to propose a traffic circle at the intersection of Davis Court relocated and Davis
Avenue. This intersection as shown on the Concept Plan is not an approvable option as it does
not meet minimum VDOT safety regulations. Therefore, a site plan depicting this design is not
approvable.
Mr. Ackman explained that while this does not meet full VDOT requirements; it does make the
situation better which lends to a little bit of flexibility. The question is; are we satisfied with
making it better or do we want full VDOT compliance. This is a Town Road and the Town has
full jurisdiction; however we get funding from VDOT which means our roads need to meet
VDOT standards.
Calvin Grow, Transportation Engineer explained that a round -about would work well in this
location. Traffic traveling west bound does not have a separate left turn lane and the round-
about would improve traffic circulation.
15
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
The Applicant would prefer to move forward with the proposed relocation of the Davis Court
intersection onto Davis Avenue.
The Planning Commission supported the proposed relocation of the Davis Court
intersection.
Updated Traffic Study
Mr. Grow explained that the applicant has revised the traffic study for the intersections at
Harrison Street and Gateway Drive and Sycolin Road and Gateway Drive. When the initial
traffic study was done, Sycolin Road was closed due to construction of the overpass and the
Applicant had agreed to verify the numbers once the interchange was opened. The intersection
of Harrison Street and Gateway Drive meets DCSM level of service standards; however the
intersection at Sycolin Road and Gateway Drive does not. The east bound left turn coming off of
Gateway to turn south onto Sycolin is operating at level of service F.
Mr. Watkins explained the there is a DCSM requirement that speaks to a failing intersection and
requires that an applicant show the mitigation necessary to correct it. This Applicant has not
provided this information. Mr. Watkins asked the Planning Commission members if they were
satisfied with accepting what was provided.
Mr. Mitchell explained that their proffers specify that the cash contribution for transportation
improvements could be used to put a traffic signal at this failing intersection. A significant
amount of money was also collected for Crescent Place and could be used as well. The proposed
development is not creating the problem, but he wanted to address concerns expressed by the
residents.
Mr. Boucher explained that new legislation has been adopted by the General Assembly deals
with reasonable proffers. A direct connection must be established between what is proffered and
the issue it is mitigating. This application is not subject to this new legislation; however there
must be a nexus between the problem and the proffer. The intersection is currently failing and
will be failing even more once the Applicant puts in this development. The Applicant is not
proffering anything specifically to mitigate this issue. Mr. Mitchell is saying that he is giving the
Town some regional transportation money which could be used for this. Does the Planning
Commission want something more from the Applicant to directly address this failing
intersection.
The Planning Commission determined that concerns remain and action on this issue was
deferred to the next meeting.
First Street Connection
Based on the Concept Plan layout and rough grading plan, the applicant is not facilitating a
through connection from the property north onto existing First Street. A major principle of the
Crescent District is the concept of replicating the Downtown through the establishment of a grid
of streets. If the applicant is unable to provide the through connection, the Concept Plan must be
revised to provide a temporary cul-de-sac per DCSM regulations. Staff recommends that the
16
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
applicant provide suitable off-site improvements to facilitate a through connection on First
Street.
Mr. Ackman explained that both roads are public roads and neither one has a turn -around. The
Applicant has proposed an access easement that creates a T turnaround which might work most
of the time; however it does not work for snow removal. During snow removal Public Works
would plow straight down and then in order to turn around they will plow the snow into a
parking lot leaving only two options; leaving the parking lot entrance plowed shut or plowing the
parking lot of a private entity. In all of the applications reviewed in recent years, a cul-de-sac
turnaround has been required. The Applicant has given staff a design that shows a future
connection that will meet all VDOT standards.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that they agree to maintain that portion of the street until such time as the
connection goes through.
Mr. Ackman explained that he was not comfortable with the suggested solution. This is a Town
requirement. It is a Town Road and is maintained by the Town. It is not possible to turnover
maintenance to a third party on a public road within the Town right-of-way
Mr. Mitchell responded that they will dedicate it as a public right-of-way; do all the
improvements on it; top it and finish it. The issue is plowing and maintenance. They would
finish the street to the standards; have it inspected; and do the maintenance on it until such time
as the connection is made at which point the Town can take over responsibility.
Mr. Ackman explained that it would still not meet any engineering standards due to the absence
of a required standard public turnaround.
The majority of the Planning Commission members felt that there needed to be some type of
connection road; push -through, or round -about in both locations.
Do to the lateness of the hour; Chairman Welsh Chamblin suggested taking a consensus to see if
the Planning Commission members felt they were able to take action tonight.
After further discussion it was determined that the majority of Commission members did not feel
they were at a point where they could take action. Due to the amount of remaining outstanding
issues it was decided to continue discussion to the next meeting.
Mr. Minchew respectfully requested action tonight. He understood there was May 2nd deadline
and opined that if the Applicant returned for another meeting; there will be another staff report
with a list of new issues.
Commissioner Burk noted that the Planning Commission's intent was to work through the
existing list of outstanding issues and then take action.
Mr. Minchew asked again that the Planning Commission take action tonight even if it may not be
a recommendation of approval.
17
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
Chairman Welsh Chamblin answered that they were expecting to see these revisions before this
evening and while she realized that the Applicant has been working hard to get revisions
submitted; this discussion had been put off for a number of meetings.
Commissioner Babbin made the following motion:
I move that Zoning Map Amendment TLZM 2013-0006, Crescent Parke, be forwarded to the
Town Council with a recommendation of approval for the reasons stated in this staff report, and
on the basis that the Approval Criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 3.3.15 have been satisfied
and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
zoning practice. To include the changes made here at the meeting tonight and agreed to by the
Applicant.
As there was no second, the motion died.
Mr. Minchew stated that they would be happy with a motion to send it to Town Council with no
recommendation.
Commissioner Babbin made the following motion:
I move that Zoning Map Amendment TLZM 2013-0006, Crescent Parke, be forwarded to the
Town Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission.
As there was no second, the motion died.
Commissioner Babbin asked if the Commission was going to direct staff to limit the next
meeting to the outstanding issues.
Commissioner Robinson noted that she had some concerns on proffer language; Izaak Walton
Park expenses; and road expenses which she wished to discuss and did not know if they were
included in the remaining outstanding issues.
Mr. Minchew suggested a motion of denial.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked the Planning Commission if they were in favor of limiting the
next discussion to outstanding issues in the staff report and any issues that the Commission did
not have the opportunity to discuss.
The Planning Commission was in favor of this approach.
Mr. Watkins noted that the intent tonight was to move towards action on the application. There
is no need to generate a new staff report. They just needed to work through the existing
documents.
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
Mr. Minchew asked if the Planning Commission wanted the Applicant to attend the next meeting
as he felt that they had done all they could.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin responded that their presence would be helpful; but it was the
Applicant's decision.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
None
COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
None
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Harper announced that she has resumed the responsibility as Liaison to the EDC.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin clarified that Commissioner Harper has agreed to take over the EDC
liaison responsibilities. This was something that Commissioner Babbin and Commissioner
Harper had worked out together.
Commissioner Babbin reported that she had attended the EAC on Wednesday, April 6th
Discussion was held on the Envision East Market Street Stakeholder meeting and the EDC's role
in participation as a stakeholder.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin attended the BAR meeting which was a work session. Applications
reviewed included a parking spot in front of a house on Cornwall Street as well as some
modifications to existing applications.
Commissioner Robinson attended the Parks & Rec meeting where Bill Ference showed the new
splash park plans.
STAFF DISCUSSION
Ms. Berry -Hill informed the Commission about the Envision East Market Street forum being
held on Wednesday, April 13th from 8:30 am to 10:30 pm at Makersmiths.
OLD BUSINESS
Bylaws Discussion and Action
Due to the lateness of the hour this item was continued to a future Planning Commission
meeting, the date of which is to be determined.
NEW BUSINESS
None
19
Leesburg Planning Commission
April 7, 2016 Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adj ourned at 11:3 6 PM.
Ap oved by:
ar n Cicalese, Commission Clerk
r
4ndsay Ws
h Chamblin, Chairman
20