Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 21 16 PC MinutesT The Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, April 21, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Scott Parker, Mike Watkins, Bill Ackman, Shelby Caputo, Liz Whiting, and Karen Cicalese CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Kidder, Harper (left the meeting after the Commission took action on the Crescent Parke application), and Robinson and Council Member Katie Sheldon Hammler (sitting in for Vice Mayor Burk) Absent: Commissioner Burk and Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Commissioner Robinson requested an amendment to the agenda to allow the Crescent Parke Work Session to be held prior to the scheduled Text Amendment Public Hearing. Motion: Commissioner Harper motioned to adopt the agenda as amended. Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 7, 2016 Commissioner Harper noted that a correction had been made to the minutes to add her comment "HOA documents always supersede the Town Code" on Page 4; paragraph 9; after Mr. White's comments. Commissioner Babbin did not agree that HOA documents supersede the Town Code and noted that they may, in some circumstances, extend restrictions beyond the Town Code; but the Town Code supersedes everything. She did remember the comment being made at the last meeting; however she refrained from responding to the comment as it was not germane to what was being discussed. She asked to hear the context of the statement. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin read the following paragraph from page 4 of the minutes: 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 Babbin stated that Mr. White was correct. Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Harper noted that Mr. White's statement was correct. HOA's can be more restrictive than the Town Code and that is the manner in which she addressed her comment. Motion: Commissioner Robinson motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Second: Commissioner Babbin Vote: 5-0-2(Burk absent, Kidder abstained) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin made the following statement: I would like to take a few moments to discuss the Planning Commission's role in the application process. The Planning Commission's responsibilities are established by statute and include citizen oversight of the planning and land development process, as well as the review and approval of land use applications. Our bylaws require that all applications be submitted 21 days in advance of a Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to review the application. After an applicant has worked with staff, the application is moved to the Planning Commission for consideration. The application is sent to the Planning Commission a week in advance of a meeting with a comprehensive staff report, to which we are very appreciative. The staff report includes recommendations that the Planning Commission should consider. Over the week leading up to the Planning Commission meeting, the highly skilled members review the package and discuss questions/issues with staff and/or the applicant. It is the goal of the Planning Commission to work with staff and the applicant to create the best product possible and forward our recommendation to the Town Council. This requires a thorough review by the Planning Commission taking into consideration the Town Plan, Zoning Ordinance, State and Federal regulations, and general welfare of the citizens. While the Planning Commission strives to make this process as expeditious as possible we also have the responsibility to conduct a comprehensive review. Based on historical trend data from the last four years, the Planning Commission reviewed 82% of its cases in one meeting. During the review process we often have delays at the request of the applicant - to which we are accommodating and are always willing to support the applicant even if this requires us to alter future agendas or have special meetings. Throughout the process, we welcome the public to express their thoughts and concerns - we welcome the public to participate in the process by attending meetings and sending emails to the commission. As Chair I strive to be fair and respectful of my fellow commission members, staff, citizens, the process, and the applicant. Therefore all applicants that come before the Planning Commission are treated equally. 2 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes PETITIONERS None ZONING TLZM-2013-0006, Crescent Parke Work Session 3, Mike Watkins, Sr. Planner Mike Watkins, Sr. Planner, explained tonight's discussion would focus on the few remaining issues that were not addressed at the last meeting and that it was anticipated that the Commission would take action on this application this evening. Mr. Watkins gave a brief summary of what was discussed at the last work session which included zoning comments and modification requests and Planning Commission action; discussion of staff recommendations regarding design and the Planning Commission's feedback regarding staff's recommendations; and lastly engineering comments were discussed. The remaining items to be discussed are a couple of policy issues and the proffers. Proffer Analysis: Minor Revision: There is a minor revision needed to change the date of the proffers which can be updated when this application is forwarded to Town Council. Phasing: This application proposes their phasing based on transportation improvements and not the traditional proportional share of residential and non-residential uses as the project develops. Acquisition of off-site right-of-way may impede ultimate development of Davis Avenue: There is a mall sliver of property south of Davis Avenue near the intersection of South King Street and Davis Avenue. The proffer states that the applicant will make its best efforts to secure this right-of-way; however if the applicant is unsuccessful the Town is therefore required to use its powers of Eminent Domain. This is an issue because the applicant has not provided an alternate layout that provides the necessary transportation improvements within the existing right-of-way. The required improvements to facilitate adequate levels of service can't fit in the existing right-of-way. No recreation contribution if Olde Izaak Walton Park Property is not dedicated to the Town: In the event that the Town does not accept the Olde Izaak Walton Park Property; there are no proffers that provide the typical contribution for recreation improvements within the Town of Leesburg. There is a proffer guideline for residential development regarding contributions for recreational improvements within the Town which states a $1,000 per dwelling unit contribution. If Council elects to not take the park dedication; there would be no recreation contribution included in the proffers as it is currently worded. Staff recommends increased width for Greenway Reservation Area for buffering. No explanation necessary $200,000 towards South King Street Route 15 By-pass improvements removed: 3 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes Initially this contribution was offered in concert with the off-site transportation proffer of $768,060. It has since been removed reducing transportation improvements by $200,000. Dedication of Olde Izaak Walton Park Property overly complicated. This has been discussed in great detail and Staff believes that as proposed; the proffers are overly complicated. Staff does have some recommendations and is willing to discuss those with the Planning Commission and the applicant. There may be an easier way to facilitate the dedication of park land than what has been proposed. Policy Issues: There are ordinance requirements that the applicant has to meet and there are also opportunities for staff to advise the Planning Commission. The following are advisory comments only and are not required elements that the applicant is required to meet. Office Use: This is memorialized as Building C-1 and it consists of an 88,000 sf building which can be office or hotel. As noted in previous applications, including this one, market conditions aren't right for this amount of square footage offered in a single building; it is not located in a prominent location; the timing is unknown; and the cost associated with the structured parking has been identified as cost prohibitive Phasing: As noted previously, the Crescent District does not include a phasing requirement; however the Crescent District was envisioned to be a mix of uses. All residential units can be constructed prior to any commercial use. Greenway Extension: There are current conditions that affect; not only this proposed development but the existing developments to the east. If the Greenway Extension is constructed as proposed there is insufficient buffering for the existing dwelling units to the east as well as the proposed dwelling units. This is a vital link from the Greenway and impacts of noise and general proximity and lack of buffering have not been adequately addressed. A significant unknown is the ultimate grading. This could include and go beyond the reservation limits identified on the Concept Plan; however no engineering studies have been done to define whether there is a potential impact. Mr. Watkins noted that there were three actions that the Planning Commission needed to take and asked if the Commission wanted an overview of these actions or if they would prefer to have a discussion on the proffers and policy issues prior to moving on. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin responded that she would like to have the discussion on the proffers and policy issues first and solicited the Planning Commission for comments, questions and discussion regarding the proffers. Commissioner Barnes expressed concerns regarding the lack of traditional phasing and asked for clarification on what is proposed by the applicant. Mr. Watkins answered that the applicant has explained that the phasing will be done through transportation improvements. There are no incremental ratios of residential uses to commercial uses. Commissioner Barnes asked if the transportation improvements were necessary to enable the applicant to construct the residential Cd Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes units. Mr. Watkins answered that at the time of site plan the applicant will be required to provide the necessary access to the portion of the property that is being requested to be developed in accordance with the Concept Plan. If an area of the Concept Plan is chosen for development; the applicant will be required to extend the necessary transportation infrastructure to provide adequate ingress and egress to that portion of the property. Commissioner Kidder asked for clarification on the acquisition of the off-site right-of-way. Mr. Watkins explained that the necessary right-of-way for the Davis Avenue extension goes beyond the current right-of-way limits. The addition of the right through lane, the dual left turns; and the two inbound lanes extend the diameter of the road footprint beyond the existing right-of-way. Should the applicant be unsuccessful in securing the right-of-way and the Town doesn't exercise its power of Eminent Domain these improvements can't be facilitated within the existing right- of-way. Commissioner Kidder asked what the Commission could do to ensure this improvement is constructed. Mr. Watkins answered that the Commission could ask the Applicant to change the proffers to provide the necessary right-of-way at their expense. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern regarding phasing as there was no connection between the commercial and the mixed use. The Applicant is proposing the use of transportation as phasing and therefore should be required to construct the necessary connections in order to provide proper dispersal of traffic and provide for commercial traffic as part of the transportation phasing. If the applicant is not agreeable to do so; she would like to see more traditional phasing such as: • The completion of one commercial building and at least two of the MU buildings, particularly the one that is proposed to house the community room, at 50% build -out. • The completion of 50% of the commercial proposed and 70% of the mixed use at 75% build -out. The mixed use is needed to provide services to support the residents. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern regarding phasing ties to commercial tenant occupancy. She felt it was necessary to give a developer time to attract the higher level tenants as opposed to being forced to lease to less than desirable retail tenants. She noted that she did not have a concern regarding phasing for this particular developer as he has proven himself and invested heavily in our community. She would like the Applicant to address market conditions and timing. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she would like to have all Commissioners weigh-in and have the Applicant address all concerns at one time. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was a little confused on what staff was asking from the Applicant with regard to the right-of-way acquisition and if this was something that needed to be addressed now as opposed to later in the process. Mr. Watkins answered that one of the main goals of a concept plan was to make sure that if something is proposed; it can be constructed. The way the proffer is framed currently; if the applicant is unable to secure that parcel; it falls upon the Town to exercise its' powers of Eminent Domain. If the Town chooses not to exercise 5 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes its' powers of Eminent Domain; the Applicant can't build the road as proposed, therefore the road does not meet the adequate levels of service. Mr. Watkins explained that the Appendix B contributions are supposed to be utilized for mitigation off-site improvements. Although the right-of-way is off-site; the majority of the property that is affected by this development is their own property. He recommended that the Planning Commission look at the Appendix B monies as intended. He explained further that the concept plan is to illustrate what is necessary to adequately handle, not only development of the property; but the impacts generated by it. The inability of the Applicant to secure the right-of-way or the inability to facilitate the improvement necessary to provide adequate levels of service provides reasoning to deny this application. Staff uses the vehicle of the concept plan to identify issues that would prevent construction at the time of site plan. Commissioner Babbin asked if Staff would be satisfied if the Applicant inserted a provision in the proffers to reimburse the Town any costs associated with the Town exercising its powers if Eminent Domain. Mr. Watkins responded that the timing for that to occur is not established in the proffers. Commissioner Babbin asked that this issue be added to the list for the Applicant to address. Commissioner Babbin noted that she did not have concerns regarding the Olde Izaak Walton Park property as she believed that Town Council wanted to handle the dedication issue. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification regarding the $200,000 proffer for a traffic improvement that was removed. Mr. Watkins explained that the way the proffer was written; it included improvements as well; however, the intent was to provide a traffic signal. Staff can't quantify the total amount of improvements necessary to facilitate said improvements. When this was initially brought forward as an item; staff was unable determine what this contribution provides in its pro -rata share towards that improvement. There are additional rights-of-way potentially and significant alterations of the existing road section which make this an unquantifiable proffer. More importantly, the Applicant is saying there is over $700,000 in Appendix B monies that could be used toward this improvement. However, the earlier proffers specifically earmarked this additional $200,000 for this particular improvement. Commissioner Harper noted her agreement with Commissioner Robinson's comments regarding phasing and transportation and her proposed traditional phasing plan. She expressed concern regarding Olde Izaak Walton Park and the cost associated with its improvement and was not in support of accepting the parkas she would prefer the $1000/per unit contribution. She also noted her agreement that the Applicant should agree to provide the required right-of-way for the Davis Avenue extension. Commissioner Kidder asked if the Commission would want to request that the Applicant provide a guarantee to provide the off-site right-of-way for the construction of Davis Avenue extended. Chairman Welsh Chamblin responded that she would like to have the Applicant address the Planning Commission member's questions and comments. Christine Gleckner, Land Use Planner, Walsh Colucci, representative for the Applicant, asked the Commission if there were other questions to be addressed in addition to the acquisition of the off-site right-of-way and the $200,000 proffer allocation. Con Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin responded that there were a few that were in addition to this list but asked that she address these two issues first. She also asked the Commission members if there were other questions for the Applicant to address. Commissioner Babbin asked Ms. Gleckner to address phasing and construction vs. occupying. Mr. Gleckner answered that the Applicant has been fairly consistent in their approach to phasing throughout this application process. The road they are providing, Davis Avenue connection, will provide a full connection from Gateway Drive to South King Street and will provide a full Town road. The construction of the bridge over Tuscarora Creek is very expensive and the Applicant feels they are making a significant proffer to construct this road up front. It will be available to the general public to utilize and will not just be servicing the proposed development. Due to the cost associated with constructing the Davis Avenue connection, the Applicant is not in a position to be able to finance this development by tying to any specific development thresholds. Additionally, 25% of the proposed dwelling units are located in the mixed use building and a good percentage of these units could be built early on in the development process with the first ground floor commercial and retail uses. Commissioner Babbin asked if the community center was free standing or below the residential. Ms. Gleckner answered that they have proffered 2,000 sf of the first floor commercial space in the mixed use office building to be used as a community room. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if it would be possible for the Applicant to move equipment in and out of the property and construct the back section without constructing the bridge. Ms. Gleckner answered that they could do so utilizing Gateway Drive. Mr. Watkins noted that there is a proffer that states all construction traffic will be provided through existing Davis Avenue. There will need to be a bridge of some sort constructed to provide construction access to the southern land bay. Ms. Gleckner responded that she has just learned that they are planning a temporary bridge to allow construction traffic to access the site. Hobie Mitchell, Applicant, explained that the proposed retail will be built under the residential units and the residential units will need to be constructed as they construct the ground floor retail and will include the community center. It is their intent to market this and build it up front. The occupancy permits for the commercial units are issued prior to a tenant taking occupancy as there are building codes that need to be met such as fire protection. As for transportation costs, they are spending $3.5 to $4 million to build the bridge and make that connection. They also can't get their first occupancy permit until that road is open to traffic. Ms. Gleckner moved to the issue regarding the $200,000 proffer for traffic improvements at South King Street. She explained that once the Applicant had been able to strike a deal to purchase the Olde Izaak Walton Park property; they restructured how the proffer dollars would be allocated and submitted revised proffers. The total proffer package was not reduced; it was 7 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes actually increased, the dollars were just reallocated. The Applicant is now proffering the dedicated school proffer amount which was lowered by Town Council last year. The additional proffer money went in to the purchase of Olde Izaak Walton Park. This is when the $200,000 came off the table. They are still proffering the off-site transportation contribution which is roughly around $760,000 based on the number of proposed dwelling units which the Town can use as they choose. Commissioner Babbin asked what the net increase in the proffers was. Ms. Gleckner answered that she did not have that figure with her tonight. Commissioner Babbin asked the Applicant to address the viability of the office/hotel in this market and the cost of the parking structure being a part of the economic viability associated with this use. Ms. Gleckner explained that one of the reasons that the hotel use was added was to allow the site to have more options than just office use as it makes it more a more attractive and commercially viable option for that property. The parking proposed is structured parking; not underground which is more costly. Mr. Mitchell stated that the proffers were pretty clear about what can be built on that site. The Concept Plan shows office or, by special exception, hotel. He suggested labeling it on the Concept Plan as non-residential uses which would enable other allowable uses within the Crescent Design Zoning District; such as institutional uses. Commissioner Robinson asked the Application to address the right-of-way acquisition. Ms. Gleckner stated that this is a standard proffer which she used in the Crescent Place and Oaklawn applications. There is a public/private partnership to build the public roads in a way the Town calls for. The Applicant is willing to do this and will try to acquire the off-site right - or -way; however they can't guarantee, in a proffer, that they will be successful in obtaining said right-of-way. The Town does have the power to acquire the right-of-way through Eminent Domain and the Applicant pays for the cost. The Applicant does not necessarily anticipate having a problem acquiring that sliver of land; one property owner has already sold them the land this development will be on and the other owner is VDOT. She opined that it would be doubtful that VDOT will block them from getting right-of-way. This is a pre -cautionary proffer that goes into just about every proffer statement. Mr. Watkins clarified that he is not looking at the Oaklawn proffers; he is looking at the Crescent Parke proffers. He noted that Ms. Gleckner had a valid point as there is a procedure that is used. Mr. Watkins referenced Page 6 of the Proffers which states " If the Town does not adopt a resolution to pursue its powers of Eminent Domain within ninety (90) days of the receipt of the request or does not acquire the necessary right-of-way within fifteen (15) months from the adoption of the resolution, then the Owner shall provide a cash contribution to the Town equivalent to the bond amounts for the construction of the improvements requiring the off-site right-of-way, which amount shall be submitted to the Town and held specifically for the construction of the improvements in the future by others." While there is a process and a guarantee that this will happen, as written, there is no trigger to determine when the Applicant will need to provide that cash contribution for others to build the street. Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes Ms. Gleckner responded that she felt that this was something that could be worked out. It was not left out intentionally. Commissioner Robinson asked if this was something that Staff would be agreeable to and Mr. Watkins responded that it was. Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding the language in the purchase and dedication process of Olde Izaak Walton Park in terms of timing and logistics; a specified HERS number to indicate energy savings; and desired to have the proffer rewritten to address these concerns; include triggers; and correct some minor typos in the proffers. Ms. Gleckner responded that she would remove language to make it a straight dedication proffer. The main concern is the timing for the Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) to create the parcel to be dedicated to the Town and the Applicant will work on timing with Staff and the Town Attorney to minimize the Town's exposure to lease payments. Commissioner Barnes asked Ms. Gleckner what would happen should the Town choose not to accept the park. Ms. Gleckner answered that the Applicant would then need to include the financial park proffer contribution in the proffers. Commissioner Barnes requested that the Applicant include language in the proffers to address what would be done in the event that the Town chooses not to accept the park. Ms. Gleckner responded that they would do a revision to the proffer statement to include such language. Mr. Mitchell proposed a solution to the lease payment and explained that in January of 2017 they will own that property and technically the lease terms will transfer to them as the new owner of the property; they can choose not to collect a the lease payment from the Town. Liz Whiting, Attorney, explained that the Town Attorney has concluded that if you look at the terms by which the lease transfers and continues to bind the property; a sale of the property would not continue to be subject to the lease. This would be a matter that would need to be negotiated with the owners which could be done through the proffer process that they agree that they continue to be bound by the terms of the lease; if that is what both the Town and the Applicant want. It would be a negotiated amendment of the lease; absent of that, the transfer by itself, would not bind the successor purchaser. Commissioner Babbin stated that it was very unusual for a lease to have this provision. Ms. Whiting explained that the provisions of Paragraph 16 of the lease are odd. They have the customary provision of addressing the Town and its successors and assigns being bound; however it does not include that language with regard to the lessor. It is language of succession; rather than sale. Commissioner Babbin asked if the lease is silent on this; would common law allow for the lease to continue. It was her understanding that under common law a lease would continue regardless of the sale of the property unless the lease itself specifically says otherwise. Ms. Whiting explained that as to the lessor it binds the heirs, executors; administrators, representatives, and assigns; but not the successors. Perhaps it could be proffered that it would be done by assignment as well as sale. It needs to be affirmatively addressed. 'Commissioner Babbin asked if the Applicant could work with the Town Attorney and insert the proper language 9 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes into the proffers prior to this application going before Town Council. Ms. Gleckner answered that they will be revising the proffer language prior to the Town Council public hearing. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked Mr. Watkins to continue with what action is required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Watkins explained that the first action the Planning Commission needs to take on this rezoning is the request for a subdivision variation. The question before the Commission is TLSV-2016-0001 which is an SLDR (Subdivision Land Development Regulation) that affects the number of dwelling units accessed by private streets or as defined in the DCSM as a Common Parking Court. The second action regards the zoning modifications. His recommendation is to do this in block as they have already been discussed. Lastly, the Planning Commission needs to take action on the rezoning application; TLZM-2013-0006 requests rezoning portions of the subject property from CD -OS and CD-MUO to CD-RH. The rezoning application would permit the construction of 159,725 sf of non-residential uses and 380 dwelling units. Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. Watkins to explain how the Commission was to handle, in their ultimate motion on the rezoning, issues that had been discussed at the previous meeting. There was discussion on a long list of items; many of which had resulted in agreements from the Applicant. She asked if that had to be incorporated in the motion itself. Mr. Watkins explained that it did not have to be incorporated and it was at the Commission's discretion. Those items have been memorialized and can be forwarded to Town Council included with your recommendation of approval or denial. Those were intended to be a summary of your recommendations; if the Commission wants to specifically reference those in your motion he would advise the Commission to do so. Commissioner Babbin asked if those items could be listed on a separate sheet and entitled "Exhibit A" and referenced in the motion. Mr. Watkins answered that they could. Chairman Welsh Chamblin further explained that a more detailed description of discussion and action from the last meeting would be included in the minutes. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a motion on the Subdivision Variation. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move to approve TLSV-2016-0001 as requested by the applicant and as described in the April 7, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session Staff Report for the purpose if achieving the intended urban design of the Crescent Design District. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a second; seeing none; she asked Commissioner Babbin if she wished to withdraw the motion. Commissioner Babbin suggested that the order of the actions be reversed to address the rezoning first as there was some concern amongst the Planning Commission members as to what the impact of the first two are. Mr. Watkins explained that the purview of this Subdivision Variation is the Planning Commission's alone. If they do not improve this variation; there is a physical impact to the layout of the property and the rezoning application can't move forward as currently 10 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes depicted to Town Council. This Subdivision Variation implements the Crescent District Design and Staff recommends approval of the variation. It does not signal the approval of the rezoning application in total; it allows the design standards that were anticipated for the Crescent Design District to not be forced into a suburban standard. After discussion on procedural protocol; it was determined that another Commissioner would make the motion. Commissioner Robinson made the following motion: I move to approve TLSV-2016-0001 as requested by the applicant and as described in the April 7, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session Staff Report for the purpose if achieving the intended urban design of the Crescent Design District. Second: Commissioner Barnes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion; seeing none she called for the vote. Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked Mr. Watkins for the reasoning as to why this was the second action item this evening. Mr. Watkins explained that the Commission has not previously made an official vote on the requested modifications and the modifications affect the layout. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the motion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move to approve the zoning modifications requested by the Applicant as described in the April 7, 2016 Staff Report and as discussed at the April 7, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session. Second: Commissioner Kidder Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion. Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding adequate parking and noted that she could not support this motion. Commissioner Harper also expressed concerns regarding parking and density and stated that she too would not be able to support this motion. Commissioner Barnes noted that he shared the same concerns regarding parking and density. Commissioner Harper noted that Council Member Hammler had asked if the motion could be amended to remove the modification request to exceed the maximum commercial parking 11 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes requirement. Mr. Watkins answered that the Planning Commission can chose to address these items individually if they so desired; however the motion would need to be amended. Commissioner Harper asked for clarification on the item regarding tandem parking spaces credit. Mr. Watkins explained that our ordinance states that if you have.a single car garage; of which the 16' wide townhouses and two -over -twos do; then you can have one space on the inside of the dwelling unit and the potential to have a full space on the outside of the dwelling unit. The full space on the outside of the dwelling unit meets the parking dimensions; therefore the modification is to allow both the inside and the outside parking spaces to count toward the required parking amounts. Commissioner Kidder requested that this item be separated from the motion. Commissioner Robinson stated that she would like to amend the motion to remove Item 1, Credit Tandem Parking Spaces. Chairman Kidder seconded the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion on the amendment; seeing none she called for a vote on the amended motion. Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk Absent) Mr. Watkins noted that the motion regarding the tandem space is not necessary as Staff can convey to Council that there was not agreement with regard to this issue. After further discussion it was determined that the Planning Commission wished to have a separate motion to address the tandem parking space credit issue. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move to approve the zoning modification labeled Credit Tandem Parking Spaces as requested by the Applicant and as described by the April 7, 2016 Staff Report and as discussed at the April 7, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session. Various concerns were expressed regarding this motion and Mr. Watkins explained that the initial motion was amended to strike the Tandem Parking Space Credit; however the rest of the modifications, as listed, are recommended for approval. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a second; seeing none she noted that the motion had failed. She asked that Staff forward the Commission's comments regarding this item to Council. Chairman Welsh Chamblin moved on to the third item which was to take action on the rezoning itself and called for the motion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: 12 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes I move that TLZM-2013-0006 Crescent Parke be forwarded to Town Council with a recommendation of approval for the reasons stated in the Staff Report and on the basis that the approval criteria of Zoning Ordinance Section 3.3.15 have been satisfied and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice subject to the three pages attached to the April 21, 2016 Staff Report on this rezoning and in addition the page labeled "Staff Comments April 7, 2016 Work Session Results" with the first item being Underground Detention Facilities and the remainder of said page. Second: Commissioner Kidder Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion. Commissioner Babbin noted that the Planning Commission has spent numerous sessions on this project and has worked diligently with the Applicant to improve this project. She voiced her support of this application for numerous reasons which included Town vision, addition of commercial uses to an area that is currently not utilized properly; and the dedication of Olde Izaak Walton Park to the Town, thereby relieving the Town of the lease payments. She opined that this application also encourages positive development within the Town. She encouraged her fellow Commissioners to consider the big picture when voting tonight. Commissioner Harper asked Bill Ackman, Director, Plan Review, to explain the Fairfax County model with regard to the underground detention facilities. Mr. Ackman responded that this model requires the Applicant to create a fund for maintenance and if needed a complete replacement of the underground facility; thereby providing financial protection for the residents in the long term. Commissioner Harper expressed concern for the 100 year storm; the residents of Virginia Knolls; and the cost of remediation and maintenance of Olde Izaak Walton Park. For these reasons, she would not be supporting the motion. Commissioner Robinson noted that she too would not be supporting this application and urged Town Council to deny this application for the reasons listed below: • The Crescent District was not intended to support a density of suburban type housing. • Due to the density there would not be enough parking for both residents and visitors. • The application does not offer any phasing; without phasing there is not even a mix of uses. • It fails the Town objective to shift the tax burden from residential to commercial. • There is no guarantee of job opportunities for the residents; therefore this application enhances the ex -urban aspect of the "bedroom community" label affixed to Leesburg. • The Greenway Reservation of 90' is insufficient as there is not adequate room for buffering for the established communities and the proposed new group of homes. • The expense of the rehabilitation of the Olde Izaak Walton Park property will cost the residents more in tax dollars. 13 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes • The impacts of the 100 year storm and its impact on neighboring communities. • On street parking proposed for Davis Avenue and Gateway Drive will hinder traffic flow. • Without the continuation of First Street there is no other connection that will lead out of the community. • The huge deviation from Crescent Design concepts diminishes commercial job growth in Town; thereby affecting both demographics and tax base. Commissioner Kidder noted her agreement with Commissioner Robinson; particularly with regard to the 25 year storm. In her opinion, the 100 year storm is preferred to protect the residents of the Virginia Knolls Community. She noted that she liked the overall concept of the proposed development and would like to see it happen; however; more work needs to be done. For this reason; she will not be supporting the motion. Commissioner Barnes noted that he shared his fellow commissioner's concerns and was also in favor of the 100 year storm proposed by Staff; therefore he too would not be supporting the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked Staff for all their work on this application and the Applicant for working with both Staff and the Planning Commission to improve this project. She also thanked the public for attending numerous meeting where they expressed their comments and concerns. Some issues remain such at the 25 year storm versus the 100 year storm; the viability of the park and the costs associated with its improvements and maintenance. Overall she felt this was a great application that it would be good for the Town and she would like to see it move forward. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that there were some outstanding issues that had been discussed which included adding a number to the HERS; adding the word "Federal" before State and Local; changing the Izaak Walton Park timeline to give an actual date; and address the termination of lease payments; could be resolved prior to the Town Council public hearing or with Town Council. Commissioner Kidder asked if the detailed comments from this evening will be forwarded to Town Council. Mr. Watkins explained that Staff typically transfers the Commission's comments to Town Council. If there is something that the Commission; as a body; wants to transmit to Council, Staff will certainly do so. He noted that the Commission was also encourage to transfer their specific comments to Council as well. The staff reports reflect the will of the body; rather than individual Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Kidder requested that Commissioner Robinson's comments be included provided the remainder of the Commissioners agree. Chairman Welsh Chamblin stated that it would be her preference that the minutes be made available should specific comments be researched. The Commission was agreeable to this Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the vote. 14 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes Vote: 2-4-1 (Aye: Babbin and Welsh Chamblin; Nay: Barnes, Harper, Kidder and Robinson; Absent: Burk) PUBLIC HEARING TLOA-2016-0004 Noise in the R-1, Public Hearing, Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 9:16 pm. Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager explained that Town Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 2016-041 to initiate Zoning Ordinance text amendments in order to change the allowable time that outdoor performances and amplified music are allowed as part of a Fair within R-1 (single family, low density residential) zoning districts . The purpose of the change is to create consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code (Chapter 24). Current Zoning Ordinance regulations within Section 9.5.4. address Standards for Specific Temporary Uses such as carnivals, circuses, festivals, fairs, dog shows, and other similar uses. Section 9.5.4.1) provides specific standards for Fairs in the R-1 District, stating that the use of sound amplification equipment shall not extend past 7:00 pm as part of the permitting process for a Fair. However, the Town's noise ordinance as outlined within Chapter 24, Article V, Offenses against Public Peace and Order, states that the use of sound amplification equipment shall not extend past 8:00 pm. Since Chapter 24 is referenced in the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Town Code and the Zoning Ordinance conflict. There are three sections of 9.5.4.D, Fair in the R-1 District, that are being proposed for a change from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm to create consistency between the Town Code and the Zoning Ordinance. Section 9.5.4.D.5, Outdoor Performance Section 9.5.4.D.8, Noise Section 9.5.4.D.9, Sound Amplifying Equipment In addition, this code amendment fixes a discrepancy within this section related to performance activities. Currently, Section 9.5.4.D.7, Hours of Operation, states that "Any performance activity from 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm must be in an enclosed building. This reference will be corrected to state "Any performance activity from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm must be in an enclosed building." Mr. Parker ended his presentation with Staff s recommendation of approval. As there were no members of the public in attendance; Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 9:20 pm and solicited the Planning Commission members for questions, comments and discussion. Seeing none, she called for a motion. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: 15 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes I move that Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment TLOA-2016-0004, amending Article 9 of the Town of Leesburg Zoning Ordinance (TLZO) to amend Ordinance sections to replace "7:00 pm" with "8:00 pm" in order to be consistent with the Town Code be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval as proposed in the staff report dated April 21, 2016 on the basis that the amendments will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 5-0-2 (Burk and Harper absent) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Council Member Hammler commended the Planning Commission on their work on the Crescent Parke application and bringing forth the important issues that Council and the Applicant still need to work on. The Town Council passed the tax rate and the budget at the last set of meetings which did include improving the AV equipment in Council Chamber. STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Robinson attended the Parks & Rec Commission meeting and reported that they were very happy with Town Council's vote on the Skate Park as well as the almost record attendance and success of this year's Flower & Garden Show. Chairman Welsh Chamblin attended the BAR meeting where a number of applications were approved as a mass action. An application for 215 South Street was moved to a Work Session to be discussed in more detail. The BAR approved signage at Courthouse Commons. Commissioner Kidder reported that the globe that was formerly located at Leisure World at Lansdowne will be placed at the entrance to Leesburg's airport. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Chairman Welsh Chamblin informed the Commission that the two text amendment public hearings previously scheduled for this evening had been moved to the May 5th meeting to accommodate the Crescent Parke Work Session. 16 Leesburg Planning Commission April 21, 2016 Minutes ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM Approved by: Karen Cicalese, Commission Clerk Lyndsay Welsh�hamblin, Chairman 17