Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 20 16 PC Minutesf� O N flOW The Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 20, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, October 20, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Brian Boucher, Chris Murphy, Mike Watkins, Bill Ackman, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Harper, Kidder (Left at 8:19 pm) and Robinson, Absent: Vice Mayor Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 6, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Kidder Second: Commissioner Barnes Vote: 5-0-2 (Welsh Chamblin and Babbin abstained as they did not attend the October 6, 2016 meeting) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Commissioner Robinson disclosed a telephone conversation with Peter Lundt of NV Commercial, on October 19`x'. Commissioner Babbin disclosed a phone conversation with Chris Gleckner regarding the South King Street Development. She also disclosed a phone conversation with Mike Banzhaf regarding the PRC text amendment. CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and noted that she looked forward to having the full commission at the meeting. She also thanked Commissioner Burk and Susan Berry -Hill for helping out with the Simpson Middle School's Civics class Out - Reach project. I' 1 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLOA-2015-0006 Text Amendment Sign Regulations Public Hearing, Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator and Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:05 pm and invited staff to make their presentation. Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator, explained that both he and Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, will be presenting the staff report this evening. Ms. Caputo will present the legal basis for the text amendment and he will follow up with the details of the amendment. Ms. Caputo explained that in 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona which addressed the Town of Gilbert, Arizona's sign ordinance. As a result of that decision most localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia were amending their sign ordinances. The Supreme Court case dealt with 3 categories of temporary noncommercial signs. Ideological, political, and temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event. Ideological signs, which the Town of Gilbert categorized as containing a message or idea for noncommercial purposes, were the largest in size, could be placed in all zoning districts and had no durational time limit. Political signs were smaller in size, could be posted 60 days prior to the primary and up to 15 days after the election. Temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event (a qualifying event was defined as some sort of non-profit meeting such as an educational or church meeting) were the smallest signs permitted and had the shortest time frame. They could not be placed more than 12 hours before the event and had to be removed within 1 hour after the event. Pastor Clyde Reed's church met in schools and other buildings that were available each week. Temporary signs would be set around Town on Saturdays and removed on Sundays. Pastor Reed was issued multiple citations by the Town of Gilbert's Code Enforcement and the Town would also remove the signs. Pastor Reed sued the Town and was in court for several years beginning in 2007 until 2013 when he lost his second appeal. The lower courts consistently ruled that the Town of Gilbert's sign code was content -neutral in time, place and manner. Pastor Reed then took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court which ruled that the Town of Gilbert's comprehensive code, governing the manner in which people may display outdoor signs, imposed more stringent restrictions on temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event than on signs conveying other messages. The Town of Gilbert's Sign Code "subjected each of the sign categories to different restrictions. The restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any given sign thus depend entirely on the communicative effect of the sign." The Court held that Gilbert's Sign Code was facially content -based regulation. In order to survive constitutional challenge, content -based regulations must satisfy "strict scrutiny", which means that content -based regulations will be upheld only if they are "narrowly tailored" to serve "compelling government interests." Ms. Caputo discussed some relevant quotes from the ruling regarding the Law of Freedom of Speech and included: Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes "The First Amendment applicable to the Sates through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the enactment of laws "abridging the freedom of speech". U.S. Constitution Amendment 1. Under that clause, a government, including a municipal government vested with state authority, has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject -matter or its contents." "Content based laws — those that restrict speech based on its communicative content — are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to some compelling state interest." "Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed." Gilbert's arguments for its compelling state interest were preserving aesthetic appeal and traffic safety, both of which were dismissed by the Court. Justice Alito's concurring opinion with whom Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor joined, gave further guidance to localities, by listing some non-exclusive examples such as: Regulating size (so long as not content -based); Regulating locations that distinguish between free-standing and building attached; Distinguishing between lit and unlit signs; Distinguishing between fixed message and electronic message; Distinguishing between signs on commercial and residential properties; Distinguishing between on -premises and off -premises; Imposing time restrictions on signs advertising one-time event; Regulating material; Regulating the number of signs; and Zoning classifications are still valid. There are additional considerations of the ruling as the Court indicated that it may find certain content -based sign distinctions do satisfy strict scrutiny such as traffic signs, hazard signs, street signs, and street number signs. Additionally, while Reed was seemingly limited to noncommercial signs, the Court's decision continues a trend of increasing protection for commercial speech. Ms. Caputo moved on to discuss how this legislation would effect localities in Virginia. The Local Government Attorney's Association (LGA) met, brainstormed and ultimately formed an ad hoc committee to draft a model sign ordinance based on the Reed Ruling and other Supreme Court cases over the past 20 to 30 years. This Model Ordinance was drafted and distributed to all member localities, including the Town of Leesburg. She, Chris Murphy and Brandon White worked together to draft the proposed Sign Ordinance, which, in many ways, mirrors the Model Ordinance. Mr. Murphy noted that the first step a municipality should take is to avoid content -based enforcement/permit review in the interim. Specific to this, back in August, the Town Attorney notified Town Council, that as of that date, the Town will stay enforcement of any non- commercial sign regulations pending completion of the new ordinance. The Town is not enforcing the size regulations that pertain to temporary place of worship signs and temporary signs advertising educational/religious events. Both of these signs have different size regulations which are now illegal under the Reed ruling. Secondly, the Town is not enforcing the pre- election time limitations on temporary political signs. Mr. Murphy explained the 5 regulatory principles which provide guidance for municipalities as they prepare their new ordinances noting that every new ordinance needs to achieve the following: 1. A sign ordinance should contain a severability clause— Sec. 15.1.1.A Purpose and Intent has been established and is inclusive and more specific to Article 15. This was suggested by the Model Ordinance and contains the following language"... if any provision of this Article is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes finding shall not affect the validity of other provisions of this Article which can be given without the invalid provision." 2. A sign ordinance should contain a substitution clause — Sec. 15.6.2 Non -Commercial Signs contains the Substitution Clause as follows; "Whenever this Article permits a sign with commercial content, non-commercial content is also permitted subject to the same requirements of size, color, illumination, movement, materials, location, height, and construction." 3. Minimize sign categories — Section 18.8 Sign Regulations by Use and District now eliminates "content -based" categories of signs and has replaced them with "content - neutral" categories of signs. The current ordinance has 44 different sign types. The amended ordinance has reduced that to 29 different types of signs. 4. Minimize exemptions — Section 15.4 Exemptions now eliminates content -based categories of signs and has replaced them with "content -neutral" categories of signs. Current sign regulations contain 23 exempted signs. As amended there are now only 9 exemptions. 5. Provide a strong detailed Purpose/Intent section at the start of the ordinance — Sec. 15. 1.1 Purpose and Intent section was established to provide a strong , detailed Purpose/Intent section at the start of the ordinance and includes the following: • Maintain consistency with First Amendment right to free speech. • Ensure protection of property values, the character of various neighborhoods, and the safety and welfare of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. • Establish signage as integral, subordinate and accessory to the principal use. • Allow signage that is appropriate to the land and buildings or use to the activity to which they pertain. • Establish an appropriate balance that preserves ample channels for communication by means of visual display while still reducing and mitigating the extent of harm caused by signs. Mr. Murphy concluded his presentation noting that a table summarizing the changes was included in their packet along with copies of both the existing and the amended ordinance for their review. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited public comment and seeing none she called for clarifying questions from the Commission members. Commissioner Babbin asked what the general duration was for temporary signs now that they have all been combined in one category. Mr. Murphy referenced Sec. 15.4, which contains sub- categories of signage. This section establishes standards for size, height and duration. Commissioner Babbin noted that the put -pose of this exercise was to eliminate content -based sign regulations and asked if staff believed that the 3 categories of temporary signs established in Sec. 15.4 would be able to survive strict scrutiny. Mr. Murphy explained that there was some content regulation, however the important element is that everything is now the same size. Commissioner Babbin clarified that she was referring to duration and asked for the justification of having different durations for different content -based signs. Ms. Caputo explained that it was more a matter of semantics. For instance real estate signs are categorized by property, not Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes content. Justice Alito's concurring opinion references regulating location which is valid in this instance. This is based on the LGA model and staff believes that it could pass the test of strict scrutiny. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying question. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:34 pm and solicited discussion and comments from the Commission members. Commissioner Barnes expressed concern over the different durational times for temporary signs. Ms. Caputo clarified that content is not being regulated, but rather where it is placed, what it is made of, and what it looks like. Commissioner Barnes asked what the duration was for church signs. Ms. Caputo answered that we would no longer have church signs as they are now referred to as permit signs or a temporary signs. Mr. Murphy added that the duration allowed was 90 days. Commissioner Kidder noted that she was in support of the proposed text amendment as she felt it streamlined the ordinance. Commissioner Robinson asked why a political sign was not a prohibited sign. Mr. Murphy responded that political signs must be erected on private property and are not allowed in a public right-of-way. Commissioner Robinson asked the difference between a marquis and an animated sign. Mr. Murphy answered that a marquis, like a sign outside of a highs school or a movie theater, would not require a sign permit to change the message on the sign. Animated signs, like the floppy man, are signs that emulate or look like movement. Commissioner Babbin noted that directional signs located off-site are illegal now and will continue to be illegal. It was her understanding that this amendment was dealing with non- commercial signs. Ms. Caputo responded that the Reed ruling only dealt with non-commercial signs. However, when this Model Ordinance was being created it was thought that moving forward there will be multiple law suits over commercial signage and it was decided to address commercial signage now and to address commercial and non-commercial signage equally. Commissioner Babbin commented that she was not sure she was in agreement with this approach and thought it best to do what we need to do now and not worry about what the Supreme Court might do in the future. It was her opinion that this would prevent a whole category of signs that need to be put up temporarily such as yard sale signs and lost dog signs. It was her opinion that it was important to address the temporary nature of the sign and not just prohibit everything. Ms. Caputo explained that we are now treating commercial signs similarly to non-commercial signs. Commissioner Babbin noted that people put up yard sale signs now and the Town doesn't catch them all, or is unable to enforce its regulations, as this occurs primarily over weekends. She did not believe that the Town should continue to prohibit such practices. She also felt it was necessary to address the duration in terms of how often the same sign can be erected on a given property in a given time frame such as a calendar year. Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder wished to remind everyone that there were many legal minds involved in creating the Model Ordinance and staff followed their recommendations. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional discussion, seeing none she called for a motion. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2015-0006, Sign Regulations Amendments be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval, on the basis that the amendments further the objectives of the Town Plan and that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Commissioner Babbin commented that she was very much in favor of simplifying ordinances and eliminating an ordinance that is clearly unconstitutional. She stated that she did not think the proposed amendment accomplished this objective as it creates laws in the community which will not be enforced. She would like to see more work put into this amendment rather than take action tonight. She noted that if action is taken tonight, she will not be supporting this amendment and asked if it were possible to make a motion to delay action. Commissioner Burk answered that a motion can be made to table discussion to a future date. A second is required and the new motion would be voted on first and supersede the existing motion. He thought that it would require a super majority vote as well and asked for a few minutes to research this issue. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion on the existing motion. Seeing none she called for a short recess to allow Commissioner Burls time to research the proper procedure. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin resumed the meeting at 8:07 pm. Commissioner Burk informed the Commission that they could make a motion, recognized by the Chair, to postpone action to a future specific date. This motion will require a second. It is a debatable motion so there can be discussion and it only requires a simple majority. The existing motion can be taken up and voted on as well. If the motion passes, action will be delayed until the specified date. Commissioner Babbin reiterated her support of the amendment and felt that it was owed to the community to take the time to make it better. She made the following motion: I move to postpone Commissioner Kidder's motion, with respect to the sign ordinance, to the next meeting of this Commission which is November 3, 2016 at 7:00 pm. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion. Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Burk noted that the action date for this amendment was January 19th so it fell within the appropriate time frame. Chairman Welsh Chamblin requested that, if they do vote to postpone, the Commission give clear expectations of what they anticipate will change or be further evaluated. Commissioner Babbin raised 2 issues, non-commercial directional signs and duration to address the amount of time the same sign can be erected on the same property within a given time frame. Commissioner Harper asked for more specificity on the regulations for the Town's directional signage for events. Mr. Murphy clarified the Town is allowed to erect directional signage as a public advisory. Private events requiring street closures will require a permit from the Town and the Town will be responsible for erecting the directional signage. Commissioner Robinson asked if the Town would put up signage to direct parking for a private event that utilizes public property. Mr. Murphy responded that a permit would be issued by the Community Events Committee for such an event and the Town would erect the appropriate signage. Commissioner Robinson asked if directional signage for a church set -vice at Ida Lee could be posted at the entrance to Ida lee. Mr. Murphy responded that it could, provided it was posted on Ida Lee's property. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the vote. The motion passed 6-1 (Nay — Kidder). Commissioner Kidder departed the meeting at 8:19 pm. TLOA-2016-0008 Text Amendment PRC Use Mix Public Hearing, Mike Watkins, Assistant Zoning Administrator Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public heating at 8:19 pm and invited Mike Watkins, Assistant Zoning Administrator, to make staff s presentation. Mr. Watkins explained that this an applicant initiated request to modify the required ratio of commercial to office uses in PRC districts. Town Council initiated a Zoning Ordinance text amendment on February 23, 2016 through approval of Resolution 2016-208. Although the text amendment will apply to all PRC zoning districts; this request pertained to the existing PRC development in the Village at Leesburg, which is the basis used by staff in their review of this request. The current Zoning Ordinance requirement is a ratio of 2.5 square foot of commercial for every 1 square foot of office uses. The Village at Leesburg Landbay B is zoned PRC. Building Q was zoned for office but was amended to commercial. All the required office uses to retain the 2.5 to 1 ratio have been reallocated to Building X. However, the current market demand, as demonstrated by the applicant, does not support the amount of office square footage required by the ratio in Building X. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow modification of this standard ratio. Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes There are 2 components to this text amendment. The first part of this text amendment cleans up language that already exists in the ordinance and the second part allows the opportunity to request a further modification of the use standards in the PRC districts. There are currently 4 PRC Districts in Town: Potomac Crossing, Potomac Station, Village at Leesburg and Oaklawn. The proposed amendment will do the following: • Change modification allowance for applicants seeking approval of a modification of the use ratio • Address the commercial to office use ratio only • Only available to planned developments that are deemed substantially compete, i.e. 75% built out • Limit decrease in commercial density to no more that 15% of approved density • Limit increase in residential density to a max of 20% approved density Mr. Watkins summarized that the proposed changes will not change approved uses in any established PRC district and will allow a developer to file a modification request with a concept plan/proffer amendment to modify the use ration. Nh•. Watkins concluded his presentation with staffs recommendation of approval. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for public comment. Mike Banzhaf, Reed Smith, came forward in support of staffs recommendation. He has been working with both staff and the Village at Leesburg on this for quite a while. The PRC is a flexible district where you can have retail/office on the ground floor and residential above. This specific request, which he made to Council, came about after the Potomac Station Market Place application. There were 2 landbays, A and B, that were one mixed use center and the applicant had tried to change the use ratio for those landbays and was not able to do so under the current ordinance. He noted that he was mainly here to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin called for additional public comment. Seeing none she solicited the Planning Commission members for clarifying questions. Commissioner Barnes asked if this would apply to other properties, specifically Crescent Parke. Mr. Watkins explained that this would only apply to PRC districts. Crescent Parke is in the Crescent Design District so this would not apply. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification of the 75% buildout requirement. Mr. Watkins explained that this meets a goal or objective of the Town Plan. Staff felt that at 75% a development was substantially implementing plan policies and the approvals that were granted. Commissioner Robinson wished to clarify that once the development was 75% built out it would then be possible to decrease the amount of non-residential density by 15% or increase residential by 20%. Mr. Watkins confirmed she was correct. Commissioner Robinson asked about parking requirements. Mr. Watkins responded that this amendment does not change other requirements Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes of the zoning ordinance. The development would still need to meet set back requirements, parking requirement, open space, etc. Commissioner Robinson asked if a ratio modification request for an application, approved prior to July of this year, could be subject to proffer negotiation. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Planning and Zoning Department, clarified that residential applications or mixed use with a residential component, approved prior to July 1, 2015, is not subject to the proffer statute. Mr. Watkins further explained the Village at Leesburg is the catalyst for this text amendment request. In anticipation of trying to beat the July 1" deadline, staff had received an application from Village at Leesburg. This application has not yet been accepted. In terms of proffers and proffer negotiation, this future request to amend the Village at Leesburg has met the test to continue to negotiate proffers. Commissioner Robinson asked if changes due to this type of modification that would affect off-site transportation, parking, CIF contributions etc. would still be subject to negotiation. Ms. Bent' -Hill responded that they would. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying questions. Seeing none she closed the public hearing at 8:38 pm and solicited comments and discussion from the Planning Commission members. Commissioner Harper expressed concerns regarding increasing residential density by 20%. Commissioner Babbin commented that it was her understanding that the proposed text amendment is just giving the Planning Commission and Town Council more flexibility to consider an application. Mi•. Watkins confirmed that she was correct. Commissioner Barnes stated that he was not in support of a residential increase. Mr. Watkins asked that the Planning Commission consider the life span of a rezoning concept plan. In most instances, this is not brought to fruition within a year to two. The planned zoning district has certain densities and expectations of development where the ordinance includes phasing opportunities. An applicant may want to reconsider how those mix of uses are provided. In the case of the PRC district (Planned Residential Community) it would be unfair to specifically exclude residential as would not allow a fair evaluation of the mix of uses. Context is important to that mix of uses. Excluding residential density and only including non-residential uses may be incompatible to how the development is laid out. This amendment only provides an opportunity to ask and only applies to approved PRC communities. A modification would still need to meet all other zoning and plan policy requirements. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern regarding the residential increase and noted that she could not support an increase in residential of 20% in a development that is already 75% built out. Mr. Banzaf responded that Landbay C, on the south side of Russell Branch Parkway, was approved for 300 dwelling units in 2005 and has been modified to about half that amount now. The applicant bears the burden of justifying the modification. Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Mr. Watkins commented that this text amendment will only apply to one property initially and asked the Commission to keep an open mind. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to justify the nature of the request. He understood the concern of the increased residential but cautioned against limiting the nature of the changes as it may cause more incompatibility or a potential failure to market the property. Commissioner Barnes asked what that means in terms of increased residential for this potential application. Mr. Watkins responded it could mean a loss of 55,400 square feet of office and an increase of 60 dwelling units. He stressed that this was not an examination of the future Village at Leesburg application and should be reviewed in the abstract. Commissioner Harper asked how many PRC districts we currently have. Mr. Watkins answered that there were 4, soon to be 5 if another application is approved.. However, this would not apply to a brand new rezoning as 75% of the approved density would have had to have been constructed. The approval criteria still needs to be met, such as open space, parking, etc. Commissioner Babbin noted that she would be ready to make a motion at the appropriate time. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional discussion. Seeing none she called for a motion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2016-0008, Planned Residential Community Use Ratio Modification, be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval for the reasons stated in this staff report, and on the basis that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion on the motion. Commissioner Barnes stated that he could not support it as presented. Commissioner Robinson asked to propose a fiiendly amendment. Commissioner Burk explained that the newer versions of Robert's Rules of Order no longer accept friendly amendments. An amendment can be proposed and seconded. The Commissioners would vote on the amendment and then vote on the current motion. Commissioner Robinson proposed an amendment to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2016-0008 as in the staff report with the removal of Item E.3.D.3 on Page 5, No more than a 20% increase of the approved PRC District's overall residential density may occur as a result of this modification. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. 10 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion on the proposed amendment. Commissioner Burk expressed concern that the removal of the clause would provide no cap for increased residential. Mr. Watkins clarified that the removal would only allow a 15% decrease in non-residential. It would only change the ratio of office to retail use. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional discussion. Seeing none she called for the vote on the amendment. The motion carried 5-1-1 (Nay Babbin, Kidder absent) Commissioner Babbin asked how the approved amendment to the motion would affect the proposed text amendment. Mr. Watkins explained that it would allow more or less retail or more or less office. He further commented that if it is the will of the body to not want to increase residential density, it does not prohibit someone from asking to increase the percentage of residential. He suggested changing the ratio make it less than 20%. After further discussion it was determined to withdraw the amended motion and make a new motion. Commissioner Babbin withdrew the amended motion. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there was any objection to withdrawing the amended motion. Seeing none, the motion was withdrawn. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a motion. Commissioner Babbin suggesting getting the Commission Members input as to what percentage they felt was acceptable. The majority of the Commission Members were in support of a 10% increase in residential density. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2016-0008, Planned Residential Community Use Ratio Modification, be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval for the reasons in this staff report, and on the basis that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice with the provision of one amendment as follows: Section E.3.D.3 of the proposed amendment shall be amended to read "No more than a 10% increase of the approved PRC District overall residential density may occur as a result of the modification". Commissioner Robinson seconded the motion. 11 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Kidder absent) SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING TLSE-2015-0011 South King Street Multifamily Continued Discussion, Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Chairman Welsh Chamblin turned the meeting over to Commissioner Robinson at 9:21 PM, noting that she will be departing shortly. She also informed the Commission that the BAR had met with this Applicant at their 10/17 meeting and had passed a resolution regarding the design of the proposed development. Commissioner Robinson invited Mr. Boucher to make staff's presentation. Mr. Boucher discussed the planning Commission public hearing which was held on October 6, 2016 noting that the Commission had requested a number of items including more information on the impact of the reduced buffers, a revised Statement of Justification to include all DCSM modifications, more information about the cu -de -sac at the end of Church Street, consideration of an electric car charger station in public parking area ( which the Applicant has since agreed to), and more information about proposed Energy Star and HERS rating. Staff also had some follow up revisions and the Applicant has addressed them as follows: Grading/Retaining Walls: Plan labels retaining walls, added a "Wall/Footer Extension Detail" and resolved a water/sewer conflict Phasing: Note #7 on Sheet 5 deleted — (Condition #3.a) Floodplain: Added Note #7 on Sheet per Department of Plan Review request Statement of Justification: Revised DCSM modification requests Elevations: Latest added to sheets 4B, 4B 1, 4D 1 and 4E Buffers: Added details for B -c and B -d Mr. Boucher discussed the cul-de-sac at the end of Church Street and explained that a turnaround is needed for Fire and Rescue access; Town access to storm water management facilities along Town Branch; and snow removal. Staff will work with VDOT to determine if there is a better alternative to the current proposed cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the Applicant add a note that states "The final design of the cul-de-sac shown at the end of Church Street, SE shall be determined at the time of site plan review". Mr. Boucher also provided information on Energy Star rating of 2.0 and a HERS Index rating of 90 which was another condition recommended by staff. The Applicant has stated that they will either do an Energy Star 2 .0 rating or they will do the Home Energy Rating System (HERS 12 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes Index) and meet a standard there. Both of these types of energy efficiency programs require a third party verification process Mr. Boucher discussed the BAR meeting on October 17, 2016. The Applicant appeared before the BAR and presented revised designs which addressed BAR suggestions. The BAR endorsed a resolution that found the conceptual appearance acceptable as it relates to the H-1 Old and Historic Design Guidelines. The BAR desired more flexibility in the final design for the Chuck and Karen Jones Plaza particularly with regard to the buildings and also suggested an extension of the proposed brick and metal fence to scree the parking area. Mr. Boucher concluded with staff s recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial Conformance 2. No Expressed or Implied Waivers 3. Phasing: Recreation Amenities 4. Phasing Commercial Uses 5. Energy Efficiency 6. Plat/Statement Revisions (Cul -de -Sac note) 7. Modifications Commissioner Barnes asked the Applicant if he were able to resolve concerns expressed by owners of neighboring properties at the public hearing. Don Knutson, Applicant and Owner of the Knutson Companies responded that it was only 2 neighbors to the north side. Patrick Wilt with Black Walnut Brewery who had previously sent an email endorsing the project and Mr. Tanner. Some disagreement exists with Mr. Tanner. It is his feeling that Mr. Tanner would like him to buy his property and they have not arrived at a price and he is not sure that they will. He has offered to do landscaping on Mr. Tanner's side of the fence along with other enhancements and thinks that Mr. Tanner does recognize that the overall project is positive. Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Knutson if he would achieve Energy Star certification by installing Energy Star appliances and water heaters, etc. Mr. Knutson responded that they actually do more than that. They have a rater come out for every home they build and they get a HERS certificate based upon insulation, appliances, etc. They also do a blower door and a duct blaster test on each home they build. Every home is tested for energy efficiency. A HERS rating of 100 is a standard new home, 130 is a resale home and they have agreed to a minimum score of 90 which is 10% better than a standard new home. Commissioner Robinson questioned the existing conditions of the cul-de-sac and asked if Church Street was going to veer eastward in to the parking lot once it was built. A representative from Bowman Consulting explained that Church Street is going to be built along the frontage of this project and improved on both sides. There will be asphalt on both sides with approximately 10 to 11 feet of curb and gutter through to the terminus. There will be approximately 10 to 11 feet on both sides of paving and curb and gutter. The grade at the intersection will be raised about 3 feet for visibility purposes. Commissioner Robinson asked if it were possible to get an estimate for the cost of the turn -around and put it aside in a fund for future construction. Bill Ackman, Director Department of Plan Review, explained that the Town gets maintenance funds from 13 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes VDOT for roads and in order to be eligible and continue to receive these funds it requires a cul- de-sac or some other type of VDOT approved turnaround. It is not possible to escrow funds for future construction without risking getting the maintenance funds from VDOT which are somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. Commissioner Barnes asked if the turn -around was needed for this project. Mr. Knutson responded that it was not. They only ingress and egress the site from South Street Extended. We don't necessarily need the turn -around but we do to provide access to allow ingress and egress for Market Station panting. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern about the DCSM private travel way serving as a through connection to public streets due to issues regarding maintenance and snow removal. The Bowman Representative responded that the private street she was referring to would run from South King Street to Church Street and will be maintained by the HOA. Commissioner Robinson asked if there was an agreement of some kind that the Town should have to ensure that this private road will be maintained and in good repair. The Bowman Representative responded that there is an easement over that Street that the Town does have access and rights to. Commissioner Harper commented on the commercial building design which she thought was very attractive, however she did not like the design of the residential buildings. She asked if the Applicant had come up with any alternative designs that the Commission could see. Mr. Knutson responded that he did not, the drawings in the packet are the ones that were shown to the BAR on Monday and what he had shown to the Commission at their last meeting. These were developed in response to initial BAR comments they received about 9 months ago. At this point, the BAR was favorably disposed to the massing, scale, and materials of the residential buildings and the commercial building and has approved the general concept plan. Commissioner Robinson reiterated her concerns regarding the cost of the turn -around and the establishment of a fund for the monies up front to ensure that it will be built. Commissioner Babbin commented that it was her understanding that the turn -around would be addressed at final site plan approval as they do not have enough information from VDOT at this time and that the Applicant was going to pay for the construction. Mr. Knutson responded that she was correct. Commissioner Robinson commented that this was going to take parking spaces from someone else's property as it is currently envisioned and expressed concerns of what could happen if the Applicant and the other property owner could not come to an agreement regarding the parking spaces. Commissioner Babbin responded that it might be easier for the Applicant to come to an agreement with the other property owner I once he had an approved application. Mr. Knutson noted that he and Peter Lundt, the owner of Market Station, are having conversations. He would prefer not to lose parking spaces but is also supportive of the project. They are working now towards this concept of a hammer head and he feels they are making 14 Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes progress. The ultimate resolution is that it does not get built. He is paying for it and he is amenable to putting the monies in a fund for future construction. Mr. Ackman added that staff is committed to the least amount of impact to an adjacent property. This is an applicant driven off-site acquisition. They could choose to put the cul-de-sac on their portion of the property, however it would cost them on-site parking and density as well. It is really up to the developer to make this and staff is committed, as they are with any developer, to try to find the best solution available so that it is beneficial to the Town, the developer and the adjacent property owner. Staff will continue to work with this developer and adjacent property owner to minimize any impact to the extent possible. Commissioner Robinson called for the motion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Special Exception TLSE-2015-0011, KMI South King Street, be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of conditional approval, subject to the conditions of approval and revisions contained in the staff report dated October 20, 2016, as modified by the single sheet of paper left on the dais dated October 20, 2016 which contains the 7 conditions, on the basis that the Special Exception approval criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 3.4.12 and the specific use standards of Section 9.3.15 (Multi -Family Development) have been satisfied, and further that the 9 requested modifications be granted, because the proposal will serve the public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Commissioner Robinson called for discussion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Welsh Chamblin and Kidder absent) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None W Leesburg Planning Commission October 20, 2016 Minutes NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:58 PM: App oved by: aren Cicalese, Commission Clerk ��YYI.(rlil.CCti��.Crth4i l�,dt .rtnirV(r-(,vvU �'L dsay WelA Chamblin, Chair I