Loading...
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