Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 01 16 PC MinutesOF it EESBG The Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, September 1, 2016 in the Lower Level of Town Hall, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Brian Boucher, Chris Murphy, Keith Markel, Shelby Caputo and Karen Cicalese. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Commissioner Robinson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Kidder, and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk Absent: Chairman Welsh Chamblin and Commissioner Harper ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Kidder Second: Commissioner Burk Vote: 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 21, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Burk Second: Commissioner Barnes Vote: 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT None PETITIONERS None SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING TLTA-2016-0001 and TLOA-2016-0001, Telecommunications Town Plan Amendment and Text Amendment — Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning and Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that she had not included any additional information on the Town Plan Amendment in their agenda packets for this meeting. Most of the discussion on August 4th was on the ordinance amendment and Mr. Murphy was prepared to address concerns expressed by the Commission. Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator, gave a brief history of discussions to date noting that the Commission's discussion continued on the treatment of ground -mounted equipment associated with DAS, Small Cell and Power -Mount type facilities being proposed. At the July 21St meeting, the Commission directed staff to write prohibitions on ground -mounted facilities within the H-1 and anywhere within the Route 7/15 Bypass. However, on August 4th, the Commission discussed reconsidering an outright prohibition when effective camouflage/stealth solutions and limiting the size of equipment cabinets might allow suitable applications of Small Cell and/or DAS in the H-1 and inside the Bypass. As a result of the Commission's August 4th discussion, the September 1, 2016 draft of the ordinance amendment provides language that would allow ground -mounted equipment and other installations previously prohibited. Mr. Murphy discussed the following changes. Local Collector Rights -of -Way: Allow stealth applications on poles only in rights-of-way classified as local Collector or higher. This would not apply to any smaller roads such as local neighborhood streets. Commissioner Robinson clarified that the Town's Local Collector roads are Catoctin Circle, North Street over Old King Street to Old Waterford Road, Edwards Ferry Road, Davis Avenue, Country Club Drive, Greenway Drive, Fort Evans Road to the Bypass, and Heritage Way to Edwards Ferry Road. Commissioner Babbin asked why it was only allowed on Local Collector Streets and not other residential streets. Mr. Murphy answered that this restriction has been in the draft ordinance since it was presented at the Public Hearing. If the Commission disagrees, they could make a recommendation to Council to allow stealth applications on right-of-ways with a lower classification. Commissioner Robinson explained that prior discussions had determined that the range will allow for sufficient disbursement throughout the Town and it was not necessary to allow them on all residential streets. Mr. Murphy continued his presentation and moved on to concerns regarding appearance of roof mounted antennas raised by the Commission. Camouflage: Language was added to Section 9.3 Use Standards to add roof -mounted equipment as well as examples of stealth solutions. Maximum Size and Height for Roof -Mounted Small cell and/or DAS: Mr. Murphy explained that he had consolidated maximum size and height regulations for roof -mounted systems for clarity and ease of use. There will also be examples of acceptable stealth applications. 2 Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding the allowable height. Mr. Murphy explained that the fixtures would be camouflaged and would not be visible. Possible stealth applications would appear to be a part of the building such as a loft or chimney. Commissioner Babbin asked if the specific technical limitations were obtained in conjunction with industry representatives. Mr. Murphy replied that they were and some industry representatives were in attendance this evening. Commissioner Babbin asked the industry representatives if there were any dispute or issues raised by the technical limitations. Frank Stearns, Verizon, responded that the 10' height is based upon experience of what is needed for a roof -mount. Commissioner Babbin opined that there are a number of applications that can be used and that it was necessary to leave in some flexibility for the Zoning Administrator as it was not possible to account for every possible situation. Mr. Murphy noted that there were companies that specialized in stealth applications and showed examples of materials that appear to be either brick, stucco, etc. but are made of materials that the RF frequency can penetrate. Mr. Murphy continued his presentation and noted that he was reversing the decision on the prohibition of ground -mounted equipment inside the Route 7/15 Bypass based on discussion from the August 4th meeting. Ground -mounted equipment may be permitted inside the Route 7/15 bypass when an acceptable stealth solution is used, and approved by the Zoning Administrator and/or the BAR, when applicable, that is architecturally suitable and effectively camouflages the facility from adjacent properties. Examples will also be included in this section. Commissioner Barnes expressed strong concerns regarding the use of ground -mounted equipment in residential areas. Mr. Murphy clarified that there is specific regulation that prohibits ground -mounted facilities in front of residential uses. Commissioner Kidder noted that the ordinance says in front of a residence and asked where on the property they could be place. Mr. Murphy clarified that the ordinance states that no ground - mounted equipment associated with any antenna nodes shall be permitted on the property of or in the right-of-way in front of a residential use front. Equipment in these areas will be pole - mounted. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern regarding the cabinet measurements being expressed in cubic feet and asked for height and depth measurements. Mr. Murphy explained that the cabinet measurements she was referring to applied to pole -mounted equipment; not ground mounted equipment. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern regarding pole height and asked if the 64' max was inclusive of the antenna. Mr. Murphy answered that it was. Mr. Murphy noted that language had also been added to clarify that any Small Cell or DAS equipment installed at ground level internal to a light pole as part of a stealth solution will be considered to be ground -mounted equipment. Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes Mr. Murphy provided a number of examples of stealth camouflage techniques available for ground -mounted equipment to address Commissioner's concerns regarding appearance. Lastly, Mr. Murphy noted that he had made changes to address maximum roof area by removing the height requirements. Commissioner Kidder asked what would happen to that area of King Street in the H-2 should the H-2 guidelines be repealed. Mr. Murphy answered that in that instance it would become the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner Robinson called for additional discussion and seeing none requested a motion be made. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2016-0001, Telecommunications Facilities Amendments be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval, on the basis that the amendments further the objectives of the Town Plan and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin absent) Discussion returned to the Town Plan Amendment and Commissioner Robinson asked Ms. Berry -Hill to give a brief overview. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that currently the Town Plan simply states that telecommunications facilities should be co -located on existing utility poles and located outside Town limits where possible. The proposed plan amendments attempt to consider current advancements in the telecommunications industry and streamline the review process for certain types of facilities subject to performance standards. This Town Plan amendment proposes to update the Town Plan policy on such facilities by adding locational criteria and general performance standards for certain types of telecommunication facilities and it will provide guidance as to whether a commission permit is necessary for the establishment of such facilities when considering whether the facility is a normal extension of established wireless communications networks. Commissioner Barnes asked if the proposed amendment prohibits these facilities in residential districts. Ms. Berry -Hill referred to Item # 5 on Page 6 of the August 4, 2016 staff report which states that such facilities shall not be located directly in front of residential units and be located such that the visual impact is minimized. Commissioner Barnes noted that he would like to see language that prohibits ground -mounted equipment in any residential area. Commissioner Babbin was not in support of adding this type of language as it was a lot more detail than is usually found in a Town Plan. She suggested letting the Zoning Ordinance speak for itself and keep the language more general in the Town Plan. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that 12 Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes other jurisdictions have language in their comprehensive planning document that guides the appropriate locations for these facilities and when there is a need for a commission permit. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was surprised that language regarding commission permits would be in a comprehensive plan as it was not a legally binding document. Commission permits should be addressed in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Berry -Hill noted that most jurisdictions, such as Fairfax, Arlington, and Loudoun, have this language in their comprehensive plan and it is in the State Code that commission permits are required. Commissioner Robinson polled the individual Commissioners as to whether or not they felt this language was needed in the Town Plan. Commissioner's Barnes and Kidder were in support of having this level of detail in the Town Plan. Commissioner Burk noted that he understood Commissioner Babbin's concern, however he felt that one of the uses of town plans is to inform people that are thinking about building something and in sensitive areas, this level of detail would offer greater guidance as it would broadcast the town's intent. Commissioner Babbin felt that two different issues were being discussed. She had raised two separate issues; one being putting that level of detail in the town plan and a separate issue was the provision for when commission permits are required. Commissioner Robinson asked if commission permits were addressed in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that they were in the zoning ordinance in terms of procedure. The Town Plan addresses when they are necessary. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern and suggested that the Town Attorney's office might want to review this issue to determine if the Town is protecting itself form a legal standpoint as the Town Plan is not a legally binding document. Commissioner Barnes again expressed his desire to have specific language in the Town Plan prohibiting ground -mounted equipment in residential areas. Commissioner Burk referred to the Objective 15 draft language in the staff report and noted that it did not specifically address ground -mounted equipment. He expressed concern that as written, it could be interpreted to mean any type of unit in front of any residential unit. After further discussion it was determined to add specific language regarding ground -mounted equipment to Objective 15. Commissioner Robinson noted a few minor corrections to the language in Objective 15. Commissioner Robinson called for additional discussion and seeing none called for a motion. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move that Town Plan Amendment TLTA-2016-0001 to amend the Town Plan, Chapter 10, Community Facilities and Services by deleting Objective 4d; providing edits to Objective 4; and adding new policy language identified as new Objective 15 pertaining to telecommunication facilities be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval on the basis that the amendment meets the Approval Criteria of TLZO Section 3.16 and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice based on the findings as provided in the August 4, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report as amended at the September 15 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion and the motion. Commissioner Babbin stated that she would be voting for this motion as she felt it was a great thing for the Town. However she did not believe detail of this nature should be in the Town Plan as it sets a bad precedent and will lead to confusion in the future. It was her opinion that the Town Plan should contain more general language and hoped that Town Council will consider this and limit the detail in the Town Plan. Commissioner Kidder wished to address Commissioner Babbin's comments and noted that she has heard complaints over the years from developers who feel that our Town Plan is too specific and is supposed to be general and provide guidance. It was her opinion that a lot of the mistakes made by municipalities over the years has been to let developers override what their policies are because they are not specific and they don't hold to them. The State gave towns and cities permission to and insisted that they develop comprehensive plans. The plan does not have to be overly detailed but it must provide guidance and direction Vote 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin absent) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Commissioner Kidder attended the BAR meeting where they discussed the splash pond and mural. The BAR would like a comprehensive plan for all planned Town Hall improvements rather that review each piece individually. Commissioner Robinson attended the August 15th Parks and Rec Commission meeting. There will be a meeting with the County Parks and Rec in October and they will be discussing hiking and biking tails, a connection of such trails, and Veteran's Park. They also discussed smoking at the dog park and the video to raise funds to provide shade for the skate park. They are still waiting for updates on the stage and fountain from the BAR. They also discussed fly zone fees for unmanned aircraft. C. Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Parking Discussion on Payment in Lieu and Mr. McLister's proposal. Keith Markel, Deputy Town Manager, gave an overview of the Parking Task Force recommendations presented to Council. A number of these recommendations have been implemented such as the parking garage enhancements. The Park Mobil App will be implemented in the coming weeks which will allow people to utilize their smart phone or tablet to purchase parking online from all the existing coin meters downtown. The new parking lot will be coming online October 3rd which will be located next to the County garage and will be known as the Church Street Lot. This will be the site of future development, however in the interim the town will be renting the space from the owners of Courthouse Square. Commissioner Kidder asked about the status of the pending development at that site. Mr. Markel responded that the developer is still interested in utilizing that space but was undecided on what would be developed there. In the meantime the Town will be renting the space, The County had been renting it for their fleet vehicles and day employee vehicles and the Town has worked out an arrangement with the property owners to utilize the space for public parking. There is a high demand for public day parking in this area. The Town will be renting back 35 spaces to the County for their fleet vehicles. County staff is being encouraged to park in the Pennington Lot. Commissioner Robinson asked Ms. Berry -Hill to give an overview of Mr. McLister's proposal. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that Mr. McLister appeared before the Planning Commission this summer asking for an offsite parking variance for his property at 105 Loudoun Street. During his presentation he shared his desire for a zoning ordinance change that would not mandate that on-site parking be required for residential development downtown. He has since put his proposal in writing which was included in the Commission's agenda packet. His rational is that this would encourage more residential development downtown which would put more feet on the street and would help the businesses downtown. He asked Town Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment at their August 9th meeting. Staff provided a staff report at this meeting (also included in your packet) that explained the various concerns staff had with this proposal. There are other text amendments proposed pertaining to downtown parking and staff recommended that a more holistic approach to parking be pursued as opposed to a piece meal approach. It is felt that a strategic plan be developed to address parking in the interim and long term. One of the long term recommendations made by the Parking Task Force is to look into a parking garage. The Task Force also discussed the parking payment in lieu which ties together 7 Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes with this. Council did not take action at the August 9th meeting and continued discussion to their September 12th word session. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that there had been an amendment initiated two years ago to do something regarding a certain type of parking in the downtown district which has yet to be resolved. Back in January, Council eliminated a commercial parking provision which would not require businesses located within 500 feet of the County Parking Garage to provide parking. This was also a Parking Task Force recommendation. The McLister proposal would seem to be at odds with that as it would allow certain people to not supply parking. The Town has historically required that parking must be provided for residential. There is an option downtown, in a certain restricted area, to purchase the spaces as opposed to supplying them. There is concern is that there are certain amendments to the parking regulations in H-1 Overlay District that might be at cross purposes and staff feels that it would be better to take a step back and look at parking more holistically and figure in other factors. The Town has recently increased the number of residential permit parking areas. There are now eight in the H-1. Overlay District and a residential parking permit is required to park there during the day. Staff would like to have the opportunity to review these inter -woven factors prior to making any major changes to the H-1 parking regulations. Staff also wants to make sure that they fully understand certain factors such as existing resources, particularly the private parking resources, and what uses and percentages we currently have downtown. The Task Force also recommended formulating a plan to actually utilize the payment in lieu fee towards fixing the parking problem not just maintaining existing parking. Commissioner Robinson asked the Commission if they would be in support of sending a recommendation to Town Council to take a comprehensive look at parking within Leesburg. The Planning Commission unanimously supported recommending a comprehensive plan approach. Commissioner Robinson noted that she would like to forward something to Town Council to look at current parking inventory usable by anybody, site location, walkability, projected conversions to residential, shared parking agreements, changes to parking requirements in existing zoning, and funding sources. Commissioner Robinson moved that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to Town Council to defer discussion and consideration of Mr. McLister's proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment until a comprehensive action is taken on downtown parking. Commissioner Kidder seconded and the motion carried 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin absent) Substantial Changes to applications between the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Town Council public hearing Commissioner Robinson explained that this came up because of recent applications that have gone from vanilla to chocolate; new plats, new proffers, changes that effect other things, etc. Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes She wanted to have this discussion to determine if the Commission felt that they had a value add to review the application again with the changes. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that this was an optional item tonight and invited the Commissioners to weigh in on it to determine if they felt it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to Town Council to address this issue. Currently, when changes are made to an application between the time the Planning Commission makes its recommendation and the Town Council public hearing, staff will identify those changes for Council. If there are major changes, it is up to Council to decide if they want to continue to review the application or remand it back to the Planning Commission to review the changes. There was discussion, on the part of Council, regarding the Crescent Parke application and how to proceed. The first time Council sent the application back to the Planning Commission because there was a Town Plan Amendment proposed concurrently with the rezoning application. The Planning Commission sent a recommendation of denial of the Town Plan Amendment which was later approved by Town Council. Town Council determined that a more thorough examination of the zoning issues was warranted and therefore sent the application back to the Commission. Commissioner Babbin asked if that required the applicant's concurrence in order to allow the Planning Commission to extend the time frame for review and action from a legal standpoint. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that the applicant did concur with Council's decision. Commissioner Babbin asked if the concurrence was required in order for the time frame extension to occur. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that the State Code gives any jurisdiction one year to act on an application. Shelby Caputo, Town Attorney, explained that she and Mike Watkins, the Project Manager for the Crescent Parke application, discussed this and took a more conservative approach in terms of the Planning Commission's timeline and dated it back to the last time the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission which still fell within the 100 day timeframe. Commissioner Babbin noted that she had raised this issue as it was unclear and she felt it would be beneficial for the Town Attorney to advise on this prior to considering sending a recommendation to Town Council as there may be legal ramifications. Ms. Caputo clarified that Commission Babbin was referring to the Planning Commission's 100 day time frame and whether they would have additional time to review the application. She was able to locate the email she had sent in April concerning the Crescent Parke remand and the Planning Commission's time frame. Chairman Welsh Chamblin had, at the time it was remanded, asked what the critical action date was. It was remanded in November of 2015 and the first Planning Commission meeting that took place was a work session on December 3, 2015. The first public hearing on the remand was held on January 21, 2016 which is when the 100 day timeframe began. The December 3, 2015 meeting was a work session and it was basically a discussion on what in the application needed to be discussed. Ms. Berry -Hill noted that one of the concerns is when an applicant makes an unsolicited change that is not a reflection of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. This can be a concern for Council if the Commission has not opined on that change. To address this, the County has language concerning this in their zoning ordinance which allows the Planning Director to extend the timeframe for Planning Commission review and action. 01 Leesburg Planning Commission September 1, 2016 Minutes After further discussion, it was determined that this was a judgment that would need to be made by Council and it was not in the Planning Commission's purview to dictate when Council would be required to remand an application. Commissioner Kidder asked when the Planning Commission would start working on comprehensive planning, more specifically the East Market Street Small Area Plan. Ms. Berry - Hill explained that staff has been inundated with Zoning Ordinance text amendments and all available capacity has been assigned to this. Additionally, Mike Watkins, who was the Project Manager for the East Market Street Small Area Plan, has been promoted to Assistant Zoning Administrator and cannot manage this project in his new position. It has been determined to take a hiatus from the project until such time that it can be reassigned and staff becomes available to resume work on it. Commissioner Kidder expressed her disappointment that the Commission is not working on the Comprehensive Plan and felt that this needed to be brought to Council's attention. Commissioner Burk asked if the Commission could make a recommendation to Council to prioritize the amendments to allow staff to work on planning projects. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that the Planning Commission was an advisory body and as such could make recommendations to Council. Commissioner Babbin opined that it was not in Planning Commission's purview to dictate how Council prioritizes work assigned to the Planning Commission. They could possibly recommend that a higher priority be placed on planning. It was her suggestion to wait until Mike's replacement is hired and continue with the current work plan. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adj ourned at 9:41 PM A roved by:. i Ka en Cicalese, 6mmission Clerk Gig 'nson, Vice -Chairman 10