Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 16 16 PC Minutesor itrs o� ems' W The Town of Leesburg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 16, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, June 16, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Chris Murphy, Brandon White, Barbara Notar, and Debi Parry. 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, Burke, Kidder, and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk Absent: Commissioner Harper ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 9-0-1 (Harper absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 2, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Robinson Second: Commissioner Barnes Chairman Harper noted a couple of minor typographical errors on Page 7 that need correction. Vote: 6-0-1 (Harper absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin welcomed everyone noting that she was glad that everyone had arrived safely and hoped all would remain safe in light of the severe weather warnings. She also stated that she values all opinions expressed by the Commission and asked all members to be mindful as they go around the dais to allow all members to state their questions or opinions without interruption. Should a Commission member have a follow up question or statement they should get the attention of the Chair who will then call on them to speak when the current speaker has finished their questions and/or comments. PETITIONERS None 1 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes PUBLIC HEARING TLOA-2016-0005, Text Amendment Flex Industrial, Brandon White, Assistant Zoning Administrator Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 pm. Brandon White, Deputy Zoning Administrator, began with a brief background of the proposed amendments to expand definitions and regulations related to the "flex industrial" use category initiated by Town Council by Resolution 2016-027 on February 23, 2016. This came about as a response to an inquiry regarding the development of "flex space" in the I-1, Industrial Research Park Zoning District. The "flex space" proposal consists of options for light industrial uses (e.g. research and development), limited retail uses (e.g. convenience store), educational uses (e.g. technical school), institutional uses (e.g. church), and other commercial enterprises (e.g. daycare, recreation, offices, etc.) in a business park- like setting. While an office/technology/business park is achievable within the framework of the current zoning regulations, the level of flexibility and variety of commercial uses discussed are not fully attainable under the current I-1 zoning regulations. Besides strict limits on retail uses, the existing regulations allow a number of uses but most require a special exception approved by Town Council. The proposed amendments are intended to be mutually beneficial to the business community and the economic development interests of the Town by providing an expanded yet reasonable level of flexibility in the I-1 District to embrace current zoning trends and to increase the economic viability of the district. For purposes of tonight's discussion, the Planning Commission should focus on the following: 1. Is the proposed approach an acceptable solution? 2. Are the terms and definitions provided suitable ones? 3. Are the proposed regulations reasonable and adequate? Mr. White discussed various examples of "flex space' definitions as follows: • Space that is flexible in terms of what it can be used for. • A building providing use flexibility between office, and other uses such as manufacturing, laboratory, warehouse, etc. Usually provides high bays and relocation flexibility for overhead doors and other entrances • A building providing its occupants flexibility of utilizing the space. Usually provides a configuration allowing a flexible amount of office or showroom space in combination with manufacturing, laboratory, distribution, etc. Typically also provides the flexibility to relocate overhead doors. Generally constructed with little or no common areas, load-bearing floors, loading dock facilities and high ceilings. • Originally, industrial space that could be configured as needed for offices, manufacturing, assemblage, or warehousing. Today, the term usually refers to flexible office arrangements such as movable walls, offices shared by different people during different time slots, or any number of other flexible arrangements. 2 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Mr. White also provided visual examples of flex space and discussed the various uses that could be included. He explained that over time, flex space has become cleaner and neater in business park like settings with a uniform building appearance. He highlighted the areas of regional office and office light intensity on the future land use map and corresponding areas of I-1 on the Official Zoning Map. Mr. White also addressed the existing regulations and the effect of those regulations which were established solely to accommodate previously approved industrial park development and to permit reasonable development of lands within existing I-1 Districts until such time as those lands are rezoned to classifications that are consistent with the Town Plan. The I-1 District is not intended to be available for future rezonings, nor as a means of expanding the boundaries of existing I-1 Districts. This description of the I-1 Zoning District reflects the Town's continued transition away from agrarian activities and heavy industrial uses and towards economic development that is less dependent on earth disturbance and uses that have significant off-site impacts; hence, the rezoning to I-1 zoning prohibition. The I-1 Zoning District, as a whole, can only remain stagnant or contract over time; it cannot expand. While many land use plans are long-term ones, accommodations must be made for interim uses. Of the forty-six (46) use categories listed in the I-1 Use Table, eighteen (18) uses may be permitted by right, subject to applicable use standards, without limitation to existing buildings only and/or via special exception approval. This partly accomplishes the effect of stimulating consideration of rezoning I-1 lands to more favorable zoning districts by limiting by right uses. Conversely, it now conflicts with current development trends toward sustainable development, mixed-use buildings, flexible working space, and a sharing economy in industrial areas. If a property owner does not want to rezone from I-1 to one of the commercial zoning districts, development or redevelopment of a site may be challenging with the existing use limitations. "Flex industrial" is one of the eighteen (18) by -right uses without limitation to existing buildings only and/or via special exception approval in the I-1 Zoning District. As currently defined in Article 18 it is limited to light industrial uses and office uses with a 65:35 total gross floor area ratio. An office/technology/business park concept is possible in the I-1 Zoning District. However, the variety of desired nonresidential uses (e.g. light industrial uses, retail uses, educational uses, institutional uses, etc.) is not fully attainable due to the "existing building only" limitations of certain uses such as "diagnostic laboratory." Additionally, today special exception uses such as technical school and electric and/or plumbing supply, are permissible in a flex industrial development, however, each use would be subject to a separate special exception request in order to be included. They could be done concurrently, however. These examples serve to illustrate that the use category (flex industrial) that most closely permits a mixture of uses in this zoning district has its set of limitations. Due to the desire to maintain flex industrial in the I- I, staff made the determination to maintain the regulations and start new. Mr. White highlighted research conducted to include the Loudoun County—Planned Development -Industrial Park (PD -IP) Zoning District; Fairfax County -Light Intensity Industrial Zoning District (I-3); Town of Dumfries — Flex Business/Office District (FB/0-1); and City of San Jose, CA — Combined Industrial/Commercial (CIC), Industrial Park (IP, and Light 3 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Industrial (LI) Zoning Districts. He explained that Leesburg is going for a use category as opposed to the zoning districts found in - the aforementioned municipalities. The proposed amendments are a continuation along the path of reintroducing compatible, by -right nonresidential uses into the I-1 Zoning District for the benefit of property owners seeking reasonable development of lands within the parameters of the existing zoning. These proposed amendments are designed to be consistent with the following Town Plan objectives: • Maintain supply of land for high wage employment. • Create a Town -wide land use pattern that accommodates desired levels of population and employment growth. • Allow uses that build upon regional and local economic assets. • Encourage infill development that is compatible with the character of existing or planned development in the vicinity. Upon review of the permissible uses in the I-1 Zoning District, noticeably absent is a research park or a similar park -like use category. Therefore, the first proposal in this set of amendments is the establishment of a new term, section and definition for the use category "flex industrialibusiness park." "Flex" indicates that the interior composition of the building(s) will be flexible or arranged to meet the needs of existing and prospective tenants. "Industrial" pertains to the zoning district and serves as a reminder of what should be the core of any development under this use category. "Business Park" signals that the development may contain a degree of use variety, but should maintain cohesiveness or integration between those varied, distinct uses. The proposed approach is to permit "flex industrial/business park" development as a use category, subject to special exception approval. More importantly, the flex industrial/business park use category contains a greater number of potential by -right land use options than is available in the I-1 Zoning District presently. The proposal includes a more favorable ratio of light industrial use to non -light industrial compared to the existing flex industrial use. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total gross floor area of the business park must be devoted to light industrial uses. The remaining forty percent (40%) may be used for non -light industrial or other nonresidential uses. The proposed Table 9.8.4 includes many of the uses currently limited to the "existing building only" provision such as: diagnostic laboratory and printing and/or publication facility. Existing by -right uses are included as well. Also listed are new uses and definitions proposed only for flex industrial/business park uses such as: commercial bakery or kitchen, event rental, and trade contractor. These new uses may be appropriate in other zoning districts, but in the I-1 District they shall be limited to this one use category. Under one special exception request, an applicant may request one or more of the permissible uses in Table 9.8.4 for inclusion in a proposed flex industrial/business park. In exchange for the expanded range of options, however, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff, Planning Commission, and Town Council that the required standards for the flex industrial/business park and applicable use standards for each individual use can be met. Mr. White outlined the proposed definition, stating that currently several uses in I-1 are subject to existing buildings only, approved before 2009. Staff is proposing shifting these uses to be allowed by -right in a flex industrial business park. M Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson asked if it is being proposed that these uses be removed from special exception making them by right. Mr. White responded that is what is being proposed. Mr. White continued with his presentation and explained that staff also reviewed uses allowed in other zoning districts and based on conversations with some of the interested parties and business stakeholders in the community it was determined that these uses could be compatible in a business park setting and have been included in the proposed amendments. The uses include bank without drive-in facility, club, convenience food store, mailing services, pharmacy, retail, services, personal, and vehicle and/or equipment service facility. Mr. White also discussed the proposed use table noting that the new uses listed would be allowed by right and noted that new terms and definition have been created for the additional uses. Staff is also proposing a 60/40 use ratio (light industrial/non-light industrial). Commissioner Babbin asked for an explanation for the ratio. Mr. White answered .that this was done for consistency with the Town Plan, future land use recommendations for employment growth, high wage employment. Mr. White discussed additional aspects of the proposed amendments which address compliance with the intent of the current I-1 zoning district, use limitations, special exception concurrency and use standards. The industrial park use will not take away other uses allowed in I-1 zoning districts as they may be permissible by special exception. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification on why a special exception is needed and what is by right. Mr. White clarified that the special exception was required for the entire business park use. The individual uses are by -right. Currently, each special exception use would be required to go through the special exception process. The proposed amendments would consolidate all the uses into one special exception for the entire business park. All the uses listed in the table provided are by right uses. Commissioner Robinson asked if all the uses listed in the I-1 currently would remain by -right. Mr. White explained that any use listed in the current I-1 use table can be done by right if the building has been in place as of 2009. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern regarding the language in the table as she found it to be very confusing and suggested clarifying the language prior to the Town Council public hearing on this text amendment. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin asked the Planning Commission members to hold future comments and questions until Mr. White completes his presentation. Mr. White discussed use regulations proposed in Section 9.8 which address architecture,. signage, parking, landscaping, lighting and access. Mr. White concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission forward the proposed Town Plan amendments to town Council with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited public comment. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Matt Holbrook, 21750 Red Rum Drive, Ashburn, VA, 20147, Regional Partner for St. John Properties, came forward in support of the proposed amendments. St. John Properties is the largest business park developer in the Mid -Atlantic area. This amendment supports economic development and will create tax revenue. He asked that the 60/40 ratio be removed as it limits flexibility and places business park developers at a competitive disadvantage. Mark Baker, , 1*01 South Street, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, Principal, Bowman Consulting, came forward in support of the proposed amendments as it uses progressive and innovative means to capture business in this fashion. This amendment supports economic development and employment generation. Typical flex industrial park incorporates office, manufacturing, assembly, educational, recreation, etc. and creates synergy between tenants and complimentary uses. Kevin Goeller, 907 Rolling Holly Drive, Great Falls, VA 22066, came forward to voice his support of the proposed amendment. He has been in the Leesburg community since leasing Cardinal Park in 1986 and felt this was a step in the right direction for the Town. He was not in support of the proposed 60/40 ratio as it limits flexibility and would hinder economic development. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited clarifying questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Barnes asked if all the uses listed on the use table for were by right. Mr. White answered that staff did not transfer all the by right I-1 uses to the Flex Industrial/Business Park Development. The Flex Industrial Business Park is a separate use. Commissioner Kidder asked if a child care center would require a special exception. Mr. White answered that a child care use is not proposed in flex industrial/business park; however adult daycare is proposed. Commissioner Robinson asked if the flex industrial/business park was part -of the I-1 zoning district. Mr. White answered that it would be an allowed use in the 1-1 subject to a special exception. Commissioner Robinson asked if a child care center would be allowed as an ancillary or accessory use under I-1 even though it is not listed as a permitted use in the flex industrial use table. Mr. White explained that child care was not an allowable use in a flex industrial/business park. Barbara Notar, Town Attorney, clarified that you can have a child care center in I-1. This is a permitted use by special exception; however a child care center is not permitted as part of a flex industrial business park as it is not a compatible use. Commissioner Robinson asked why all the permitted I-1 uses are not included in flex industrial/business park. Mr. White explained that when the uses were evaluated staff looked at what uses were light industrial in nature and secondly which commercial or non-residential uses would be compatible in a business park environment. Not all current by right I-1 uses were Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes compatible and therefore did not transfer. Commissioner Robinson asked if there were sufficient uses allowable in a flex industrial business park. Mr. White answered that the proposed list reflects what staff felt were appropriate uses. The Planning Commission can add other I-1 uses if they choose and Town Council will also have the option to add additional I-1 uses if they so choose. Commissioner Babbin asked about the justification of the 60/40 split and asked if Mr. Hollbrook was correct when he stated that other jurisdictions researched by staff did not have the 60/40 split. Mr. White answered that his statement was correct and explained that they do have limitations on certain uses. For instance, a convenience store use or retail use may not occupy a certain percentage of the total gross floor area of the development or an individual --building. Commissioner Babbiri questioned the logic of the 60/40 -split and asked—why office was in the 40% range when office produces the high wage employment the Town desires. Mr. White answered that office is in both the 60% and 40% sections because there are different types of office uses. An accounting office or a law office would fall in the non -industrial office use where as an office that produced signs would be considered a light industrial use. Commissioner Babbin asked how staff would determine which section an office use fell into. Mr. White explained that the nature of the use, as defined in the ordinance, will determine whether the use falls in to the 60% or 40% category. Mr. White noted that should the Planning Commission desire; staff could break it down in to a variety of different office uses. Mr. White explained that the logic behind the 60/40 ratio was that staff has concerns regarding the allowance of a business park with no limitations as it is felt that doing so would result in more of the less desirable uses. The proposed ratio would allow some activity, but would guide the development to contain uses that are more desirable as indicated in the Town Plan. Commissioner Babbin asked what makes a mini -warehouse less desirable than a publication facility. She expressed concern that the proposed process was arbitrary and opined that the Town should do as other jurisdictions and limit various uses as opposed to categories of uses. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, responded that staff did look at other jurisdictions such as Loudoun and Prince William Counties which are much larger in area and have larger minimum district sizes than Leesburg's minimum district size. The Town has smaller areas and less property available for construction. Based on input from Economic Development, the emphasis needs to be on production uses and assembly uses that typically don't go into office areas or retail centers; but that need a place to start and grow. The Town wants to foster this idea but not at the expense of retail uses which should be guided into retail centers. Staff is not married to the 60/40 split, but rather emphasize that Leesburg is a small jurisdiction with limited space and we wish to optimize the light industrial areas for those uses. Commissioner Babbin asked if a flex industrial park developer wanted to vary the 60/40 ratio; would that be permissible by special exception. Mr. White answered that they would not. Commissioner Robinson asked if a flex industrial business park is in operation and a new tenant would like to come in but the use whose would tip the 60/40 ratio, would they be denied. Mr. . White explained that this is crafted so that the property owner manages the ratio. 7 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder asked if Mr. White could expand on the types of businesses that would be considered desirable versus undesirable. Mr. White answered that in looking at the I-1 zoning district and the future land use map most industrial areas fall into community office and regional office. The Town Plan recommends uses for community office and includes uses such as corporate headquarters, emerging technology facilities, hotels, conference centers, and higher education facilities. The Town Plan also suggests uses for regional office to include office uses such as corporate headquarters, emerging technology facilities, public and private sector office uses, hotels, conference centers, higher education facilities, and other major office uses. It also includes retail and services for the convenience of workers, customers and businesses in the development, such as personal services (i.e. dry cleaners). The third is light industrial and high tech uses as appropriate provided that issues related to compatibility, outdoor storage and traffic are effectively addressed. The Town Plan is the guiding document for land use decisions within the Town. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that commercial bakery/commercial kitchen was on the list of permitted uses for flex industrial and asked if they would be permitted to distribute food directory from that facility or if they would need to have another facility to distribute the food. Mr. White answered that the cooking of food was permitted primarily for off-site consumption, however retail sales was permitted as a non- primary use. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked why higher education institutions, currently allowed by right in the I-1, were not permitted in flex industrial. Mr: White explained that when looking at the scale of a typical college or university, staff did not feel that it was a compatible use for a business park, however it could be done independently of the business park. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked for additional clarifying questions. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 8:23 and solicited the Planning Commission for comments and discussion. Commissioner Babbin wished to compliment staff for their work on this amendment as it has been needed for a while and represented a positive direction for the Town. She did not feel that the Planning Commission should take action at this meeting as she felt more work needed to be done. She was very concerned about the arbitrariness of the 60/40 split and how uses are separated into categories. She would like to see the categories reviewed and move away from the 60/40 ratio especially in light of the inability to vary the ratio by special exception. The Town needs to be competitive with other jurisdictions. Commissioner Burk also complimented staff and felt that this was a great idea and was in support of the ratio. The Town has been struggling for a while with the potential loss of tax base and what to do with some of our areas that were formerly regional office. He emphasized the need to focus on what the Commission needs, in order to be able to give direction to staff, on what information the Commission needs that will enable them to act. Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding the appearance of the buildings and the need to lessen the percentage regulations on the uses inside. She expressed concern regarding 8 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Rex industrial in the PEC and the B-4 and asked for additional information. Commissioner Kidder stated that she liked the proposal and felt that the 60/40 ratio was appropriate as we are not Loudoun or Fairfax and require balance because of our small size. She noted that she was prepared to take action at this meeting. Commissioner Barnes noted that he did not have any particular concerns and was prepared to act at this meeting. Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked staff and the public who came out to speak to this proposed amendment. She did have some concerns regarding higher education not being allowed as she felt it would be a compatible use to some of the other permissible uses. The ratio was a minor concern but would not prevent her from voting at this meeting dependent upon what the other Commissioner members wished to do. Commissioner Kidder requested the addition of higher education to the list of by right uses. After further discussion it was determined to continue discussion to the July 7, 2016 meeting to allow staff to address issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING McLister Off-site Parking — Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator, provided an update from the previous discussion held on June 2, 2016 the Planning Commission had discussed options for how the Wirt Street Lot might be modified to accommodate one or both of the spaces the application is deficient and also asked staff to analyze two other options. The options and subsequent analysis is as follows: 1. Credit for Pre -Existing Apartment Unit - It was acknowledged at the meeting that Town records do not provide any evidence of any permits having been issued for the claimed pre-existing apartment unit at 107 W. Loudoun Street. Since the on -set of zoning regulations in the Town, a zoning permit has been required prior to establishing a new use on any property4n Town. Since at least 1989 the Zoning Ordinance has provided the exact same requirements for generating the number of required parking spaces for a multi -family dwelling unit, as well as for the off-site parking modification presently being sought. At no time since then did the Zoning Ordinance provide an exclusion from having to provide parking for residential uses. Therefore, unless evidence can be produced by Mr. McLister that a legal right has been established, and is still in force and effect, for parking required by the dwelling unit claimed to be at 107 W. Loudoun Street, it will need to be legally established, and accounted for, by the present application. There is no waiver or modification available under the Zoning Ordinance that the Planning Commission can authorize to grant a "credit" for the two spaces in question. We Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes 2. Utilization of the Two Parking Spaces Owned By the Applicant at 105 W. Loudoun Street - Because Mr. McLister renovated his property at 105 W. Loudoun for non- residential office space, Zoning Ordinance Sec. 11.4.4.A. Buildings within 500 feet of a Municipal Parking Facility excludes him from having to provide on-site parking for that non-residential use. According to the sketch of the parking lot assignments at 105 W. Loudoun Street and documents associated therewith that were submitted with the present request, it appears that Mr. Mclister assigned the right to the two (2)spaces marked "Akbar" on the sketch of the parking lot assignments at 105 W Loudoun. Mr. McLister stated at the meeting that his request for off-site parking always included the option to include his two spaces on 105 W. Loudoun Street to make up any parking space deficiencies not accounted for on the Wirt Street Lot. With this better understanding of his position, staff looked more closely at Mr. McLister's submission and can concur that this option can be considered. However, these two spaces are only available if they have not been committed to the users of the offices at 105 W. Loudoun Street. If that is the case, the two spaces cannot be considered available for residential use. 3. Physical Improvements to the Wirt Street Lot. - Mr. McLister expressed his intention to add two spaces to his Wirt Street Lot and to maintain the cross -access between the Wirt Street Lot and 105 W. Loudoun Street. Any new parking space striped out on the Wirt Street Lot will narrow the already non -conforming aisle to a minimum of approximately 11 feet wide where a minimum 24 feet is required. As a result this is not a viable option for accommodating two additional spaces on the Wirt Street Lot. Mr. Murphy concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission send a recommendation of approval based on the following two conditions: 1. That the eight (8) off-site parking spaces on the Wirt Street Lot (PIN 231- 37-6648) and two (2) parking spaces at 105 W. Loudoun Street (PIN 231- 37-6358) shall be used to serve as the required parking for the proposed residential dwelling units at 107 W Loudoun Street (PIN 231-37-5960); and 2. Prior to Town approval of an Occupancy Permit for any dwelling unit at 107 W Loudoun Street, the owner will provide evidence satisfactory to the Town of an irrevocable right recorded through a license, ' deed, easement or long-term lease, to all subsequent owners, heirs or assigns of 107 W. Loudoun Street, with a term equal to or exceeding the projected life of the residential dwelling units at 107 W Loudoun Street, making the Wirt Street Lot and the two parking spaces owned by Mr. McLister at 105 W. Loudoun Street permanently and exclusively available to those dwelling units for parking. Mike McLister, Applicant, asked if he would be able to develop the Wirt Street Lot in the future, providing he can meet the parking requirement for 107 W. Loudoun Street. 10 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Mr. Murphy clarified that should he want to change the parking agreement, he has the right to do so, as long as he can provide the required parking somewhere else. He will be required to have Town approval to amend the agreement should he choose to pay for the spaces in the future. Language addressing this will be included in the irrevocable agreement mentioned in the conditions for approval. Ms. Notar noted that she was in agreement with Mr. Murphy's statement. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern in acting on the motion, as it is written, from a legal standpoint regarding the "irrevocable right". It was her opinion that the language needed to be changed. Mr. Murphy responded that the language came from the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the term irrevocable. And that there is a mechanism in place in that if approved by the Town; other arrangements can be made. Commissioner Babbin asked if that language could be incorporated into the motion. Ms. Notar answered that it could be added. Commissioner Robinson asked which deed would reflect the easement. Mr. Murphy answered that it would be the Wirt Street Lot. Ms. Notar clarified that there would be an agreement recorded in the County land records referring to both parcels. Commissioner Robinson asked if there would be any recourse for the residents of 107 W. Loudoun Street should the use of the Wirt Street Lot change in the future. Mr. Murphy responded that the tenant would have recourse with the landlord. Mr. McLister noted that he had two goals for tonight's meeting. The first was to meet the regulations and provide the required parking for 107 W. Loudoun Street. The second was to discuss the upcoming refurbishment of 107 W. Loudoun Street and to amend the zoning ordinance to address options to the payment in lieu requirement to account for pre-existing conditions. It was his opinion that parking in lieu is out dated and is the cause of a significant reduction in refurbishing the downtown. Chairman Welsh Chamblin responded that his request is something that can be taken up as new business at a future meeting and noted that she would like to focus on the motion for the application before the Commission tonight. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that the McLister Off -Site Parking Request be approved on the basis that it has been demonstrated that there are practical difficulties to providing sufficient on-site parking spaces to meet minimum parking space requirements for the five (5) proposed multi -family dwelling units at 107 W. Loudoun Street; that required parking can be accommodated safely and conveniently on two different existing off-site parking facilities subject to the following conditions: 1. That the eight (8) off-site parking spaces on the Wirt Street Lot (PIN 231- 37-6648) 11 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes and two (2) parking spaces at 105 W. Loudoun Street (PIN 231- 37-6358) shall be used to serve as the required parking for the proposed residential dwelling units at 107 W Loudoun Street (PIN 231-37-5960); and 2. Prior to Town approval of an Occupancy Permit for any dwelling unit at 107 W. Loudoun Street, the owner will provide evidence satisfactory to the Town of an irrevocable right, divested only with the prior approval of the Town, recorded through a license, deed, easement or long-term lease, to all subsequent owners, heirs or assigns of 107 W. Loudoun Street, with a term equal to or exceeding the projected life of the residential dwelling units at 107 W. Loudoun Street, making the Wirt Street Lot and the two parking spaces owned by Mr. McLister at 105 W. Loudoun Street permanently and exclusively available to those dwelling units for parking. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. Vote: 6-0-1 (Harper absent) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Vice Mayor Burk informed the Planning Commission that the Crescent Parke application came before the Town Council; however no vote was taken and the public hearing remained open. The applicant is revising the proffers which the Council has not yet seen. STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Welsh Chamblin informed the Planning Commission that the BAR had a couple of approvals for historic buildings in the downtown area. In addition, the Brown's Car Stores application was discussed. A self -storage application came before the BAR for a preliminary review and should come before the Commission in the fall. The fountain at the Mervin Jackson Park came before the BAR for design review and the Courthouse is still being discussed. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Robinson requested a discussion on parking strategy to include all parking considerations in Town. She would also like a presentation given by Keith Markel, Deputy 12 Leesburg Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Minutes Town Manager, regarding recommendations from the Parking Committee. All commissioners were agreeable to add this discussion to a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 pm Ap roved b a en Cicalese, Commission Clerk L�ndsay Wosh Chamblin, Chairman 13