Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 06 16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 6, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, October 6, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Brian Boucher, Delane Parks, Bill Ackman, Erick Meske, 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 Barnes, Burk, and Harper (Left at 9:11 PM), Kidder and Robinson, Absent: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioner Babbin and Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Barnes Vote: 5-0-2 (Welsh Chamblin and Babbin absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 15, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Barnes Vote: 5-0-2 (Welsh Chamblin and Babbin absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Commissioner Robinson asked Commissioner Burk to report on an activity he attended earlier in the day. Commissioner Burk explained that he had attended a mock Town Council and Commissions meeting which was an assignment given to two Simpson Middle School classes, taught by Mrs. Megan Baird. This was a joint program with Morven Park's Outreach Program to engage students in public actions. The classes had a Planning Commission, Tree Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Art Commission and a Town Council. They took on the South King Street project being discussed later tonight. Susan Berry -Hill, Keith Markel and Rich Williams were also in attendance. The students drew up plans for the site and did an entire presentation. They also came up with their rules for how to run a public hearing which included Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes items such as don't fidget, don't be snarky, and don't be boring. The "do" list included speak in a pleasant tone, speak with enthusiasm, retain eye contact, be confident, speak clearly, and smile. PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLSE-2015-0002 Costco Expansion, Public Hearing, Delane Parks, Sr. Planner Commissioner Robinson opened the public hearing at 7:07 and invited staff to make their presentation. Delane, Parks, Sr. Planner, explained that this application was an Amendment to Special Exception TLSE-2003-0006. The applicant, Costco Wholesale Corporation, is requesting Special Exception approval to amend a previously approved Special Exception to allow a 6,100 square foot increase (4%) to the existing 140,864 square foot Costco store and a 2,800 square foot seasonal outdoor sales area. The store is located at 1300 Edwards Perry Road in the Battlefield Market Place Shopping Center. Mr. Parks described the location of the expansion which will be located on the side of the building adjacent to the tire bays and will contain a 1,920 square foot cooler area, 3,340 square foot retail area, and an 840 square foot tire bay. The 2,800 square foot seasonal outdoor sales area will be in front of the building. There are no changes to the boundaries of the zoning districts. The property is surrounded on three sides by similarly zoned B-3 property and to the rear is the Edwards Landing Residential Subdivision. With regard to the Town Plan Land Use Map, the uses and densities are consistent with previous approvals; generally consistent with elements of Town Plan goals and objectives; and the proposed changes have no negative impacts on the adjacent road network. Mr. Parks outlined the history of the site noting that in 1989, Special exception TLSE-1988-0167 was approved which allowed a retail strip center including major retail "anchor stores" and minor retail stores linked together to form a retail strip center and retail pad sites totaling approximately 450,000 square feet of uses at Battlefield Marketplace. In 2004, Special Exception TLSE-2003-0006 was approved to permit the relocation of 4 tire bays (previously approved in 1989) fiom pad sites to the approved Costco store which was approved in site plan TLPD-2001-0014 and allowed the 140,864 square foot Costco store. Staff analysis was addressed as follows: Special Exception Approval Criteria 1. The proposed use shall not adversely affect the use of neighboring properties: • The proposed building addition is a 4%increase to the overall square footage and will be contained entirely indoors (A recommended condition of approval has been added to the draft motion to ensure that all tire bay service work will be required by special exception approval to be conducted entirely indoors); and the closest adjacent neighboring property (Edwards Landing residential lots) is separated by a distance of over 220 feet including a 50 -foot buffer yard that is planted with a mature mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. An 8 -foot tall vinyl screening fence exists between the proposed addition and the adjacent Edwards Landing residential lots. Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes • The location of the seasonal outdoor sales area is proposed along the front portion of the existing Costco store. It is 75 feet from the closest adjoining property, which is zoned B-3 and currently vacant, and 400 feet from Edwards Ferry Road. The area will be screened and secured by an eight foot tall vinyl coated chain link fence. 2. The proposed use shall comply with applicable zoning district regulations and applicable provisions of the Town Plan: • The proposed uses conform to the B-3 Zoning District regulations and are consistent with the Regional Retail Land Use policies in the Town Plan. 3. The proposed use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent or nearby land and/or buildings: • The proposed uses already include screening, buffering, landscaping, and site design measures that were addressed at the time of approval of the original Costco store and related special exception. 4. The proposed use does not generate vehicular or pedestrian hazards or conflict with the adjacent street network: • The proposed uses generate minimal additional traffic and the existing Edwards Ferry Road is sufficient to handle the expected traffic. • The Department of Plan Review and Transportation Engineer staff have determined that the "No Left Turn" sign located at the most eastern entrance to the site is adequate at this time to allow for safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Specific Use Standards 1. Vehicle Service Facility Use Standards must be met for the additional 840 square foot tire bay: • No outdoor storage for more than 4 inoperable vehicles for more than one week. The outdoor areas devoted to storage, loading and/or parking shall be limited to the area so designated on an approved site plan, and shall be screened from adjacent properties and roads. No inoperable vehicles or outdoor storage of vehicles are being proposed on the property • All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed to avoid glare to the surrounding areas. The facility shall only be lit during the hours that the facility is open for business, except for necessary security lighting. No new lighting is being proposed. • A lighting plan shall be submitted to verify that all lighting fixtures are directed onto the site. No increase in the amount of foot candles offsite is being proposed, the lighting fixtures comply with the previously approved lighting plan and lighting shields exist on all lights along the property line with Edwards Ferry residential. 2. Outdoor Storage Use Standards must be met for the 2,800 square foot seasonal outdoor sales area: • Outdoor storage shall be limited to the rear or side of a building adjacent to other commercially zoned property. The applicant is requesting a modification of this Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes use standard as the outdoor sales/storage area is proposed along the front of the building. • All outdoor storage shall be required to be fully screened by a fence, wall or landscaped beim, or other suitable material as deemed appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed outdoor seasonal sales area will be fully screened by an 8 foot tail vinyl coated chain link fence with concrete anchors. The fencing will be removed when the outdoor sales area is not in use. It should be noted that this type of fencing has been approved for other outdoor seasonal sales areas in Town. • Outdoor storage shall be required to be located on a paved surface. The proposed outdoor seasonal sales area will be located on a paved surface. • Outdoor storage must be located in such a manner as to not impede safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation by blocking travel aisles or pedestrian areas. The outdoor sales area is located on a paved surface in front of the building that does not block travel aisles or pedestrian areas. • Outdoor storage areas cannot exceed 8 feet in height. The proposed outdoor seasonal sales area will be enclosed by an 8 foot tall vinyl coated chain link fence with concrete anchors. • Outdoor storage areas may not be located in required parking as established by Zoning Ordinance Section 11.3. The proposed outdoor seasonal sales area is located on top of 10 parking spaces, but due to the fact that the currently provided parking on-site is in excess of the required parking, these parking spaces are not required parking spaces for the existing and proposed use. • A special exception shall be required for outdoor storage when it is intended as a primary use. The proposed outdoor seasonal sales area is not a primary use, but rather an incidental use. The seasonal outdoor sales use is part of the overall special exception amendment. Modifications 1. Modify proposed location of outdoor storage to allow along the front of the building: The primary purpose of the use is for seasonal sales of plant materials in the spring/summer and late fall holiday season and not purely for storage purposes. The Town has approved other similarly located seasonal outdoor use i.e. Home Depot. Staff finds that the modification request is approvable given that the proposed use is primarily a sales use, is of a seasonal nature, is a sizable distance from the public roadway and residential uses and is enclosed by the proposed screening fence. Mr. Parks noted that he had been contacted by 6 individuals through office visits, emails and phone calls. Many of these individuals are property owners in Edwards Landing and nearby properties. Most of the concerns expressed have been noise related and pertain to noise from the existing tire shop tools and equipment, and noise fiom delivery trucks at the existing loading dock and rear service aisle. A few expressed concerns over light glare from the existing lighting, and residential security. Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Mr. Parks concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Exception use shall be in substantial conformance with the Special Exception plat. 2. The proposed uses may only be located in the areas as depicted on the Special Exception plat and be limited to the square footages listed in the plat. 3. All tire bay service work must be conducted indoors within the tire bay. 4. Special Exception approval does not express or imply any waiver or modification of any Town requirements except as specifically approved by Town Council. Commissioner Robinson invited the applicant to make their presentation. Christine Gleckner, Land Use Planner, Walsh Colucei, represented the Applicant and noted for the record that the property had been posted and provided the adjacent property owners with notice for this public hearing. She stated that her presentation would be brief as staff had done a thorough and excellent job representing the application and the applicant does concur with staff s recommendation and proposed conditions. She wished to focus on the store operations. She discussed the expansion on the west side of the building for the cooler and retail sales area. This is a standard expansion that Costco is doing in other retail stores. The cooler expansion will provide better cooling for the produce and the retail area expansion will allow better customer access to the various parts of the store. There is one additional tire bay which will be screened both visually and noise wise from the residences to the north by the expanded cooler and retail sales area. The seasonal outdoor sales area is proposed to be located in the front of the store due to store access area. This area will be completely fenced in and only accessible from the interior of the store. Costco seasonal sales are from March 151h through May 31st, they do not do outdoor holiday seasonal sales. Costco prides itself on providing its members with many retail goods and services with competitive pricing and excellent member service and these improvements are part of Costco's mission to do that. Ms. Gleckner addressed the concerns expressed by neighbors stating that most were due to the existing situation. The existing store is in compliance with their approval. She stressed that Costco wished to be a good neighbor and are willing to meet with the neighbors and work on resolving the concerns expressed. Costco believes that the proposed uses are not contributing to the concerns expressed and this Special Exception request should be reviewed on its own merit. Commissioner Robinson solicited clarifying questions for the Commission members. Commissioner Kidder noted that Mr. Parks had mentioned that there had been previous approvals in Town for similar fences and outdoor seasonal sales areas and wished to clarify that previous approvals of other similar things don't apply to this Special Exception request. Mr. Parks stated that she was correct. Commissioner Burk referenced the neighbor's noise complaint and noted that Ms. Gleckner had mentioned that the expansion will help to shield the noise from the existing as well as additional tire bay. He asked if that made sense from staff s analysis. Ml•. Parks responded that he is not a sound engineer and this was not a question he would be qualified to answer. There will be a physical barrier between the two uses. Commissioner Burk asked if Ms. Gleckner could clarify Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes where the additional tire bay will be located in relation to the addition and the residences. Ms. Gleckner responded that the additional tire bay will be located next to the existing tire bay. The retail and cooler additions will be located between the tire bays and the residences to the north. Commissioner Harper asked how many tire bays exist currently. Mr. Parks answered there were 4. Commissioner Harper expressed concerns with the expanded foot print; the proximity to a residential neighborhood, and the noise generated fiom coolers. She noted that she would only be able to support this special exception request if Costco would agree to replace the existing fence and construct an insulated cinderblock wall between the store and the Edwards Landing neighborhood. Commissioner Barnes asked if the rear of the proposed addition would be any closer to the existing fence. Mr. Parks answered that it would not, the proposed addition will not extend to the rear of the building. It will be 170 feet from the top edge of the addition to the property line. It is about 400 feet from the existing tire bays to the rear property line. The distance between the fence and existing building is approximately 80 to 100 feet. Commissioner Robinson invited the public to comment and discussed the procedures and time limits for those members of the public wishing to address the Commission. Michael Margis, 1219 Tennessee Drive, NE, Leesburg, VA, 20176, came forward and expressed concerns regarding after hours noise coming from the loading dock such as truck chillers and noises generated from unloading the trucks. He asked that the Planning Commission request a sound study. Amy Casen, 1229 Tennessee Drive, Leesburg, VA, 20176, came forward and noted her opposition to the expansion. She expressed concerns regarding noise pollution from the tire bays and delivery trucks; the current fence which does little to mitigate the noise generated; the gap under the fence contributes to safety concerns; and loss of property values. Tony Zorotrian, 1225 Tennessee Drive, NE, Leesburg, VSA, 20176, came forward and expressed concerns regarding the negative impacts of the expansion in terms of noise generated from the tire bays, traffic, increase in the amount of delivery trucks, potential increase in crime, and the existing fence needing to be replaced with a wall to shield the Edwards Landing residents. Monica Kern, 1221 Tennessee Drive, Leesburg, VA 20176, came forward and expressed concerns from noise generated by the delivery trucks, declining property values, and the existing fence. Mike O'Connor, 1209 Tennessee Drive, NE, Leesburg, VA 20176, came forward and expressed concerns regarding the potential for more noise coming from the expansion and felt that a wall would better shield the residents of Edwards Landing. Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Harper expressed concern regarding crime generated by the outdoor sales area and asked if Costco had considered this. Ms. Gleckner explained that there is no access from the parking area to the seasonal sales area. It can only be accessed from the interior of the store. Commissioner Harper asked about the vehicular service standards and the limitations on inoperable vehicles. Ms. Gleckner explained that that was a standard in the Zoning Ordinance. Costco does not repair cars, they sell and install tires and do not work on inoperable vehicles. Commissioner Robinson asked Ms. Gleckner if she would like to address some of the concerns expressed by the Edwards Landing residents. Ms. Gleckner responded that she would and invited John Paul Andrews, the Project Architect, to assist her. Commissioner Burk asked if the coolers were roof mounted and/or exterior to the building. John Paul Andrews, Project Architect, explained that they are trying to relocate their existing produce cooler to the exterior of the building which will create a little nub off the back of the building which will be covered with additional rack space. The current produce cooler will become a larger dairy cooler. Commissioner Burk clarified that he was referring to the mechanical noise generated from the condenser units, etc. and asked if they were going to be moved or remain where they are. Mr. Andrews clarified that they were roof -top units. Daryl Luke, Costco General Manager explained that there is a mezzanine inside the building for the mechanical equipment. The compressors are inside the warehouse in the receiving area. The condenser units are located on the roof and will be tapping into the existing compressor inside. There is no additional equipment proposed and nothing outside of the refrigeration box. Commissioner Burls summarized that the noise concerns expressed seem to be generated fiom the coolers on the delivery trucks and not the units on the building. The northern two thirds of the expansion is interior cooler space and that will not change or add to noise from a mechanical aspect. Commissioner Robinson asked if the two roof top units would be moved. Mr. Luke responded that they will remain where they are currently. Mr. Andrews noted that there have been complaints from other stores regarding trucks with their own refrigeration units that arrive prior to loading hours and idle outside the loading dock. This is something that can be controlled as long as the Manager is informed of the issue. Costco is happy to work with the community on issues that are within their control. Sixteen months ago the warehouse manager did meet with the Edwards Landing HOA and no concerns were raised at that time. Commissioner Robinson asked if there were any more clarifying questions. Seeing none she closed the public hearing at 8:06 PM and solicited discussion from the Commission members. Commissioner Barnes noted his agreement with Commissioner Harper regarding replacing the fence with a thicker wall to help mitigate noise from the tire bays. He asked if the wall could be built to the ground to alleviate gaps. Ms. Gleckner responded that the Applicant is aware of the concerns and will meet with the community to explore possible solutions. However, it is the Applicant's opinion that the expansion is not creating the impacts being discussed tonight and they are requesting that the Planning Commission view the Special Exception on its own merit. Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder agreed that the proposed expansion will not exacerbate the noise issue; however, it does present an opportunity to correct mistakes made in the past. She opined that consulting a professional that specialized in sound mitigation would be beneficial. Commissioner Burk opined that the expanded area will moderately mitigate noise generated from the tire bays. The trucks seem to be the main issue. The Planning Commission is constrained to the Special Exception itself. They can't act on other things, however they can discuss them to a certain extent. There appears to be a compliance issue and more information is needed to be able to act on this special exception request. This presents an opportunity for the Planning Commission to forward a better recommendation to Town Council. Commissioner Harper felt that the expansion would generate more truck deliveries. She supported replacing the fence with a more substantial barrier and buffering on the residential side as well as requesting a noise study. Commissioner Kidder requested that staff provide information on the various ordinances in question prior to their next discussion. She too was in support of discussion on how to improve the overall site. Commissioner Barnes asked how many more truck deliveries are anticipated due to this expansion. Mr. Luke clarified that there would be less refrigeration trucks. They currently bring in half trucks as they do not have overstock space. The new produce box will have twice the holding capacity as the current one and the dairy cooler will be larger so they will not need to split deliveries. Commissioner Baines asked if it were possible to limit delivery hours to avoid late night deliveries. Mr. Luke explained that changes have been made to receiving. Wet loads are received in the evenings. Trucks arrive around 4:00 or 5:00 pm and they begin unloading around 6:00 pm. They are sensitive to the issue and have put up no truck parking signs along the back fence and require trucks to park on the side adjacent to the building. They can't police Target's or Kohl's trucks which also travel behind the Costco store. Commissioner Barnes suggested working with the neighbors to resolve some of the issues. Commissioner Kidder suggested looking at options for the seasonal outdoor sales fence. Commissioner Robinson asked for information regarding whether the initial special exception approval contained a condition that requires the tire bay doors to remain closed during operations. Mr. Parks explained that the conditions of the 2003 Special Exception wording was exactly the same as this: all work is to be conducted within the tire bay. It doesn't specify door closure. The Zoning Administrator would need to make a determination as to the intent. Commissioner Robinson opined that since there was no repairs being done that would emit an odor, etc., noise could be mitigated by requiring the bay doors to remain closed. Mi-. Parks answered that he would look into OSHA regulations. Commissioner Robinson asked if there was anything in the Zoning Ordinance that would specify that trucks are not to be used as storage units for retail. Mr. Parks agreed to research this as well. Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson asked for information regarding wall height limitations. Commissioner Robinson asked if the Applicant would be willing to do a noise study and if so, how long it would take. Gary Fran, Regional Director for Costco, commented that they have done noise studies previously and it takes approximately a month. The problem with noise studies is that often times, those requesting the noise study are not satisfied with the results. Commissioner Kidder asked if the study would include recommendations. Mr. Fran answered that they can request that recommendations be included. After further discussion it was determined to defer discussion to the November 17t" meeting to allow time for the Applicant to meet with the Edwards Landing residents and complete the noise study. TLSE-2015-0011 South King Street Multifamily, Public Hearing, Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Commissioner Robinson opened the public hearing at 8:38 pm and invited staff to make their presentation. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that this was a special exception request to permit 64 multifamily dwelling units and 7,100 square feet of commercial uses on 2.84 acres in the B-1 District and the H-1 and Creek Valley Buffer Overlay Districts. The proposal contains 9 zoning modification requests. School impact is estimated to be approximately 20 school-age children, however this is a special exception request and under Town Council Resolution 2015-105 School Capital Facility Proffer policy, no cash contributions can be requested. Mr. Boucher discussed the site as being bounded on the west by S. King Street, to the east by Church Street, most of which is undeveloped, and on the south by the W&OD Trail owned by NOVA Parks. Georgetown Park is located immediately across the street to the west, two property owners are located to the north and include 212 S. King Street which is commercially used land (Black Walnut Brewery) and 219 Church Street, owned by Mr. Eric Tanner and used for residential purposes. There are 8 buildings currently located on the site. In January of 2016 the Applicant went to the BAR to investigate the potential demolition of 7 of the 8 buildings and the BAR agreed that 7 of the buildings had no architectural merit, were non- contributing, and therefore could be demolished. There is one building in the northern corner of the site known as 214 S. King Street, which is currently being utilized as an office, is a historically contributing building and will be maintained as such. The site is approximately 90% floodplain which makes this an extremely difficult site to develop. Currently there are 3 entrances into the site from S. King Street; two separate entrances into the northern portion of the site and one entrance into the southern portion of the site where the Battery Warehouse is currently located. The site has triple zoning: B-1 Community (Downtown) Business which is a mixed district that allows residential and business uses providing the uses are compatible and impacts are mitigated. Multifamily use is allowed, however if requesting more than 5 units, a special exception application is required. The H-1 Overlay District will control the architecture and the Creek Valley Buffer (CVB overlay) which is intended to protect natural drainage ways in the Town and is 150 feet from the top scar line of the creek into the site. In April of 2008 there Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes was a special exception approved (TLSE-2007-0006) Waterford at King Street) to permit a 502 space private parking structure. No site plan was submitted and this application expired on April 8, 2011. Mr. Boucher discussed the Special Exception Plat. The Applicant is proposing the retention of 1 historic building (office — 3,100 square feet), 4 new multifamily buildings totaling 64 units, 1 new commercial building with outdoor plaza (4,000 square foot with retail on the bottom and office on the second floor); and screened dumpsters are located at the back of the site. A private Street is proposed as South Street Extended and will link S. King Street and Church Street. Church Street, which is essentially a gravel road, will be improved to a non-standard section but one that will be complimentary to the portion of Church Street that is already developed. Church Street dead -ends at the W&OD Trail and will generate a large amount of traffic. Additionally the Applicant is proposing wide pedestrian sidewalks (8' or wider in some areas); an open space amenity on S. King Street to be known as Chuck and Karen Jones Plaza•, open space/recreation amenity at the foot of Church Street known as Town Branch Overlook where seating will be installed around a reclaimed portion of the Town Branch; and a buffer along the W&OD Trail and along the northern property line. The buffers are all subject to reductions to be discussed later. Mr. Boucher went on to discuss the proposal in relation to the Town Plan noting there are many objectives in the Town Plan that staff feels this proposal achieves and include Central Policy Area Objectives, Natural Resource Objectives, Community Design Objectives and Parks & recreation Objectives. In summary, staff believes that the design of the proposed mixed use development contributes to the desired street grid with wide, shaded walkways, well defined amenity areas and architecture that compliments the downtown. This project is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Town Plan. Mr. Boucher moved on to discuss specifics of the application as follows: 1. Parldng: The proposed 64 multifamily units require 120 parking spaces and is based on bedroom size. The commercial area (5,100 square feet of office and 2,000 square feet of retail) requires 27 spaces. The total amount of required spaces is 147 spaces and the Applicant is proposing 163 spaces on-site. The staff report mentions a required modification to park in the garages which is incorrect. In multifamily development, garage spaces count toward required parking. There are 12 garage spaces behind each building and a driveway space totaling 96 spaces. On -street parallel parking and additional parking behind the units account for the remaining residential parking spaces. Commercial parking will be signed in 3 areas to prevent residents parking in commercial parking areas. The required 3 loading spaces has been modified to 1 space to be located on S. King Street. Staff agrees to this modification given the small amount of retail area proposed. There is a modification request to remove on -street parking spaces to be removed along S. King Street which will require Council action. 2. Transportation: A traffic study was done and indicates minimal to no impacts on the existing road network. The 3 entrances on S. King Street will be reduced to 1 centralized entrance to better connect with South Street. S. King Street and Church Street will both be improved. There is a reduced cul-de-sac at the end of Church Street, which is a Town 10 Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes right-of-way, and snow clearing, etc. will need to be done. The cul-de-sac size is reduced due to the size of the equipment needed to clear the street and no school buses will be utilizing the cul-de-sac to turn around. 3. Building Design: The agenda packet contained a 12 sheet concept plan with architecturals for the residential buildings included. There was also a separate set included in the packet and this separate set is what is being proposed. The reason for this is that the Applicant had gone to the BAR and changes were suggested. The Applicant has since modified the sheets in an attempt to meet what the BAR has requested; in particular the set back on the side of the buildings to reduce the prominence of the building. Architecture is subject to the Old and Historic District Design Guidelines and BAR review. The BAR reviewed size, scale, massing, and roof forms and the Applicant is going back to the BAR on October 17`h with revised elevations intended to address BAR comments. 4. Stormwater Management: Ninety percent of this site is within floodplain. Development requires the floodplain to be altered with no negative impacts (i.e. increased floodplain) on any off-site property. This presents difficult engineering challenges to handle stormwater while keeping development viable. The Applicant and staff are working to resolve the stormwater management issues. Enough preliminary information has been supplied to show stormwater concerns can be addressed without major changes to the proposed layout of the project. This project will fix the drainage under buildings. 5. Multifamily Specific Use Standards: Section 9.3.15 of the Zoning Ordinance lists 8 specific use standards for a multifamily development exceeding a density of 8 dwelling units per acres. The proposed development is 22.5 dwelling units per acre. The use standards and how they are being addressed by the Applicant are as follows: • All structures shall be separated by a minimum horizontal distance of 20 feet — The Applicant proposes a 13 foot separation which is supported by staff (Modification #9) • A minimum 30% of the site shall be maintained as open space. If density exceeds 8 dwelling units per acre, active recreation facilities shall be provided at a rate of at least 250 square feet per dwelling unit. — The Applicant proposes 26% open space and 184 square feet of recreation area per unit which is supported by staff. (Modifications #1 and #2) • Construction of recreation facilities shall be in accordance with a schedule approved as part of the plan and shall be at a rate equivalent to or greater than the rate of construction of dwellings. The phasing plan must assure that major recreation facilities are constructed prior to completion of 50% of the total units. - The Applicant has proposed to build amenities at a rate that does not meet the 50% criteria. However, the phasing of amenities recommended by staff in Condition #3 has been accepted by the Applicant. • Recreation facilities shall be adequately soundproofed and constructed so that there will be no noise detrimental to other properties. Lighting of any outdoor recreation facility must be directed so as to eliminate or mitigate glare onto any residential use or roadway. - Lighting details are shown on Sheet 9 Lighting & Photometric Plan and Sheet 9A Lighting Details. Lights will be shielded to prevent glare as required by the ordinance. 11 Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Architectural treatment shall avoid massive, monolithic and repetitive building types, facades and setbacks, and shall be compatible with surrounding areas. Building elevations and architectural details sufficient to show compliance with this standard shall be submitted for approval. The entire property is subject to the Old and Historic District Guidelines and final building architecture must be approved by the BAR. This standard will be met by the Applicant. Mr. Boucher discussed the requested modifications which include: • Open space reduction from 30% to 35% (Modification #1) and recreation space reduction from 250 square feet per dwelling unit to 184 square feet per dwelling unit (Modification #2) - Staff supports both modification requests as this is an urban environment; with quality space provided through on-site park and overlook benches; better access to the W&OD Trail and the sites proximity to Raflo Park, Georgetown Park and the W&OD Trail • Parallel Parking space width reduction from 9 feet to 8 feet (Modification #3) — Staff Supports • Reduce Number of Loading Spaces from 3 to 1 and locate on S. King Street (Modification 4) — Staff Supports • Reduce Buffer Yard B -C — from 25 foot S3 Screen to minimum 3' width with fence (Modification #5)— Staff Supports • Reduce buffer yard C -D from 50 foot S3 Screen to minimum 4' with fence (Modification #6)- more information is needed • Reduce Buffer Yard E -F (W&OD Trail) from 25 foot S3 Screen to minimum 5 foot width with modified screening and metal fence (Modification 6) - Staff Supports • Reduce Creek Valley Buffer from 50' to a minimum 0 feet to 30 feet on the property with appropriate vegetation and access (Modification 8) — Staff supports, however this would require NOVA Parks approval. The Applicant is working with NOVA Parks on this request. • Reduce separation between structures from 20 feet to 13 feet (Modification 9) — Staff supports as residential buildings have been approved closer in the Downtown (Crescent Place); and the original 20 feet was reduced to meet engineering standards. Mr. Boucher summarized staff analysis as follows: • The application meets the specific use standards of the Zoning Ordinance with modifications. (TLZO-Sec. 9.3.15). Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the application meets the special exception approval criteria (TLZO Sec. 3.4.12) in that the use a)will not adversely affect use of neighboring properties, b) complies with the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Plan, c) the location, size and height of buildings, etc., and the nature of screening will not hinder appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings, and d) traffic will not be hazardous nor conflict with expected traffic in the neighborhood. i FWJ Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Mr. Boucher concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation of approval based on the following conditions and suggested giving the Applicant time to clean up some of these smaller issues prior to taking action: 1. Substantial Conformance 2. No expressed or Implied Waivers 3. Phasing: Recreation Amenities 4. Phasing: Commercial Uses 5. Energy Efficiency 6, Plat/Statement Revisions 7, Modifications Commissioner Robinson invited the Applicant to make their presentation. Don Knutson, Manager, Applicant, and Owner of the Knutson Companies noted that he is currently building in Downtown Leesburg at Crescent Place and wished to begin his presentation with photos of the product he is building in the development. He explained that a key goal of his company is to deliver superior curb appeal through architectural design, attention to detail, selection of building materials, and execution in the field. When you are in an urban environment there is a responsibility to deliver "WOW' and extends beyond just the homeowners and the people living in the community. The site on S. King Street is a gateway site and the details matter. Mr. Knutson showed pictures of the townhomes being built at Crescent Place and pointed out details such as chestnut, bronze, and black windows to go along with the scheme, precast details, rounded downspouts, doors with glass inserts, colored mortar, balcony detail, herringbone pattern in the brick work and cornice detail. These are all minor details but when added up contribute to the overall integrity of the building.. Mr. Knutson also showed pictures of the condominium townhomes being built at Crescent Place which are residential in back and retail in front. The building is brick on all 4 sides and has 2 fronts a residential side and a retail side. He noted that they have sold their first retail units and the tenants are building their space out. When tenants are building space out, often times there is brown paper or soap on the windows to conceal construction. His company has put tenant specific clings in the windows which are logoed and tell people what's coming. Lastly he displayed the balcony detail on the front of the retail building. The balcony actually curves and projects out thereby giving relief and definition to the building. Ivlr. Knutson noted that Mr. Boucher had done an excellent job in his presentation and there was no need for him to recant all those points. A lot of attention was given to the edges of the site to make it a pleasant experience not only for people within the site but for those outside the site. Mr. Knutson mentioned that emails had been sent to the Planning Commission from Patrick Wilt, the owner of Black Walnut Brewery, who supports the project, and Peter Lunt, at Market Station, who also supports the project but raised an issue regarding the cul-de-sac and has asked if a more urban solution could be considered. As proposed, he would be losing approximately 6 parking spaces. They have tried to re -stripe his parking lot to add those 6 spaces back and Mr. Lunt was hoping utilize a more urban solution to add a few more spaces. Mr. Knutson discussed the Karen and Chuck Jones Plaza which is the commercial building with 2,000 square feet of retail on the bottom floor. He is hoping to make it a restaurant with outdoor seating. He showed a slide with an artist's rendering of the plaza which depicts 2 structures in the plaza. One being a pavilion with train station architectural qualities. The companion structure has benches underneath it. The BAR has requested that he add a structure IN Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes there that would serve as a transition from S. King Street to the taller buildings. This would be constructed of metal; metal and reminiscent of architecture seen at train stations along the W&OD Trail. This structure still needs to be approved by the BAR. Mr. Knutson displayed a picture of Town Branch as it currently exists and another of his vision of what it could look like. He noted that he has been working with NOVA Parks and is optimistic of the outcome. Today the Town Branch is more of a "V" ditch and his plan is to make it more of a "U" ditch or "U" park and add stone structures; allow people to come down and cross it; and plant it with natural park like environment plantings malting it a park experience from the W&OD Trail onward. Mr. Knutson discussed the multifamily units. There will be 4 one bedroom units on the ground floor and the upper floors will contain 4 units per floor. The parking is in the rear and the garages are recessed about 4 feet which gives a shadow line and detailing around the door. The base of the building will be cast stone with brick on the next four stories. Every unit has an outdoor space whether it be a balcony, or in the case of the units facing both Church Street and S. King Street, it has been stepped down and reads like a 3 -story building. This has also been shown to the BAR and they had requested a couple of changes. He will be returning to the BAR on October 171h to continue the process. Mr. Knutson noted that they were not required to do a Fiscal Impact Study, however they did have Robert Charles Lesser and Co. (RCLCO) do an analysis of the impact of the South King Street mixed use development on Downtown Leesburg. The South King Street Development will generate a net positive impact to the Town over a 20 year period of $1,643,000. Revenues are estimated at $3.6 million from real property taxes, BPOL, Sales and Meals tax, etc. against estimate expenditures of $2 million. The site will have a positive fiscal impact on the Town to occur in 2020 once the site is fully occupied. Another item pointed out by RLCCO was that residents of South King Street will spend $2.2 million annually on goods and services including $289,000 in restaurants. A considerable percentage of this will be spent in Downtown Leesburg. Mr. Knutson referenced a 2008 Urban Land Institute (ULI) that was commissioned by the Leesburg Downtown Improvement Association regarding an implementation strategy for revitalizing historic Downtown Leesburg. A lot of the findings are still appropriate today. Approximately 50 stakeholders from Downtown Leesburg were interviewed and were asked what their vision was for Downtown Leesburg. The basic statement was that Downtown Leesburg was the civic, cultural and historical center of Loudoun County with the vision being "With an increased number of residents and workers downtown, the streets are active in the evenings and weekends with people attracted to the broad range of restaurants, entertainment venues and specialty shops that downtown Leesburg has to offer." The study further states "A hey component to bringing this vision to reality will be the success of the Town in creating more housing choices to attract new residents to the downtown. While there are stable single family neighborhoods in the Town, the downtown area has few housing options. Creating a diverse mix of housing to include condominiums and townhomes ... will result in the increased demand for retail, entertainment and recreational amenities. The more people there are in the downtown needing a place to work, shop, eat, and play, the greater the opportunity will be for economic development." Mr•. Knutson concluded his presentation with a summary of the benefits of the project which include the extension of South Street, Karen and Chuck Jones Plaza, Town Branch Park, Church 14 Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Street Overlook, new commercial building on S. King Street, positive fiscal impact, all required parking is on-site, low number of school children, more permanent Downtown residents, and a beautiful gateway to the Town of Leesburg. Commissioner Robinson solicited the Planning Commission for clarifying questions. Commissioner Kidder asked when we could expect to know the final floodplain mitigation and FEMA's response. Bill Ackman, Director, Department of Plan Review, explained that staff has been working very closely with Bowman Engineering throughout this process and staff is comfortable that there is an engineering solution. The exact engineering solution will not be known until the application gets to site plan and they start putting the final grades on the actual plan, as well as obtain approval from NOVA Park He assured the Commission that the Town will not approve anything that increases flood waters on any adjacent property. There is a lot of expertise on staff as well as the Bowman staff and all engineers involved have a lot of experience with FEMA. The Town will have 2 certified Floodplain Mangers on staff in a few weeks. Bowman has several as well. This project will go through a FEMA Consultant that will review the plan as well as FEMA itself. There are a lot of checks and balances that will not only ensure that this project mitigates properly but also the adjacent residences and businesses continue to enjoy the same rights they currently have today without additional floodplain. Some of the adjacent properties do have floodplain on their property, however this applicant is not required to adjust for them. Commissioner Kidder asked if there was any particular timeframe. Mr. Ackman responded that typically once the application is approved, the applicant would take somewhere between 30 and 60 days to prepare the site plan. It generally takes 4 to 6 months to get the site plan in an approvable condition. At that point, staff is also processing a floodplain study through FEMA which can take anywhere from 4 months to 1 year as there are things beyond staff's control. Town staff has an excellent relationship with FEMA. Recently, staff was able to work with FEMA at Crescent Place to make sure that several residents, whom had been temporarily displaced from their homes, only remained so for a minimal amount of time. Commissioner Robinson asked if the project could move forward without NOVA Parks cooperation. Mr. Ackman responded that it would be very difficult to move this project along without NOVA Parks cooperation. Mr. Knutson responded that he did not think that it could be built without NOVA Parks cooperation, however he felt they were making progress. Commissioner Robinson asked if the reduction of space between the buildings was approved by the Fire Marshall. Mr. Boucher responded that staff did not ask, since the reduced space meets the separation standard, and the Fire Marshall did not comment on it. Mr. Ackman further explained that often time you can locate buildings closer together depending on the material and the fire rating that has to go into the building itself. The Fire Marshall typically will work with developers, engineers, etc., to ensure that whatever distance is provided is mitigated by the types of materials used. Commissioner Robinson invited the public to address the Commission on this application and discussed the procedure to do so. W Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Eric Tanner, 213 Church Street, SE, Leesburg, VA 20176, came forward and expressed concerns regarding parking and loss of property value. He also expressed concerns regarding future development of his property once this project is built. He felt the use of his land would better serve the project and was hoping it could be absorbed into the project with some type of financial arrangement. Commissioner Kidder noted that she did not feel qualified to respond to his comments and suggested he speak with Town staff for direction. Rick Brown, 213 S. King Street, Leesburg, VA 20176, came forward and expressed concern regarding the floodplain and how it would affect the west side and the rest of Town. Mr. Ackman explained that FEMA does an overall study of the floodplain throughout the Town over several of our major bodies of water such as Town Branch and Tuscarora Creek. They have mapped Town Branch and there are areas defined by the conveyance flow which determines if there are any obstructions downstream. That would be the area required to take the amount of water that would be created by a 100 year storm. There is additional area that is shown as floodplain that takes up 90% of the property which is a ponding area. This is due to a constriction downstream that prevents the water from passing through causing the water to back up on the adjacent properties. There is a certain amount of area that FEMA will allow you to fill in, build on and reclaim. This is done through an engineering process that involves remodeling FEMA's calculations using the proposed conditions. Staff has to make sure that filling that area in doesn't become the new constriction and start backing water up in other parts of Town. This is all closely monitored and staff looks several hundred feet upstream and several hundred feet downstream to make sure that no residents or businesses in Town will be adversely impacted by anything that a development creates. Mr. Ackman invited Mr. Brown to meet with him at Town Hall to discuss in detail. He can provide the engineering drawings and explain the impacts and challenges that the developer still has to overcome. It has not been 100% designed but staff does feel there is an engineering solution. The Applicant has given enough information to give staff a level of comfort. That alone will not allow construction of the development. The Applicant will need to provide all the calculations and drawings proven that properties, such as Mr•. Brown's, would not be adversely impacted. Commissioner Robinson closed the public hearing at 9:57 pm and solicited Planning Commission discussion. Commissioner Burk commented that the presentations showed the Commission how this development would look from various parts of Town which he found to be helpful. Commissioner Kidder commented that she was looking forward to the next meeting on this project. She was very happy to see this kind of use Downtown and felt it would bring some life to the Downtown. She was impressed by the quality of the development already being seen at Crescent Place. Commissioner Burk asked that the Planning Commission be specific about what they would like to see from the applicant and staff at the next meeting. 16 Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder requested illustrations of how the project will look on the other side of the buffers. Commissioner Barnes expressed concerns regarding the buffer reductions and how it will look as well. Mr. Boucher responded that staff will provide better depictions of how the buffers will look from the opposite side. Commissioner Robinson noted that 9 modification requests had been discussed, however only 7 were listed on the justification. Mr. Boucher responded that they will be added. Commissioner Robinson commented that she wished to discuss the cul-de-sac, retaining walls, parking accessibility, availability of space for an electronic car charging station and replacing the mini -mart that will be removed by this development. She also requested specific ratings on the Energy Star and HERS. After further discussion regarding scheduling a subsequent meeting, it was determined to continue discussion to the October 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Robinson called for a recess at 10:08 pm The meeting resumed at 10:18 pm. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TLSV-2015-0001 Variation for 102 Cornwall Street, Bill Ackman, Director, Department of Plan Review Mr. Ackman noted that staff has worked with this Applicant extensively to work on the two variation requests before the Commission. The Planning Commission has the option to call for a public hearing on any proposed variation. In this instance staff is recommending the Planning Commission move forward with this presentation and act on the variation requests this evening. He asked if the Planning Commission wished to hear the presentation prior to making their decision or make the decision about the public hearing first. The Planning Commission decided to move forward without a public hearing. Mr. Ackman explained that along with subdivision and land development regulations there is a requirement to provide updated curb, gutter, and sidewalk or to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk where curb, gutter, and sidewalk do not exist. In this particular case there is not a brick sidewalk along North Street, nor is their curb and gutter. The Applicant proposes curb and gutter along North Street which will allow the water to channel along the road and tie in and match exactly what is along North Street. The frontage will match what is across the street in front of the senior center. The second request is along Cornwall Street to leave the existing curb line and sidewalk and accept that as acceptable for this project. The site is located at the confluence of North Street, Cornwall Street, and Wirt Street and across the street from St. Jaynes Episcopal Frl Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes Church. North Street is a challenging site with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. There is also a power pole that needs to be dealt with and staff has found a way to work around it and leave it where it is. The power lines go in all 4 directions and moving the pole is not an option. One of the challenges of providing sidewalk in this location is the existence of an historic structure (garage) that is located 4.2 feet from the edge of the pavement. Mr. Ackman noted that he has spoken with Tom Scofield, Preservation Planner, who believes that this structure can be somewhat modified and reconstructed into a future home. The Cornwall Street site sidewalk had a number of tripping hazards which have all been repaired by the Applicant. There is a brick border that has also been repaired and was done in effort to save the concrete curb which has the appearance of a granite curb and is what the streets in this area have. There is a substantial tree that is on the site which can be saved with this variation and also allows retaining the existing sidewalk and curb. This also allows the Applicant to fill and sod the drop-off, which the Applicant has already done. There is no variation requested for Wirt Street but it is important to note that there is a concrete sidewalk on the site today and the Applicant has agreed to replace it with a brick sidewalk. The Department of Plan review will also be issuing a modification to allow just a header curb without the gutter pan which is what is consistent with what exists on Wirt Street. Mr. Ackman concluded his presentation with sample motions for the three available options. The Planning Commission can move to approve the variation, deny the variation, or move to schedule a public hearing within 60 days. There will be two motions required. One for North Street and one for Cornwall Street. Commissioner Robinson solicited questions from the Commission members. Seeing none, she called for the motion. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move to approve the portion of the 102 Cornwall TLSV-2015-0001 request to be relieved of the requirement to provide sidewalk along the property's North Street, NE frontage adjacent to the subject property's northern property line. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-3 (Welsh Chamblin, Babbin and Harper absent) Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move to approve the portion of the 102 Cornwall TLSV-2015-0001 request to be relieved of the requirement to upgrade sidewalk as well as curb and gutter along the property's Cornwall Street frontage adjacent to the subject property's southern property line. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-3 (Welsh Chamblin, Babbin and Harper absent) iE Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Burk attended the EAC meeting. Commissioner Kidder attended the EAC meeting and discussion was primarily in regard to how to get Council's attention on environmental issues. Commissioner Robinson attended the SRTC meeting on Monday evening and there was discussion on the intersection at Battlefield and the Route 15 Bypass where concerns were raised regarding enforcement and the new sidewalk to be added. STAFF DISCUSSION None 1 __ 1 t 10fiklm-IR Commissioner Robinson wanted to make sure that everyone received a copy of the Deputy Town Attorney's explanation of the proffers and phone-in procedures. Commissioner Barnes commented that it was his opinion that Council should remand the Crescent Parke application back to the Planning Commission if there were significant changes. He asked the Deputy Town Attorney if the Planning Commission could require Town Council to provide copies of the proposed changes for their review and opinion. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, respectfully responded that it was not the Planning Commission's decision to make. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning responded that staff could provide the Planning Commission with a list of the changes to the application. Mike Watkins, the Project Manager, was in the process of compiling a listing of what Council saw initially, in August, and most recently. NEW BUSINESS None 19 Leesburg Planning Commission October 6, 2016 Minutes ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 pm Ap roved by: I ren Cicalese, Commission Clerk ()._tA/'aLbn&e Gigi tkinson, Vice -Chair 20