HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 15 16 PC MinutesT
The Town of Lees6urg in Virginia
Leesburg Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2016
The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, September 15, 2016 in the Town Council
Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan
Berry -Hill, Scott Parker, Tom Scofield, Calvin Grow, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Members Present: Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Harper, and Robinson, Commissioner
Kidder attended remotely
Absent: Vice Mayor Burk
Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted the existence of a quorum and that Commissioner Kidder
would be attending the meeting remotely.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Commissioner Babbin
Second: Commissioner Burk
Vote: 7-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 1, 2016
Motion: Commissioner Burk
Second: Commissioner Barnes
Vote: 5-0-2 (Harper and Welsh Chamblin abstained as they were not present at the last meeting)
DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS
Commissioner Babbin disclosed a brief phone conversation with a personal friend who is an
attorney representing the Lansdowne Group, in some capacity, with respect to Crescent Parke.
He is not associated with Randy Minchew's firm.
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she was glad to be back. She will not be attending the
next meeting on October 6th, but plans to attend the remainder of the meetings this year. She will
only be attending the meetings until approximately 9:15. She thanked Commissioner Robinson
for filling in as Chair during her absence.
PETITIONERS
None
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING
TLTA-2016-0001 Removal of Miller Drive (east of Sycolin) from the Town Plan Roadway
Network Policy Map Public Hearing, Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:07 PM and called upon staff to make
their presentation.
Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager explained that this was a Town Plan Amendment to
amend the Town Plan Roadway Network Policy Map to remove the portion of Miller Drive east
from its intersection with Sycolin Road, through to its proposed terminus at the newly
constructed Kincaid Boulevard within Loudoun County. The amendment was initiated by Town
Council on June 14, 2016 via Resolution Number 2016-077. This section of Miller Drive is
shown to be a through collector road with four lanes undivided in a 90 foot right-of-way and
crosses over the I-1 zoned Gudelsky property in Town and continues through to Kincaid
Boulevard. The section of the road within Loudoun County has already been removed from the
Loudoun County CTP (Countywide Transportation Plan) by the Board of Supervisors (CPAM-
2014-0001) as recommended by a steering committee and will not be built. An extensive Traffic
Impact Study was used as the basis for this decision and the proposed Town Plan Amendment
would create consistency between the Town Plan and the County CTP.
Mr. Parker discussed the Zoning Criteria as follows:
Section 13.6.5.D.2 Criteria
1. How the Amendment better realizes a Town Plan goal or objective (e.g. to provide a
more compatible land use pattern; and better transitions between land uses):
• The Miller Drive segment is no longer important to the overall planned regional road
network.
• A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis for the Loudoun
County Government Support Center" dated January 20, 2014 was prepared to analyze
the impact of the removal of the segment of Miller Drive east of the Gudelsky
property from the corporate boundary to Kincaid Boulevard using a comparison
"before" and "after" approach, as well as including build -out scenarios with and
without this segment of Miller Drive. The conclusions were that level of service
(LOS) within the Town will be acceptable, trips will be acceptably distributed, and
the network will function without this section of Miller Drive.
• The analysis provided in the study confirmed there would be no significant impact to
the operation of the surrounding roadway network with the removal of Miller Drive,
leading to a recommendation of removal by a steering committee established by the
Board of Supervisors to analyze transportation and land use surrounding the
Government Support Center.
0
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
With the County's removal of this planned roadway from the Countywide
Transportation Plan, the only segment of Miller Drive remaining to be built east of
Sycolin Road is a small piece within the Town across the above mentioned Gudelsky
property. Retention of this small section of a through collector road on this property
could possibly hinder the development of this property to its efficient potential.
2. How the amendment may rectify conflicting Plan goals or objectives:
• Loudoun County removed the section of Miller Drive between Sycolin Road and
Kincaid Boulevard from their CTP, and is now using this area for the Government
Support Center.
• The Town Plan Roadway Network Policy Map still shows this connection (in and
out of the Town). The County's action renders the need for a through collector
segment on the Gudelsky property within the Town unnecessary. The natural
point of terminus is now its intersection of Sycolin Road.
• The amendment creates consistency between the Town Plan and the County CTP.
3. How the amendment may provide more specific Plan guidance:
• The proposed change would eliminate a road from the Road Network Policy Map
thereby indicating that it is not required as part of the road network, as indicated
by the County's TIA and subsequent action to remove it from the CTP.
• The removal of the road section also creates consistency between the County CTP
and the Town Plan.
4. How the amendment might adjust the Plan as a necessary result of a significant
change in circumstance unforeseen by the Plan at its time of adoption:
• Removal of this segment of Miller Drive adjusts the Plan to reflect the County's
actions to remove Miller Drive from the CTP. This County action makes the
removal of the section of Miller Drive within the Town acceptable, in that the
Town I-1 zoned property upon which it crosses will have the ability to be planned
efficiently and provide for its full economic potential without the encumbrance of
a 90 foot wide road that is unwarranted and unnecessary.
TLZO Section 13.16.5.D.4. Fiscal Analysis
• If Miller Drive were to serve as a regional collector the Town would likely have to
construct half because the development of the Gudelsky property would not warrant the
applicant paying for all four lanes, based on trips produced by the development.
• Construction of this roadway would have to be accommodated with public funds in that
there is no proffer money available for its construction and utilization of other funding
sources is unlikely.
• Cost savings to the Town by eliminating this road from the Plan.
• Without a regional collector bisecting the property, more development flexibility is
possible which may yield more square footage for development, thus adding to the tax
base.
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
TLZO Section 13.16.5.D.5. Transportation Analysis
• The traffic impact analysis (TIA) provided in the study confirmed there would be no
significant impact to the operation of the surrounding roadway network with the removal
of Miller Drive, leading to a recommendation for removal from a steering committee
established by the Board of Supervisors.
• The Board of Supervisors approved CPAM-2014-0001, removing Miller Drive from the
CTP from the Town boundary to Kincaid Boulevard.
• A referral with this information was sent to VDOT as part of this application, and they
indicated that they have no objection to the removal of the requested section of Miller
Drive from the Town Plan Roadway Network Policy Map. The Town Traffic Engineer
also agrees with this assessment and has no objection to the removal of these sections of
Miller Drive from the Town Plan.
Mr. Parker summarized that the provided materials adequately addressed the Zoning Ordinance
Criteria to justify the proposed Town Plan Amendment. The amendment would further Town
Plan Economic Development policies by providing for greater design opportunities on an I-1
zoned property as well as Transportation Element properties that seek to provide an efficient
transportation system that provides necessary road infrastructure and avoids unnecessary
improvements.
Mr. Parker concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation that the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Town Council.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited clarifying questions from the Commission members.
Commissioner Barnes asked how the Gudelsky property would be accessed if this segment of
Miller Drive is removed. Mr. Parker responded that access will be provided from Sycolin Road.
Access to the Government Service Center Site will be via Crosstrail Boulevard.
Commissioner Robinson asked if the County sought the Town's concurrence when they decided
to remove Miller Drive from their CTP. Mr. Parker responded that he would have to defer this
question to the Town's Traffic Engineer. He noted that there was a referral sent to VDOT.
Calvin Grow, Traffic Engineer, answered that the County did contact the Town and Town staff
was able to review the traffic study. Commissioner Robinson asked what reason was given to
determine that Miller Drive did not need to be constructed. Mr. Grow responded that the reason
given in the traffic study was that there was capacity on Battlefield Parkway, Sycolin Road,
Crosstrail Boulevard, and Kincaid Boulevard, therefore this road was not needed to meet their
level of service standards. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning,
added that the County had master planned this portion of the properties without a need for a road.
Commissioner Robinson expressed concern about future congestion on Battlefield Parkway as
more housing and big box retail are developed.
Commissioner Harper referenced Page 2 of the CPAM attachment and asked if the removal of
this segment of Miller Drive meant that Kincaid Boulevard will be open and the barricades
91
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
removed to allow it to be used as a through street as originally planned. Mr. Parker explained
that it was not as a result of this action. The barricades had been put up at Town Council's
request and will remain until such time as Crosstrail Boulevard is built from Sycolin Road to
Route 7. When that connection is complete the barricades will be removed. This application
does not have any bearing on whether or not the barricades come down. Loudoun County has
asked the Town to remove the barricades but the Town has politely said no until Crosstrail is
completed. Commissioner Harper noted that the road is complete on the other side of the
barricade. Mr. Parker explained that the County built Crosstrail Boulevard to its intersection
with Kincaid as doing so would be cheaper and easier to go ahead and build the road to its
ultimate width, even if it wasn't going to be open at this juncture. Town Council was very
specific about not wanting that section of Kincaid Boulevard open until Crosstrail Boulevard
goes all the way through. He was not exactly sure where the County was in their phases of
construction and asked Mr. Grow if he knew when the two lanes of Crosstrail Boulevard to
Route 7 will be open. Mr. Grow answered that they have changed the design and he did not have
an estimate as to when it would be completed.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin invited public comment; seeing none she closed the public hearing at
7:28 pm and solicited the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Harper noted that she and Commissioner Robinson sat on the County steering
committee, and understands why the recommendation was made to remove that segment of
Miller Drive. There is a portion of that segment that is close to some homes in the Tavistock
Subdivision which she felt was another reason to do so, however she expressed concern about
the potential for congestion and future development and the need to get the barricades on
Kincaid Boulevard taken down.
Commissioner Babbin thanked Mr. Parker for an excellent review and noted that she was in
support of the proposed amendment as she felt there were plenty of roads in that area and that
concerns expressed by fellow Commissioners will be alleviated as the roads currently under
construction are completed.
Commissioner Burk expressed concerns about timing. It was his opinion that once Kincaid
Boulevard and Crosstrail Boulevard ultimately connect the problem will be alleviated. However,
congestion could become an issue in the short term.
The remaining Commissioners did not have any other questions or comments. Chairman Welsh
Chamblin called for the motion.
Commissioner Babbin made the following motion:
I move that Town Plan Amendment TLTA-2016-0002 to amend the Town Plan Roadway
Network Policy Map to eliminate Miller Drive from Sycolin Road to its planned terminus at
Kincaid Boulevard within Loudoun County, be forwarded to 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
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
planning practice based on the findings as provided in the September 15, 2016 Planning
Commission staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Burk.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion; seeing none she called for the vote.
The motion carried 7-0.
TLOA-2016-0007 H-2 Repeal Public Hearing, Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of
Planning and Zoning and Tom Scofield, Preservation Planner
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:33 pm and called upon staff to make
their presentation.
Mr. Tom Scofield, Preservation Planner, explained that the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to repeal the H-2 Overlay District and the associated design guidelines was initiated
by Town Council on March 8, 2016 by Resolution Number 2016-042. Mr. Scofield noted that
the H-2 Overlay District had been in place for 25 years. This period of time provides ample data
from which to assess the H-2 guidelines.
Mr. Scofield discussed the history of the H-2 Corridor which began in March of 1986, when the
Leesburg Town Plan was adopted encouraging the use of creative urban design practices to
ensure that Leesburg develops with a variety of well related uses that further give the Town its
unique identity. Development types and styles are identified in the Plan that are compatible with
Leesburg's historic, small town character. Specific standards for new development are outlined
in the Plan to address site layout, building scale, materials, and landscape. In April of 1987, the
Virginia General Assembly adopted legislation enabling local governments to establish
architectural control districts in areas along arterial streets or highways that are identified as
significant routes of tourist access leading to designated historical landmarks, buildings, and
districts. In 1988 there was a series of public hearings held and the Leesburg Town Council
passed a resolution to initiate a study to examine arterial highway corridors that provide access to
the Old and Historic District and authorized the preparation of guidelines for new construction
along these corridors. In April of 1989, Land and Community Associates of Charlottesville,
Virginia, was hired to conduct a study of Leesburg's arterial highway corridors and to prepare
design guidelines for new development and redevelopment in these areas. The consultant
identified key conditions for building design which included compatibility and variety, siting and
relationship to roadway, size and scale, massing and roof form, fagade elements, materials and
detailing, design expression, color, signage, and building services and screening. These
conditions are embedded in the Design Guidelines used today. Key conditions for site design
were also identified and included natural site amenities, site access, parking lots, pedestrian
circulation, landscaping plant materials, space defining features (fences and walls), and lighting
and utilities. In January of 1990, Town Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the H-
2 Corridor Architectural Control Overlay District and adopted the associated design guidelines.
On March 1, 1990) the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) was assigned authority to review
applications for signs, renovations, and new construction in the H-2 District. The expressed
E.
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
purpose and intent of the regulation was to ensure quality urban design compatible with
Leesburg's historic, architectural, and tourist resources; protect vital corridors which form the
traditional gateways to the H-1 historic district, stabilize and improve property values; enhance
the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; support and stimulate complimentary development
appropriate to the prominence afforded properties contiguous to Leesburg's major arterial routes;
and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town through the benefits of
superior design and appearance along arterial highways.
Mr. Scofield noted that over the past 25 years there have been a total of 762 applications
submitted for review in the H-2 Corridor as of the end of 2015. One out of every 4 Certificates
of Appropriateness (COA) Applications reviewed by staff and the BAR since 1990 were for the
H-2 District. Almost 2 out of every 3 H-2 COA applications were for signs. The remaining
applications were for alterations including site work, facade modifications, building additions,
demolitions, and new construction. Examples of notable H-2 District projects were included in
the staff report and included St. John the Apostle Roman Catholic Church (2015), Lowe's Home
Improvement Center (2016), Toyota Leesburg (2014), Chevy Chase Bank (2009), Tollhouse
Office Building (2005), South King Street Center (2008), PNC Bank (1999), CVS Pharmacy
(2000), Leesburg Corner Outlet Mall (1998), Shell Oil/7-11 (1995), Food Lion (1992) and Rite
Aid (1996). An applicant has the flexibility to choose from traditional versus contemporary
design. Examples included the Merchants Tire Store with a traditional portico attached and the
TD Bank which is more contemporary in design. The BAR has endeavored to accommodate
applicants with their particular vision and also ensure that architectural details are in character
and keeping with the architecture of Leesburg in our entry corridors.
In 2008, Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-160 expressing a concern that the H-2
Corridor Overlay District was not achieving desired outcomes since its establishment in 1990.
To assess the effectiveness of the program the H-2 Steering Committee comprised of Planning
Commission members, BAR members and other stakeholders was created in 2009. The
committee was directed by Town Council to review the boundaries of the H-2 District and
recommend changes, if needed; review options for regulation; determine extent and scope for
revisions to the design guidelines; review options for the review process; consider what
commission would apply the regulations; determine the number of vested development plans;
and develop a draft of the policy guidelines and ordinances.
During this time, eleven other jurisdictions in Virginia with highway corridor architectural
design controls in place were examined by committee members and case studies were prepared.
The jurisdictions studied included City of Williamsburg, City of Winchester, City of Staunton,
City of Charlottesville, City of Fredericksburg, City of Suffolk, City of Manassas, Town of
Smithfield, Warren County, Albemarle County, and Clarke County. These case studies allowed
the committee to gain an understanding of effective design and regulatory controls; the range of
possibilities under state enabling legislation; what should be avoided; and what revisions might
be useful for the Leesburg program. Eight communities, including five of the aforementioned,
responded to a recent survey about corridor design controls conducted by the Virginia
Department of Historic Research (DHR). All consider the regulations as valuable tools for
maintaining community brand and identity; one is amending regulations to improve procedures;
and none are contemplating repeal.
7
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
The findings of the 2009 H-2 Committee were as follows:
1. Overlay District Boundaries
The location and depth of the H-2 Corridor Overlay District should be maintained with
the following modifications.
• Three areas should be added to an architectural control district:
o Catoctin Circle SE (implemented under Crescent Design District)
o Eastern section of Edwards Ferry Road, from Plaza to Battlefield
o Commercial sections of Battlefield Parkway
• Two areas should be added to the H-1 Old and Historic District:
o Edwards Ferry Road, from current H-1 boundary to Catoctin Circle
o Edwards Ferry Road, from Catoctin Circle to Mayfair Drive (survey needed)
• One area should be converted from H-2 to H-1:
o West Market Street
2. Regulatory Program
The H-2 Corridor Overlay District Program relies on guidelines that are not specific and
which lack the strength to create a sense of place in the corridor. To achieve and
maintain an effective program the committee recommended the following:
• The Zoning Ordinance should regulate design elements that can be stated as
standards and should incorporate the design guidelines.
• Design Guidelines may not be needed so long as appropriate information is
contained in the Zoning Ordinance and the Design and Construction Standards
Manual (DCSM).
• Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) needs to be revised to
maintain consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines.
• Form -based Code should include prescriptive information regarding site design,
street types and architectural requirements that encompass both site and building
design. The code may be appropriate to supplant the H-2 District in those
locations where the two overlap if adequate design and architectural information
is contained in the code. (The Crescent Design District was adopted in 2013 to
encompass a portion of the H-2 District along East Market Street and South King
Street).
3. Design Guideline Revisions
To achieve and maintain an effective H-2 District program the steering committee
recommended that the design guidelines be revised as follows:
• Clarify Goals — The existing guidelines lack a specific design vision, are unclear,
and need to be restated and integrated with the goals of other documents such as
the Town Plan.
Leesburg Identity — The existing guidelines have little relation to Leesburg's
traditional appearance or design and could apply to any town. The document
should be tailored specifically to Leesburg's character.
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
• Foster Human Scale — Specific standards along major corridors were
recommended including limiting the height of street lights, moving buildings
closer to the street, and locating parking to the rear of the buildings.
• Different Character in Each Corridor — The existing guidelines are too broad
in area and scope and should be revised to recognize the individual character of
each of the four corridors; acknowledge the character of different neighborhoods
within each corridor; and provide common landscaping and streetscape types to
unify all corridors.
• Quality Building Design — An applicant friendly review process with reasonable
flexibility should address materials for compatibility and visual impact; and
regulate height, massing and scale.
• Quality Site Design — Improved guidelines should address zoning and site
planning as much as building design. Site plan review should include additional
regulations that address streetscape, street planning, pedestrian access, and traffic
calming measures.
• Streetscape- Automobiles and vehicle traffic considerations dominate the design
guidelines which should be modified to address building setback, sidewalk
materials, curb cuts, median treatment, traffic calming, vehicle speed, lighting
height, and pedestrian circulation.
• Strengthen Language — Guidelines are written in language that is general and
vague. Use precise language to achieve the intent of the corridor and help guide
applicants.
Mr. Scofield noted that staff had prepared an H-2 Overlay District Questionnaire with responses
from both staff and the BAR which was included in the agenda packet for this meeting. The
questionnaire was comprised of questions regarding the success of the H-2, identification of
projects that exemplify good examples of the application of H-2, implications if there is no H-2,
whether H-2 Overlay/guidelines for any of the four segments should be repealed, and if not
repealed, should the guidelines be updated or replaced and if so how. Staff developed a score
card for the H-2 rating success on a scale of 1-5 and included key conditions of building design
and site design. The score for building design was 3.7 and site design was 2.9.
Mr. Scofield addressed approval criteria specified in the Zoning Ordinance in Sec. 3.2.5 and
included the following:
In acting on proposed text amendments, the Planning Commission and Town Council
shall consider whether the proposal is consistent with the Town Plan and the stated
purposes of this Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 1.5, Purpose: This Zoning Ordinance is adopted in order to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents of Leesburg; to advance the objectives set out in Sec.
15.2-2200 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and to implement the Leesburg
Town Plan.
Mr. Scofield concluded his presentation with a discussion of the three sample motions included
in the September 15, 2016 staff report. Motion 1 is a 3 part motion to retain the H-2 with part 1
9
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
recommending to not approve the Zoning Ordinance amendment, part 2 recommends
establishing a small work group to develop recommendations on how to improve and/or replace
the design guidelines, and part 3 recommends amending the Zoning Ordinance to reinstitute the
H-2 Signage Guidelines for the Crescent Design District. , Motion 2 is an approval of the repeal,
and Motion 3 is an alternate motion.
Chairman Welsh called for public input.
Teresa Minchew, BAR Member, came forward and explained that the BAR was adamant on not
repealing the H-2, without having something to replace it, and noted that the BAR would like the
opportunity to work with the Planning Commission to come up with a solution.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited the Commission for clarifying questions.
Commissioner Barnes asked for clarification of the H-1 and H-2 Districts and why this is being
discussed again. Mr. Scofield explained that the H-1 is the overlay district for the downtown and
historic district. H-2 is not exactly an historic district as it looks at historic buildings and
compatible in -fill and has a much more stringent review process than the H-1 Overlay District.
The H-2 District is comprised of the corridors leading to the H-1 Overlay District. It is a little
more lenient and a little bit more contemporary in terms of what in -fill construction might look
like. It is acceptable to have more contemporary architecture in the H-2 corridor but at the same
time there is a need to unify those corridors leading to the H-1 landmark district in a way that
creates a community identity and brand. This is being discussed because anecdotally, there is
frustration regarding the H-2 and the perceived lack of success. The steering committee that was
created found that the H-2 had not been totally successful and made recommendations on how to
improve and strengthen it. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that Council took action in March to initiate
a repeal of the H-2 Overlay District and the associated guidelines. The overlay district and the
guidelines are incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. The repeal process requires a public
hearing before the Planning Commission as well as Council. She was at the Town Council work
session and there was not a thorough discussion as to why the H-2 Overlay and associated
guidelines should be repealed. There were some references to regulation as this was another
level of regulation that developers had to deal with. Also, there seemed to be an opinion that it
has not been effective. Different people point to different projects in the H-2 corridor and some
people like them and others don't. Some people like a certain type of design where again, others
don't. We will always have this question regarding the H -2's success. When staff reviewed
projects and key conditions in the H-2 they found that there were some weak points in the
guidelines that should be addressed. Guidelines should be revisited from time to time to ensure
that they remain fresh and current and are accomplishing the desired outcome. In her opinion we
should revisit the steering committee's recommendations and decide what to implement. The
Planning Commission could recommend that a repeal is not warranted at this time, however
specific aspects of the H-2 steering committee's recommendation should be addressed.
Commissioner Babbin asked what the relationship was between the H-2 repeal and the East
Market Street study. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that part of the East Market Street Small Area
Plan project includes a design component and staff intended to evaluate the H-2 guidelines and
determine if they needed to be updated or replaced for the East Market Corridor. There might be
10
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
something more effective than the H-2 guidelines for that portion of the corridor. One tool that
could be used to replace the guidelines is a pattern book which identifies key characteristics of
the community that should be fostered in new development. Commissioner Babbin asked if, in
terms of efficiency, the Planning Commission decides to establish a work group to look at the
2009 steering committee report, shouldn't it include this area. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that
there is a lot of overlap with respect to design but that the East Market Area Plan also includes
land use questions and transportation issues in addition to design. Commissioner Babbin opined
that the East Market Street Plan was a subset of the overall H-2 and should be addressed as such.
Ms. Berry -Hill explained that the intent, when starting the East Market Street Plan, was to look
at all three components together as design is often integral to land use questions and
transportation issues. At this time, the project is currently on a hiatus, as Mike Watkins, who
was the Project Manager for this project, has been promoted and the project will need to be
reassigned to another Project Manager when one becomes available. Commissioner Babbin
asked if it were practical and reasonable for the Planning Commission to recommend that a small
working group be established to look into this as a whole and include the East Market Street
Area as well. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that the Planning Commission could make such a
recommendation.
Commissioner Harper noted that signage appears to be a big issue and asked if signage could be
separated from this and looked at individually. She also expressed her support in having the
Planning Commission and BAR collectively work together on this issue as opposed to a small
group. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that that was the intent of part 2 of the first motion and the 3rd
part of the motion was to reinstitute the H-2 signage guidelines.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that there had been discussion regarding the Planning
Commission and the BAR having a joint meeting to work on this issue and that they had been
told that first it needs to be decided whether or not the Planning Commission is in support of a
repeal. At that point it will go before Council and based upon Council's decision it could then be
determined to move on to the next phase and have a joint meeting with the BAR to work on
potential new guidelines.
Commissioner Harper commented that she wanted to make it clear that both the Commission and
the BAR would collaborate as a whole and not as a small group as she did not feel it was clear in
the motion. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that is the intent of Motion 1.
Commissioner Robinson asked if there was any concern regarding applicants proffering to the H-
2 guidelines for non-residential development. Ms. Berry -Hill answered that Council member
Fox raised a similar question during the BAR discussion on the repeal. The proffer statute
specifies that only certain areas for residential rezoning or mixed-use rezoning that has a
residential component have limited items that can be addressed in the proffers, such as
transportation and school contributions, and does not include design. Commissioner Robinson
asked if H-2 applied to residential. Mr. Scofield clarified that it did not apply to single family
residential development. Ms. Berry -Hill noted that in a mixed-use development that has a
residential multi -family component, a question exists as to whether or not an applicant can be
asked to proffer to the H-2 guidelines which has been done in past applications. The new proffer
statute is clear about what types of impacts can be addressed through proffers for residential
11
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
rezonings. Commissioner Robinson summarized that the new proffer language does not allow
design as a particular in today's proffers. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that staff believes that to be
the case. Commissioner Robinson opined that if this is the case; there is no point in moving
forward on this discussion because guidelines would be created that wouldn't apply. Ms. Berry -
Hill responded that the H-2 to date does not apply to single family residential and there is not a
lot of other types of residential development in the H-2 corridors. The importance of the H-2
guidelines is really for commercial development. That is not to say that we won't have
residential development in the East Market area. If we did today, the H-2 guidelines would
apply for frontage on East Market Street.
Commissioner Babbin wished to address this point and stated that the new proffer statute would
not prevent anything of the sort. We have H-2 guidelines now that are perfectly enforceable
regardless of the proffer statute. It was always a misnomer that we had developers on rezonings
"proffer to the guidelines". That was never truly a proffer under the sense of what the State Law
was. The best way to apply these guidelines is to make it a condition of approval. It was her
opinion that there was nothing in the new proffer statute that would prevent the Town from doing
this.
Commissioner Barnes asked that the Town Attorney advise the Commission on this issue.
Shelby Caputo, Assistant Town Attorney, asked that the question be clarified.
Commissioner Robinson noted that the new proffer legislation does not have a provision for
design guideline commitment and asked how this will be handled in a mixed-use application
with a residential component.
Ms. Berry -Hill commented that staff has discussed this very generally and at this point it is felt
that the Town can't except proffers that address design. This is something that will need to be
determined by further discussion with the Town Attorney.
Commissioner Robinson asked if the H-2 guidelines are in our Zoning Ordinance and a property
is in the H-2 Overlay District wouldn't it be subject to the zoning of that district and if so, why
wouldn't it apply to a residential component of a mixed use development within the H-2 Overlay
District.. Ms. Berry -Hill answered that the H-2 guidelines would apply to all uses with the
exception of single-family units. Sometimes applicants proffer to the H-2 guidelines because the
property does not lie completely within the H-2 Corridor. The H-2 corridor is 1,000 feet on East
Market and tapers down to 500 feet inside the bypass. Oaklawn is an example of a development
that proffered to the H-2 guidelines. All of the Village at Leesburg proffered to comply with the
H-2 guidelines and created their own guidelines based on the H-2 guidelines.
Ms. Caputo noted that in the new proffer statute definitions, "New residential development is
defined as any construction or building expansion on residentially zoned property including a
residential component of a mixed use development that results in 1 or more additional residential
dwellings or units..." When you get to the enforcement/provisions section it states that "no
localities shall request or accept an unreasonable proffer in connection with a rezoning or proffer
condition.... of a new residential development or new residential use". The residential
12
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
component of a mixed-use project is included in the new proffer statute meaning the Town
cannot accept or demand an unreasonable proffer.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 8:22 pm and solicited Planning
Commission discussion.
Commissioner Harper noted that the steering committee was formed to address the less than
desirable state of the East Market Street Corridor and to protect the other corridors leading to the
H-1 District. She was not in support of recommending a repeal without an opportunity to work
with the BAR to come up with a solution.
Commissioner Babbin commented that she did not see, what she felt, was an overwhelming
desire on the part of Council to repeal the H-2. There is a frustration that nothing has happened
since 2009 with respect to the steering committee recommendations and she sees this as more of
a push to start moving forward on this. While she is very much in favor of streamlining
bureaucracy and red -tape it is her opinion that if the H-2 is repealed without replacing it with
something, there are forces out there that would rush to replace it with something that would not
be appropriate nor well thought out. It was her feeling that this should be incorporated with the
work being done on the East Market Street Small Area Plan, the BAR should be included and
processes as well as architectural guidelines should be addressed. It was her opinion that a lot of
the frustration expressed amongst the development community was not the guidelines
themselves; but rather the processes. She offered to make a motion at the appropriate time.
Commissioner Burk commented that he too was on the H-2 steering committee and noted his
agreement with Commissioner Harper's assessment. He felt that the problems associated with
the H-2 will not be solved by simply repealing it; but rather updating the guidelines to strengthen
the language and make it more streamlined so that it becomes a useful tool for staff, Planning
Commission, BAR and Council. He supported sending a motion to Council to not repeal the H-2
Overlay District and the associated guidelines and to have an opportunity to work with the BAR.
He did not have a strong feeling on the signage issue.
Commissioner Harper asked if he thought it would be beneficial to remove the signage from the
motion and consider it as a separate issue.
Commissioner Burk responded that discussions on signage do tend to become very involved.
Ms. Minchew came forward and explained that her understanding of what happened with the H-
2 signage guidelines were that they were basically forgotten when the Crescent Design District
was approved. When a portion of the H-2 corridor became the Crescent District the H-2 sign
guidelines were not linked to the new district. There is no record that this was intentional. The
BAR is simply requesting that they be put back the way they were; very general sign guidelines
that are all administratively approved. Mr. Scofield has considerably streamlined the approval
process for signage.
Ms. Berry -Hill clarified that Article 15 sign requirements currently apply to the Crescent Design
District as opposed to the H-2 sign guidelines.
13
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Robinson noted that she is in support of not repealing the H-2 and the associated
design guidelines as she felt that the H-2 establishes community through a master design plan
for the entrances of Leesburg; maintains a relationship with the stricter historical H-1 District
through H-2 guidelines; enables applicants to understand what is expected early in the
application process; and with 85% completion on the original and existing development, these
guidelines become even more essential for redevelopment. However, it was her opinion that the
Planning Commission should only recommend approval to Council if it appoints a committee to
streamline, simplify, and strengthen the existing guidelines.
Commissioner Kidder was in support of not repealing the H-2 and the associated guidelines as
well as working together with the BAR to strengthen the guidelines.
Commissioner Barnes was also in support to not repealing the H-2 and the associated guidelines
and working with the BAR to improve the guidelines.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin also noted her support to keep the H-2 but noted the need to evaluate
and revise the guidelines as necessary. She would like to do this in conjunction with the BAR
whether it be a sub -set working group or sitting down together as one whole group.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a motion.
Commissioner Babbin made the following motion.
I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to Town Council to retain the
H-2 Historic Corridor Architectural Control Overlay District and the H-2 Design Guidelines and
to establish a short term working group to include Planning Commission and BAR members and
to incorporate the East Market Street Small Area Plan and consolidate the study of the East
Market Street Small Area Plan; take stakeholder input on how to improve or replace the
guidelines; develop recommendations on how to improve or replace the guidelines and report
back to Town Council with these recommendations; and to specifically review ways to
streamline the review process under the H-2 guidelines. Also I move, as part of this motion, to
forward a recommendation to Town Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to reinstitute the H-
2 signage guidelines for the Crescent Design District until such time as a full review of signage
guidelines can be accomplished.
Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion.
Commissioner Barnes expressed concern about a small working group as he would prefer both
the BAR and the Planning Commission to address the H-2 guidelines in a joint work session.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin polled the Commission members to see if they were in agreement
with Commissioner Barnes.
14
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
The majority of the Commissioners felt that both full groups should participate.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked Commissioner Babbin if she would be interested in amending
the motion to say a collaborative effort between the Planning Commission and BAR members to
be determined at a later time.
Commissioner Babbin was agreeable to do so.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the vote.
The motion carried 7-0.
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
None
ZONING
None
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
None
COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
None
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Burk attended the Economic Development Commission meeting. The
Commission expressed their appreciation to the Planning Commission for their work on the
Telecommunications amendments as the Planning Commission had shifted their focus from
earlier meetings which restricted placement in the H-1 and H-2 to allowing them if well
camouflaged.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she had not attended the last few BAR meeting and would
not be able to attend them until October 17th. She thanked Commissioner Kidder for graciously
offering to attend those meetings in her absence.
STAFF DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Robinson requested that the parking discussion be put back on the tracking chart.
Ms. Berry -Hill asked Commissioner Robinson to clarify what she would like to discuss.
15
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Robinson clarified that she would like to take a comprehensive look at parking in
Leesburg so that all the Town programs mesh and complement each other.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the other Planning Commission members were in agreement
with Commissioner Robinson's request.
Commissioner Babbin inquired as to whether that was in the purview of the Planning
Commission to initiate or was this something that had to be initiated by Council.
Ms. Berry -Hill provided an update of the Council work session on Monday night where Mr.
McLister's parking proposal was discussed. This is a proposal to not require on-site parking for
residential development in the downtown. Council wanted to initiate a zoning ordinance
amendment to support this, however staff was not in support and countered with the suggestion
for a broader, more comprehensive approach to parking in the downtown. The discussion was
focused on the downtown, not Town wide. There was a general consensus amongst Council
members to take a comprehensive approach to treat commercial and residential in concert. They
did not give staff specific direction to develop a work plan or ideas on how staff might start
working on this. The Town Manager has determined to put this on the back page of the
Council's To -be -Scheduled action calendar. Ms. Berry -Hill noted that she had informed Council
that staff did not have time available to devote to this item this year because staff, the Planning
Commission and Council have very full agendas due to the number of text amendments initiated
and the number of applications coming forward. She suggested addressing this in the coming
year and develop a work scope at that time. As for whether or not this fell into the Planning
Commissions purview, Ms. Berry -Hill responded that the Planning Commission has the ability to
advise Council on anything they wish but suggested that they not spend a lot of time discussing
something without Council having an understanding of where the Planning Commission was
headed.
Commissioner Babbin agreed and expressed concern regarding taking so much of staff's time to
work on such a massive project without Council's support and questioned whether the
Commission should be directing staff to do such a massive project. She suggested that the
Commission make a recommendation to Council that staff do this project and gain Council's
support before proceeding.
Ms. Berry -Hill suggested that the Planning Commission schedule a work session to be run by
Commissioner Robinson to address the parking issues she would like to focus on. This can be
placed on the tracking chart and scheduled possibly sometime this fall.
Commissioner Robinson noted that she wanted it to be on the tracking chart as a to-do item. She
did not expect it to be done quickly as the proffers need to be addressed first and there are a
number of priority items that need to be addressed as well. Her concern was when a parking
issue arises such as the Town Manager's sticker program, payment -in -lieu, parking garage site,
parking space rental, etc.; they are all intertwined and it is her opinion that the Town's zoning
doesn't address this comprehensively. She would like a discussion and a recommendation sent
to Council regarding what the Planning Commission feels needs to be addressed.
16
Leesburg Planning Commission
September 15, 2016 Minutes
The majority of Commissioner's were in support of putting this request on the tracking chart.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:54 pm
P roved by:
arAn Cicalese, Commission Clerk
41
Lyydsay Well Chamblin, Chair
17