Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 19 16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, May 19, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Brian Boucher, Debi Parry, Barbara Notar, 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 and Robinson Absent: Commissioner Burk and Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Welsh Chamblin requested that the agenda be amended to move the Interactive Zoning Map presentation ahead of the public hearing, which was agreeable to all Commission members. Motion: Commissioner Harper moved to adopt the amended agenda. Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 5, 2016 Commissioner Harper noted a correction to the minutes on Page 10, under Staff and Committee Reports, first paragraph, last sentence concerning the interior conditions of some of the buildings downtown. She explained that her comment had referred to the exterior; not interior conditions of the buildings and asked that the word interior be deleted. This was discussed with the Commission Clerk and the correction had been made. Motion: Commissioner Harper moved to adopt the minutes as corrected. Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin encouraged everyone to enjoy the beautiful weather and sunshine we were experiencing for the next couple of days as there was more rain coming over the weekend. PETITIONERS None Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes PUBLIC HEARING TLOA-2016-0006 Nonconforming Structures Public Hearing — Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 pm. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning informed the Commission that on April 26, 2016, Town Council approved Resolution Number 2016-065 to initiate Zoning Ordinance text amendments to establish consistent nonconforming structure regulations within the Town. The proposed amendment would apply a single standard applicable in all zoning districts throughout the Town using the language in TLZO Sec. 16.3.6 Nonconforming Structures. A nonconforming structure is a structure or building whose size, dimension or location was lawful when built but now does not meet at least one current zoning regulation. During discussions with developers regarding the reuse of properties in the Crescent Design District it was discovered that the Zoning Ordinance specifies two different standards regarding the treatment of nonconforming structures; one applicable to the Crescent Design District and one applicable to all other districts within the Town. TLZO Sec 16.3 Nonconforming Structures — Loss, Damage, or Destruction applies to nonconforming structures everywhere in Town, except for the provision regarding what happens when a building is damaged or destroyed. If a nonconforming principal structure is destroyed by any means, the owner may replace such structure provided that there is no increase in the extent of the nonconformity and provided the repairs or reconstruction shall be undertaken within two years of the date of destruction and diligently carried on to its completion. TLZO Sec. 7.10.1.2 Nonconformities — Destruction of the Crescent Design District specifies a nonconforming structure may be rebuilt in its old location only if the cause of destruction was accidental fire or act of God. A structure destroyed by any means other than accidental fire or act of God shall be replaced by only a structure that conforms to requirements of the Crescent Design District. A structure damaged by accidental fire or act of God to an extent less than fifty percent may be rebuilt to its original nonconforming condition, provided such condition conforms to the requirements of Article 13 Flood Protection and is rebuilt within two years of the date of the accidental fire or act of God. However, if the nonconforming building is in an area under a federal disaster declaration and the building has been damaged or destroyed as a direct result of conditions that gave rise to the declaration, than the zoning ordinance shall provide for an additional two years for the structure to be rebuilt. The following language is proposed and would replace the language in TLZO Sec 7.10.1.2: I. Nonconformities. Existing uses, structures (other than signs, walls and fences) and lots that do not conform to the requirements of the Crescent Design District shall be subject to the regulations of Article 16 nonconformities, except that the following provisions shall apply instead of Section 16.3 Nonconforming Structures ... 2 Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes Expansion. Any expansion of a nonconforming structure greater than ten percent of the gross area of the existing building shall require the entire structure to meet the requirements of the Crescent Design District This amendment proposes that the more generous standard in Section 16.3.6 be applied to all districts; including the Crescent Design District. Additionally, the property owner can destroy the building and rebuild it so long as he/she does not increase the nonconformity. Mr. Boucher summarized Staff analysis and findings as follows: • An owner's rights in developed land and how they are vested against new regulation is a matter that should be consistently applied throughout the Town. • Since zoning districts were established in the Town an owner has always had the right to rebuild a nonconforming structure so long as the extent of the nonconformity is not increased and the structure is rebuilt within two years. • TLZO Sec 16.3.6 standard has existed for over fifty years and has not led to any negative impacts on the Town. Mr. Boucher concluded his presentation with staff s recommendation of approval of the proposed text amendment. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited the Commission members for clarifying questions. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification regarding the provision to limit the size of the nonconformity so as to not increase it; and if said new structure were to be located in the historic or H-2 district; if the BAR and H-2 guidelines would need to be met. Mr. Boucher clarified that the building footprint can be increased providing that what makes it a nonconforming structure is not increased and that it would be subject to BAR, H-1 and H-2 guidelines. Commissioner Robinson asked if the nonconformity is parking would the prior or existing parking requirement apply. Mr. Boucher answered that if it was something that was being built for the exact same use it would be the parking that was required previously. If the building is enlarged or the use changes the current parking requirement would need to be met. As there were no members of the public wishing to speak to this amendment Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 7:28 pm and solicited Planning Commission member discussion. Commissioner Barnes noted that the zoning ordinance allowed an increase of up to ten percent of the original footprint. Mr. Boucher explained that the allowed 10% increase applied to another section of the Crescent Design District and not the nonconformities being discussed this evening. Commissioner Kidder asked what prompted Town Council to initiate this text amendment. Mr. Boucher replied that staff went to Council as they had discovered through discussions 3 Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes with individuals interested in redeveloping in the Crescent Design District that current regulations were interfering with vested property rights as the Town was not treating everyone the same in terms of what they can do with their property. Commissioner Robinson asked why the Town wouldn't make the new building conform to the zoning district regulations. Mr. Boucher replied that there is a State Code vested rights provision that specifically addresses the rights of people under zoning which basically says that subsequent zoning rule changes can't take away an individual's right to have a building in that location. Commissioner Kidder asked what the rational was for making the Crescent Design District different. Mr. Boucher responded that the rationale was to encourage development of properties within the Crescent Design District in conformance with Crescent Design District standards. Commissioner Babbin congratulated Mr. Boucher on doing an excellent job on one of the biggest legal issues in the Virginia Courts and land use policy. The standard encourages people to rehabilitate their properties and she is very much in support of the proposed amendment. Seeing no further discussion, Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the motion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Zoning Ordinance Test Amendment TLOA-2016-0006, amending TLZO Sec.7.10.2.1 to provide consistency for regulations pertaining to the destruction of nonconforming structures be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval as proposed in the staff report dated May 19, 2016 on the basis that the amendments will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Kidder seconded the motion. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification pertaining to the enlargement of a nonconforming structure and the need to meet current regulations. Mr. Boucher explained that if you enlarge a nonconforming structure current regulations would apply. Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None 0 Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Interactive Zoning Map Presentation — Debi Parry, Planning and Zoning Assistant Debi Parry gave a presentation on Leesburg's Virtual Land Development Toolbox, focusing on the newest component which is the Interactive Zoning Map. This map includes detailed information for each zoning district utilizing the familiar format of the current Zoning Map. It was created with an off-the-shelf application through our enterprise license agreement with ESRI and was created at no cost to the Town other than staff time. This map will provide ease of access to customers to gain needed information outside of the Town's normal business hours. Moving forward, feedback and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be integrated and informational briefings will be made to Town Council and the EDC. There will be additional collaboration with the Economic Development staff to identify groups that may benefit from this application such as commercial brokers and real estate professionals. Chairman Welsh Chamblin attended the BAR meeting on Monday evening. There were a number of approvals in the H-1 for exterior replacements and renovations. They are still discussing the Courthouse design and appear to be getting very close to having a design that is agreeable. There was also discussion on the revised outdoor stage presented for the Town Green. Lastly, the BAR is also interested in the Planning Commission's discussion of the H-2 guidelines. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS Two -over -Twos, continued discussion — Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Mr. Boucher summarized the previous discussion held on March 3, 2016 noting that the goal is to provide desirable living options for residents and avoid certain obvious flaws in the unit design. There were three general issues raised regarding the number and definition of two -over - twos and guidelines. Specific concerns expressed at the March 3rd meeting were addressed as follows: HVAC Units Location and Screening: HVAC Units are typically mounted on the ground for maintenance purposes (ease of access, snow removal, and replacement) and cost. High end units can have HVAC units placed on the roof. These units are typically not screened since they are located in either the rear or side yard in most cases. Practical difficulties in screening include access, unit function, and lot width/size. A performance standard requiring applicants to indicate the location and screening of HVAC units and trash collection in all rear -loaded attached units is recommended. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes Parking Issues: Townhouses and two -over -two's are subject to the parking standards of TLZO Sec. 11.3. The rule applicable to both is as follows: 2.0 spaces per dwelling units if access to the lot is onto a public street; 2.5 spaces per dwelling if access to the lot is from a private access way. For townhouses with a single car garage the garage shall not be counted as a parking space. For townhouses with a two -car garage, the two -car garage shall count as a single (one) parking space. In past practice, the ".5" space or half -space is combined with the other half -spaces per unit to provide guest parking in the development, This standard is the one operable in most existing townhouse developments in Leesburg which are suburban in density. Recently, three developments, all located in Planned Development Districts, have been approved and have requested modification of this standard: Market Square at Potomac Station, Crescent Place, and Village at Leesburg, Land Bay C. Each asked for all garage spaces to be counted as parking, including the tandem spaces in two -over -two units. A fourth, Crescent Park, has asked for a modification to allow both tandem spaces in the two -over -two units to count as parking. Justification has been that these are "urban" developments and the lack of surface parking creates an urban look and feel. Coupled with this is the logic that people will use their garages for parking because they have no practical choice due to lack of surface parking alternatives. If the intent is to provide more surface parking so that visitors and homeowners do not need to search for a space; the best approach would be to not grant any modifications to the parking standards. This would result in more land devoted to surface parking but is the most practical way to eliminate this concern. Loudoun County already permits a developer to count all garage spaces, including tandem garage spaces, without a modification. Considering all these factors, staff is not recommending any ordinance change at this time. With regard to guest parking, the spaces are typically identified on the concept plan during a rezoning or on a special exception plat at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit. If the concern is a lack of guest parking, this standard could be increased through a zoning ordinance amendment. However, any such standard could be the subject of a modification request during a rezoning. The only way to remove the possibility of this is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate or alter TLZO Sec. 8.2.2.E. Zoning Modifications which allows any ordinance provision to be modified as part of a planned development rezoning. Zoning cannot limit the number of cars an owner may have. Parking requirements are based on a reasonable estimate of what to expect in a typical case. Increasing the number of spaces will lead to more area dedicated to parking that may or may not be utilized and will increase the cost of the associated residential units, leaving more people, especially middle class, with fewer housing options. The Planning Commission had expressed concerns that the standard 9' x 18' parking space required by TLZO Sec. 11.6.2.A. may be insufficient to park some larger vehicles found in private ownership today. Mr. Boucher noted that parking space size is based on the accepted Urban Land Institute and American Planning Association standards for a typical parking space. The majority of privately owned vehicles fit well within this 162 sf area so a larger space is not recommended due to the increased impervious surface it will generate. L Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes Building Design Issues: Concerns were expressed regarding the lack of storage in some residential units, including townhouses, two -over -two's and multifamily units. After consulting with the Town Attorney, staff believes these areas to be beyond the scope of the Town to regulate through zoning. A minimum lot size can be and is specified in residential zoning districts; however the interior design of a building is left to the developer and market. Not all residential units provide the same amenities and this is usually reflected in the cost/rental price for the unit. To require specific interior accommodations in all units would drive up the price of construction and therefore the cost to the buyer/renter. For these reasons, staff does not recommend a performance standard in these cases. The Planning Commission had also expressed concerns regarding the lack of one-story lateral living and discussed requiring developers to provide a number of these unit types. This unit type would be included as part of a mixed development to ensure that a variety of unit types is provided. This too, is something that cannot be required by zoning and is left to the developer's choice which is typically dictated by what they believe to be marketable. Monotonous Appearance of Structures (Architecture and Width) Several commissioners expressed concern regarding the monotonous look and arrangement of two -over -two and townhouse blocks. Specifically, the sameness of unit widths and setbacks contribute to a monolithic and uninteresting community. As a performance standard there could be a requirement that there must be at least two or three widths in a stick of units. Units are typically wider in townhouse sticks; however a specific standard could lead to a more aesthetic appearance with different width units offering different price points for home buyers Mr. Boucher concluded that staff believed that most of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission could be dealt with during a rezoning process as opposed to additional performance standards. He noted that staff had determined that there were two possible amendments that could help to solve some recurring dissatisfaction with approved two -over -two and townhouse units and included the requirement of a typical detail for two -over -two and townhouse units that shows the arrangement of parking, HVAC units and trash collection on the proposed lots; and a requirement that a stick containing three or more two -over -two or townhouse units have at least two lot widths and sticks with six or more units have three lot widths. Additionally, Mr. Boucher encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the staff report dated May 19, 2016 and decide on a list of possible performance standards that could be forwarded to Town Council for initiation. After further discussion it was determined to address a number of the issues during the rezoning process by communicating clear expectations to applicants regarding what the Planning Commission will be looking for with regard to townhouse and two -over -two units. In addition it was determined that staff would prepare two draft performance standards. One would require the applicant to submit a typical detail of two -over -two and townhouse units that shows the arrangement of parking, HVAC units and trash collection on the proposed lots. The second 7 Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes would require two -over -two or townhouse sticks with three or more units to have at least two lot widths and sticks with six or more units to have at least three lot widths. Bylaws Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion; seeing none, she called for a motion. Commissioner Babbin moved to approve the bylaws submitted by staff and updated as of April 7, 2016. Commissioner Kidder seconded the motion. Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) NEW BUSINESS Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she had a few items she wished to discuss. She would like a Planning Commission member to act as a liaison and attend the public meetings for the Envision East Market project and to then work with staff as they review the findings from those meetings. Commissioner Kidder volunteered to represent the Planning Commission and Commissioner Harper agreed to be the alternate in the event Commissioner Kidder is unable to attend. Planning Commission discussion on the H-2 guidelines are tentatively scheduled to begin in July. The BAR will be discussing this at their June 6, 2016 meeting. There will be information provided to the Planning Commission in their June 2, 2016 packet and she asked that the Planning Commission review this information and be prepared to discuss in July. Chairman Welsh Chamblin also discussed the August schedule and vacation date of August 18'�'. A straw poll was taken and the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to not meet on August 18, 2016. Commissioner Robinson noted that she would like to have a future discussion on how to handle applications that change significantly after leaving the Planning Commission as they move forward to Town Council for review. Commissioner Kidder noted that a number of zoning ordinance amendments have been made as of late and asked if the Commission would want to look at revising the Town Plan Ms. Notar responded that both she and Susan Berry -Hill will be discussing the new proffer legislation at the Town Council work session on Monday, May 23, 2016. They will be making a recommendation to Council that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed and possibly changed. Leesburg Planning Commission May 19, 2016 Minutes ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:19 PM Ap' roved by: Karen Cicalese, Commission Clerk L.Lo k- cUC L ndsay Wel Chamblin, Chairman