Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 19 17 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesburg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 19, 2017 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, January 19, 2017 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Bill Ackman, Irish Grandfield, Eric Meske, David Ma, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Lanham, Kidder, Robinson and Walker ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Barnes Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 5, 2017 Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she had spoken to the Commission Cleric previously regarding some minor edits which have been corrected. Motion: Commissioner Kidder Second: Commissioner Babbin Vote: 5-0-2 (Lanham and Walker abstained as they were not present at the last meeting) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained to the new Commission members that this was the section where Commissioners disclose any meetings where they have met with anyone, other than Town staff or a fellow Commission member, about a current application or anything that may be coming before the Commission. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification on the requirement as it was the first time she had head it expressed that way. She asked if the requirement was that the Commission members disclosed meetings with the applicant or is the requirement that the Commission members disclose any meetings with any interested party. Commissioner Barnes responded that it was any interested party. No meetings were disclosed. Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin stated that she was glad to be back as part of the Commission moving forward. She welcomed the new Commission members, JoAnn Walker and Rick Lanham, and noted that she hoped it would be as rewarding an experience for them as it has been for her. She felt that it was going to be an exciting year as there were a number of items in the pipeline that will be new for the Town and she was looking forward to a great year for the Planning Commission. PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLOA-2014-0001, TLOA-2014-0008, TLOA-2014-0012, TLOM 2014-0011, and TLZM- 2014-0003 Flood Plain Regulation Amendments, Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner, Bill Ackman, Director of Plan Review, Eric Meske, Sr. Engineer, and David Ma, Engineer Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:06 PM and invited staff to make their presentation. Irish Grandfield noted that Bill Ackman, the Director of Plan Review, is the official Floodplain Administrator for the Town of Leesburg and is in attendance along with two engineers, Eric Meske and David Ma who are both Certified Flood Plain Managers. Both Mr. Meske and Mr. Ma are currently in our conference room assisting citizens who are looking at their properties on- line. We have a program called The Interactive Flood Plain Map that zooms in on any property in Town and allows citizens to check to see if their property lies within floodplain area. The four of them have been working together on the proposed Floodplain amendments. Mr. Grandfield explained that there were actually 5 applications: • TLOA-2014-0001 Zoning Ordinance Floodplain Regulations TLZM-2014-0003 Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment • TLOA-2014-0012 DCSM (Design and Constructions Standards Manual) Floodplain Amendments • TLOA-2014-0008 SLDR (Subdivision and Land Development Regulations) Floodplain Amendments • TLOM-2014-0011 Town Code Floodplain Amendments (The Planning Commission is not charged with malting a recommendation to Council on this amendment.) Mr. Grandfield informed the Commission that there were some updated documents at their seats. One had updated motions to correct a typo on one case number and the second was a copy of an email that staff had sent to the Commission on January 18, 2017. In that email was a list of a few corrections to address incorrect code references and 2 edits; Sec. 7.11.8.0 "Permitted uses in Minor Floodplain" and Sec. 7.11.9.D "Special Exception Uses". Edits to Sec. 7.11.8.0 "Permitted Uses in Minor Floodplain" added new item #3 — "New Construction or additions to existing structures or accessory structures (as may be Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes permitted within the underlying zoning district) in developed areas only where the minor floodplain is defined by overland relief; not defined by a natural or man-made channel. All proposed structures shall not increase the 100 year water surface elevations on adjacent properties unless offsite easements are obtained to contain any increases in 100 year water surface." This edit was a result of public input received related to the built environment downtown, specifically the Barrister Building. The Barrister Building's parking lot is in minor floodplain and there is not an active channel that runs through there and is more categorized as overland relief. It was asked if it would be possible to keep the parking lot and potentially build an office extension from the existing building above. Staff determined this to be a reasonable request as long as there were safeguards in place to ensure that there is no increase in flood water height or velocity off-site. Edits to Sec. 7.11.9.1) "Special Exception Uses" — Strike the word "similar" in Sec. 7.11.9.1) "Other ;imiIg uses and activities provided they cause no increase in flood heights and/or velocities. All uses, activities, and structural developments shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the flood -proofing provisions contained in all other applicable codes and ordinances." This was generated by public input received at the public information meeting on Tuesday night in regards to whether it would be possible to do floodplain alterations in major floodplain for anything other than the specified list. The specific list of permitted uses has uses such as utilities, road crossings, and temporary storage. It does not have reclamation of major floodplain for general development purposes. It was asked if there would an opportunity to allow for this and staff has drafted language that would allow it by special exception. Staff does not recommend that it be allowed by -right due to the guidance in the Town Plan which guides the development of our Zoning Ordinance. In the Natural Resources Policy Section within the Town Plan there is a policy regarding green infrastructure and green infrastructure corridors. The floodplain areas of major floodplain are the backbone of our green infrastructure. Staff felt that the decision to allow a permissible use to fill in floodplain to reclaim for commercial or residential development should be made by Town Council and therefore any such application will be subject to the special exception process. Mr. Grandfreld discussed the reason for the amendments as follows: • Protect life and property from flood hazards • Meet the requirements for Town Participation in the NFIP National Flood Insurance, Program) The Town has been informed that this must be done by February 17, 2017 to avoid suspension from the program. This is a FEMA mandated dead line for all jurisdictions that have had their floodplain limits restudied, to adopt new ordinances and the new updated Flood Hazard Maps. • Adopt FEMA's updated Flood Hazard Maps • Update outdated regulations to align with current best practices similar to other local jurisdictions such as Loudoun and Fairfax Counties. Mr. Grandfreld gave a brief overview of the process noting that there are periodic reviews by the The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA. DCR) which is the State organization that helps FEMA carry out the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes State of Virginia. The VA. DCR goes to the various participating jurisdictions on a regular basis and conducts reviews. The last review indicated that while we met most of the requirements, there was some housekeeping that needed to be done, including updating our ordinance. More importantly, FEMA in the last 3 years, has completely remapped the floodplain limits throughout Loudoun County including the Towns. They were trying to map it per Loudoun County's guidance to not just include streams draining more than a square mile (640 acres) but also along streams that drain from 100 acres to 640 acres because the County had floodplain regulations for minor floodplains that started at an acre of more watersheds. In some instances, this mapping didn't capture all streams that drain greater than 100 acres, especially in the Town of Leesburg. The Town does have to adopt the new map with the new limits. Town Council initiated amendments to these documents, staff has completed the research and preparation, and 2 drafts were sent to the VA. DCR for review and have come back with their approval. Public outreach consisted of 559 Public Hearing notice letters sent to all properties within the Floodplain Overlay District (FOD), Public Heating advertisement in the January 51h and 12th Loudoun Times Minor, Town Floodplain information website, materials available for review at the DPR/DPZ front counter at Town Hall, a public information meeting held January 17th at Ida Lee, and staff responses to phone calls, emails, and front counter inquiries Moving forward, the Planning Commission Public Hearing is being held this evening and these amendments are scheduled to go before Town Council on February 14, 2017. Mr. Grandfield discussed both the existing and proposed flood plain regulations. Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance in effect today limits use of major floodplains. The Design and Constructions Manual (DCSM) regulates land use for all drainage ways with over 50 acre watersheds. The first application being considered tonight is the text amendment TLOA-2014- 0001. This amendment changes the Zoning Ordinance text. Most of the material came from the existing ordinance or from the Virginia Model Floodplain Ordinance. The VA. DCR has a Model Floodplain Ordinance that they want all jurisdictions to follow. In some instances, including Loudoun County, it was verbatim. Loudoun County was in a little different situation than Leesburg as we were in better standing and had a little more flexibility. However, we have used the model ordinance and carried over from the existing ordinance to create the Floodplain Overlay District with major and minor floodplain before the Commission tonight. Mr. Grandfield discussed the details of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments noting that it repeals Article 13 "Flood Protection" and replaces is with Article 7.11 "Flood Plain Overlay District". The reason for this is that Article 7 is entitled "Overlay Districts". Article 7.11 governs uses in both Major Floodplain (base flood areas for streams that drain greater than 640 acres or are otherwise designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas by FEMA) and Minor Floodplains (those areas subject to flooding by the base flood that do not meet the definition of Major Floodplain but have a drainage area of 100 acres or greater). Land Use Regulations were discussed as follows: • Major Floodplain - FEMA designated floodplain; generally for streams draining 640 acres or more. o New land uses very limited Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes o Existing structures may be repaired/improved up to 50% of value otherwise must be modified to meet current flood -proofing requirements • Minor Floodplain —Town recognized floodplains for streams draining greater than 100 acres. o Allows many more uses including accessory structures o Reclaimed Minor Floodplain through alterations permitted subject to meeting all standards and regulations Mr. Grandfield explained that there will be a grandfathering of uses. For example, an unanchored shed in the minor floodplain existing today is allowed to remain, however if at some time it is rebuilt, it would need to be anchored. Mr. Grandfield discussed the Zoning Ordinance Amendments Approval Criteria and staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment and recommends that the Planning Commission send a recommendation of approval to Town Council. Mr. Grandfield moved on to discuss TLZM-2014-0003 Zoning Map Amendment noting that is changes to the Zoning Ordinance Map, creates an Overlay District with Major and Minor Floodplain, and incorporates the FEMA remapping project. He compared the old floodplain to the new floodplain noting that the most important source of information is the FEMA flood hazard remapping that was recently done and estimated that 75% to 80% of the new map comes from there and the boundaries are taken from there as well. There are some areas that FEMA failed to study that drain more than 100 acres but less than 640 acres. Most of these areas have been developed in the last 3 or 4 decades and staff, as part of that development, obtained detailed engineering floodplain studies for those areas. So again, the boundaries, engineering, and hydrology hydraulics were studied in detail and staff is confident of the 100 year flood boundaries for these areas. There were a couple instances where streams that drain 100 acres or more were altered before there was floodplain regulation in the Town and in those areas staff does not have any detailed engineering studies and therefore are using approximate floodplain boundaries. There were 492 parcels in FEMA Zone A or AE on the old FEMA Map and 229 more parcels in FEMA Zone X totaling 721 parcels. There are 291 parcels in the updated FEMA Zone A or AE and 109 in Flood Zone X totaling 400 parcels. FEMA Zone A or AE constitute a Special Flood Hazard Area for which parcels located in these areas require flood insurance. This is a requirement of mortgage lenders and not the Town of Leesburg. FEMA Zone X is an area of moderate flooding potential and parcels in these areas are not subject to the flood insurance requirement as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, however it is not guaranteed that mortgage lenders would not require flood insurance. Mr. Grandfield discussed the Zoning Map Approval Criteria and staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment. Staff determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Town Plan, specifically Town Plan Natural Resources Objective 9.a which ensures the Town's floodplain ordinance is consistent with FEMA guidance and there are no other detrimental Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes impacts. Staff recommends that the Plamung Commission send a recommendation of approval to Town Council. At this point, Mr. Crrandfield turned the presentation over to Bill Ackman, Director, Department of Plan Review, to discuss TLOA-2014-0012 Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) Amendments, TLOA-2014-0008 Subdivision and Land Development Regulations (SLDR) and TLOA-2014-0011 Town Code Amendments as they were more technical engineering documents that would pertain more to developers and civil engineers. Mr. Ackman explained again, that these amendments are before the Commission due to a request from Loudoun County to FEMA to remap the County's floodplain via a grant through the Federal government. Leesburg is a Town within Loudoun County and FEMA would not allow the Town to opt out because it would have created 2 separate floodplain boundaries, one at the Town and one where the Town Corporate Limits meets the County Corporate Limits. There have been less than $120,000 of insurance claims in the zip codes surrounding Leesburg and closer to $32,000 in the Town's Corporate Limits. Due to this, FEMA and DCR had not requested that the Town update their regulations, but rather that the Town address some housekeeping issues. However, once Loudoun County updated their maps FEMA placed an unfunded mandate on the Town to make these changes, without any additional funds or resources, and update our ordinances to match the exact language of their model ordinances. Staff looked at FEMA's model ordinances and have worked in and massaged the language that FEMA and DCR wanted and also reviewed the language to determine that it was in the proper ordinance. As a result, some things that were in the DCSM have been transferred to the SLDR. There were some items that had not been addressed, with regard to housekeeping items such as how the data is stored in house and these have been included the amendments to the Town Code. Mr. Ackman gave an overview of the amendments as follows: TLOA-2014-0012 DCSM Amendments Overview • Storm drainage standards to ensure effective and safe passage of flood flows. • Section 5-400 changes consistent with requirements for Town participation in the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) Specific changes include: • Section 5-410 Applicability - Updated to define which construction requirements are necessary per DCR's Model Floodplain Ordinance, • Section 5-420 Policy on Use of Flood Plain Areas and Construction Requirements - Renamed and updated to include FEMA construction requirements per DCR's Model Floodplain Ordinance. Emergency Access requirements have been moved to Section 5- 421 • Section 5-421 Warning and Disclaimer — Moved to Section 5-422 and updated to utilize FEMA Model Ordinance language • Section 5-422 Processing of Subdivisions and Site Plans Within or Immediately adjacent to Floodplain — This section has moved to SLDR Section 7.02; updates were needed to reflect the new FEMA Maps and updated FEMA process Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes • Section 5-430 Preparation of Floodplain Studies — Language has been updated to reflect adoption of the new modeling techniques used in the new FEMA Maps. Language has also been updated to further clarify requirements to avoid confusion. • Section 5-430 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Requirements — Updates were needed to reflect the new FEMA Maps and updated FEMA processes. • Section 5-431 General — Section incorporated into SLDR Division 7 Section 7.03 and 7.04. These sections were also updated per DCR's Model Ordinance. • Section 5-432 Plans — Section incorporated into SLDR Division 7 Sections 7.03 and 7.04. These sections were also updated per DCR's Model Ordinance. • Section 5-440 Existing Construction in Floodplain — Section incorporated into SLDR Division 7 Sections 7.03 and 7.04. These sections were also updated per DCR's Model Ordinance TLOA-2014-0008 SLDR Amendments Overview • New Division 7 added covering Floodplain Specific changes include: • Division 3 (3.04, 3.10, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20) — Development — Section remains the same with exception of 50 to 100 acre changes for the need for minor floodplain studies • Division 7 Glossary — Glossary moved to Division 10 and revised with updated floodplain definitions per DCR's Model Floodplain Ordinance • Division 7 Floodplain — New division for floodplain • Division 7 (7.03 and 7.04) Required Contents of Existing Floodplain Studies/ Required Contents of Existing Floodplain Alteration Studies — These section was originally from DCSM Sections 5-431, 5-432, and 5-433 and contains updates regarding required existing floodplain studies. Updates were needed to reflect the new FEMA Maps and updated FEMA processes. • Division 10 Glossary — This section was originally Division 7. Floodplain definitions were revised for clarification and were updated per DCR's Model Ordinance TLOA-2016-0011 Town Code Amendments Overview • NFIP administrative requirements of the Town related to records, compliance, enforcement, and reporting • Not a subject of tonight/s public hearing (Council issue) At this time, Mr. Ackman turned the presentation over to Mr. Grandfield to discuss findings and staff recommendations. Mr. Grandfield explained that staff determined that the proposed floodplain regulations protect health, safety and welfare, are consistent with the Town Plan and stated purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, meet current federal requirements for participation in the NFIP, and better align Town floodplain regulations with Loudoun County and other nearby jurisdictions. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the Floodplain Program Amendments for the Zoning Ordinance, DCSM, and SLDR to Town Council with a recommendation of approval. Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Mr. Cnandfield concluded the presentation noting that staff was available to answer questions this evening, however he clarified that the floodplain limits are set by FEMA and detailed engineering studies. Any changes to the boundaries will need to be a result of a surveyed flood elevation certificate that a landowner can commission or by future floodplain studies. He also noted that due to a FEMA imposed deadline of February 17, 2017, staff recommends the Commission act on the amendments at this meeting. The Town Council public hearing is scheduled for February 14, 2017. Chairman Welsh Chamblin invited public comment and explained the appropriate process. Matt Everly, 104 Prospect Drive, SW, Leesburg, Virginia 20175, came forward noting that he had received notification of the public hearing as his property was located in a major floodplain. He explained that a year ago he had attended an information meeting sponsored by FEMA at Tuscarora High School where he met with FEMA representatives and was informed that his property was not in a floodplain. He expressed concern regarding the discrepancy and decreased property value. He noted that after severe storms there is standing water on his property which he felt was due to poor stormwater management. Ryan Beible, 42975 Spyder Place, South Riding, Virginia 20152, came forward noting that he was recently a contract purchaser for one of the properties on King Street across from where Don Knutson is doing his development. He expressed concern that he had to terminate the contract due to the floodplain residential use restrictions in this area and the negative impact on potential development and the Town's tax base. Deiter Meyer, 214 Andover Court, NE, Leesburg, VA, 20176 came forward as the representative for the property owner of the Barrister Building at 110 East Market Street. The parcel that he is studying for redevelopment is the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Barrister Building and is a separate parcel. The Barrister Building itself is not in the proposed minor floodplain. The language in the Ordinance as currently written precluded the building of pretty much anything on that property which is surrounded by other development and located in the heart of the downtown area. He met with Mr. Ackman who has crafted alternate language, Clause 3 under Section 711.83 which essentially does allow new construction providing it meets the underlying zoning requirements, which in this case is B-1 and H-1 Overlay requirements. He supported and encouraged the incorporation of this language into the ordinance. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional public comment. Seeing none, she solicited the Plamiing Commission members for clarifying questions. She explained, for the benefit of the new Commission members, that this was the time to get clarification on something expressed during staff s and/or an applicant's presentation as well as public comment expressed. Commissioner Kidder commented that she was a bit overwhelmed with all the additional information they received at the dais this evening, in particular the letter from Neely Law as she is a respected Environmentalist, and asked for clarification as to when the Commission is expected to act. i Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Chairman Walsh Chamblin explained that this item was already on Town Council's agenda for February 14th so it would be possible to continue discussion to their first meeting in February should the Commission choose to do so. Commissioner Robinson asked what the property address was for the property Mr. Beible spoke of Mr•. Beible responded that it was the Loudoun Cares property at 207 S King Street and 8B South Street. It is a weird property in that it is not a corner lot but fronts 2 streets. Commissioner Lanham asked if the entire Town Floodplain Overlay District, both Major and Minor Floodplain, is part of FEMA Floodplain. Mr. Ackman responded that the only portion that would be part of FEMA's Floodplain would be what FEMA mapped. Approximately 80% of the Minor Floodplain is part of FEMA's maps. The other 15% to 20% is based off of actual engineered floodplain studies that have been done as development occurred with the exception of approximately 3 areas that will need to be studied at the time of redevelopment. Commissioner Lanham asked if the NFIP covered properties in both the minor and major floodplain areas. Mr. Grandfreld clarified that these are FEMA studied areas. Some of them are Special Flood Hazard Areas for which insurance is required, others are located in Zone X which are not Special Flood Hazard Areas and do not necessarily require insurance to obtain a mortgage. Commissioner Babbin summarized that the Major Floodplain is dictated by FEMA and the Town has no choice, however the Minor Floodplain being included in the Flood Overlay District is not dictated by FEMA but has always been non-fomially regulated by the Town and asked if her summation was correct. Mr. Grandfreld answered that he believed it was. Mr. Ackman responded that is was but would add to that by saying that the Minor Floodplain FEMA studied is included on their maps. If a developer were to alter those areas staff would have to notify FEMA of those changes for a map revision. FEMA would not have to review the engineering calculations, that responsibility falls on the Town, however the map would need to be revised. Mr. Grandfield used one of the maps which displayed a stream that runs through the Country Club Subdivision which drains less than 640 acres, but more than 100 and would be in the Minor Floodplain Overlay District. This area was mapped by FEMA as Zone X so it is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area that would require insurance. However, since it is shown on the FEMA map anytime we receive an Alteration Study that would change that boundary, staff has to notify FEMA when the Town approves it. There is an area along Town Branch which is different as it was studied in detail by FEMA and was determined to be a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or AE) and as such mortgage companies will require the owner to purchase flood insurance. The FEMA Maps are not limited to Major Floodplain as many of the minor tributary areas were studied as well. Commissioner Babbin referenced an email from a resident whose was notified that a small portion of his property was now in a Minor Floodplain and his lender was requiring expensive flood insurance that was not required before. She asked if that could happen at the mortgage company's discretion. Mr. Grandfreld responded that he could not speak for the lenders. He stated further that there is nothing in the Town regulations that would require flood insurance. Commissioner Babbin asked for an example of a property that was not in a minor or major floodplain area before and will now be due to the new Flood Overlay District. Mr. Grandfreld explained that the site specific engineering studies have identified areas that drain 100 acres or Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes more which had not been identified by FEMA previously and will now fall into a floodplain area. Commissioner Babbin asked if there were existing residences located in those areas, and if so, how many. Mr. Grandfield responded that there were existing residences in some of those areas and he would have to check with other staff members to determine the number. Commissioner Babbin asked if the areas depicted on the map displayed that were circled in orange were not required by FEMA and the Town could eliminate those areas from the Overlay District without being in violation of anything FEMA has dictated. Mr. Grandfield answered that he did not believe that to be true. He did not feel that that it would be legal to regulate some streams that drain greater than 100 acres but not others. FEMA has mapped many of the streams that drain greater than 100 acres. The boundaries are on the map and the Town can't remove them. Mr. Ackman added that those areas circled in orange have had detailed, engineered studies that have been approved by the Town so there is floodplain on those properties today. Those boundaries have been dictated by hard engineering calculations and residences along those boundaries would fall under the same regulations today, whether mapped in the Overlay District or not, as they would in the future. Commissioner Babbin noted that a member of the public, in his comments to the Commission, stated that the Town's regulations are stricter than what FEMA requires. She asked if staff had a chart of what was proposed that did not exceed FEMA's requirements. Mr. Grandfield explained that our existing regulations have standards that provide a higher protection of safety than what the FEMA minimum was. This exists in the Ordinance today and FEMA does not allow a jurisdiction to go backwards so those same regulations have been carried over to the new ordinance. We do have standards that provide more safety for our citizens than required by FEMA. For example, FEMA will allow a property in a major floodplain to increase the flood elevation by up to 1 foot. The Town does not think this is a good idea or something that is good for our citizens. This standard was incorporated into our ordinance years ago. Commissioner Babbin clarified that she was asking if there was anything new being proposed tonight that is more restrictive than FEMA requirements. Mr. Ackman explained that within the DCSM and SLDR there are not. There may be some standards that are stricter on the Town itself. The Town had to codify what staff has to do and what reports need to be submitted to FEMA. This is stricter and is in the Town Code. In his opinion, the amendments have lessened the burden on the developer. There may be some of the new snapping that FEMA has done that shows a sliver of someone's property in floodplain where it had not been before, but in terms of the ordinances of what can and can't be done in a major or minor floodplain, staff has not added anything that would make it more stringent. Commissioner Babbin asked Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, if from a legal standpoint it would be correct to say that the Town has no option but to adopt the new ordinances. Ms. Caputo responded that it was her understanding that if the Town does not pass the required regulations the Town would lose its status within the NFIP. FEMA has contracted with approximately 90 insurance carriers that offer an equalized or standard rate for insurance which is much less expensive than obtaining flood insurance from a private company. If we don't meet FEMA's regulations the NFIP would not include the Town in their Flood Protection Program which would be ultimately detrimental to the Town's homeowners. Mr. Grandfield explained that the Town could be suspended fiom the program and there are 120 land owners who ilC Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes currently have flood insurance through the NFIP. Mr. Ackman commented that he had a conversation with a FEMA representative today who informed him that if the Town is suspended from the program thosel20 +/- property owner's mortgage companies could deem their mortgages to be in default. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification regarding the discrepancy in the numbers. Mr. Ackman reiterated that the Town does not require flood insurance. This is a mortgage company requirement. A lot of property owners had gotten mortgages prior to the FEMA Floodplain being looked at as closely as it is today. Most who have flood insurance have opted in themselves or acquired a mortgage more recently. There are also a number who have paid off their mortgages and flood insurance is not required or it is voluntary. If at some point they were to refinance or sell their home it would be up to the lender involved to determine if the risk involved would require flood insurance. Commissioner Babbin commented that these amendments would affect property values on those properties that were developed prior to these requirements. Mr. Ackman responded that the restrictions have always existed along the major floodplain, and in some cases the floodplain area was even larger. If the Town does not adopt an Overlay District, FEMA will still have their maps and mortgage companies will still utilize those maps. There may be 3 or 4 that FEMA didn't map that may or may not be required to have flood insurance. The Floodplain Overlay District is it -relevant to flood insurance due to the underlying maps created by FEMA. Commissioner Babbin asked if staff had a response for Mr. Everly regarding the issue with the FEMA representative telling him that his property was not in a floodplain and the Town telling him that his property is in a major floodplain area. Mr. Grandfield responded that he had spoken with Mr. Everly at the public information session held on Tuesday night and staff is unable to identify why there was a difference in the answer given by FEMA and our findings. Staff has not altered in any way the FEMA Floodplain Boundaries given to us by FEMA which would have been the same ones used at the FEMA meeting he attended at Tuscarora High School a year ago. Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. Everly how long he has owned the property. Mr. Everly responded that he has owned the property for 6 years and recently refinanced in October of last year and has never been required to purchase flood insurance. Mr. Grandfield clarified that his house is not in floodplain, just a tiny portion of his property which was shown on the 2001 FEMA maps and his mortgage company must have been comfortable with the limits of the floodplain not reaching his house and did not require that he purchase flood insurance. There are processes that land owners have should their mortgage company say they need flood insurance and the land owner disagrees. Mr. Ackman explained that there is an elevation certificate process called LOMA through FEMA. He noted that he has been involved in several cases where a land owner has come to the Town requesting an elevation certificate. In these instances, the land owner has paid for a survey which shows that there is floodplain on their property but not at the building and they have told him that as long as they can provide proof that the flood elevation does not reach their building and they have about a foot or two difference fi•om the water surface elevation their particular mortgage company would not require them to purchase flood insurance. Commissioner Babbin asked if there were any properties where the actual residential building was not designated as being in a floodplain and is now. Mr. Grandfield responded that he did not know the answer to that question. It was his belief that staff had done some research but did not have the numbers with him but felt he could not say that there were not structures that were not 11 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes in floodplain and are now as he believed there are a few. Commissioner Babbin asked if that information was available or easily obtained. Mr. Ackman explained that it would be difficult to obtain that information as the old FEMA maps do not show property lines or structures, they just show gray areas and approximate where the stream is. Structures on the new FEMA maps are difficult to decipher and the maps do not show property lines. In the Flood Overly District staff was able to drill it down through GIS and be more particular as to where the floodplain actually is. Commissioner Babbin asked if any residents have contacted Town staff because their structure was not in floodplain previously and now is. Both Mr. Grandfield and Mr. Ackman responded that they had no knowledge of any such complaint. Commissioner Babbin referenced an email sent to the Planning Commission that asked if trees could be planted in the floodplain and asked staff to address this question. Mr. Ackman replied that trees can be planted in minor floodplain, however FEMA does not allow this in major floodplain areas. Staff has had discussions on this with Loudoun County to determine if this is something they would allow. Loudoun County has a very specific Floodplain Management staff and they will do an internal alteration study in house if they are approached by a group that would like to do a planting plan in this area of the floodplain. The Town does not have the resources to do this. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification on the Barrister Building parking lot development and floodplain issues and the language recommended by Deiter Meyer. Mr. Grandfield explained that this was an area that contained underground piping that carries a percentage of the flood flow. There is not a natural or man-made channel on the surface and some of the 100 year flood flows over the parking lot of the property he was speaking of. It is generally at a depth of less than a foot and in that location where it is aheady developed the recommended provision would allow for a commercial building to be built above it provided it met several conditions such as the placement of.electrical and HVAC systems not being below the flood elevation. Commission Babbin asked if this was a unique situation. Mr. Grandfield answered that is not which is why the provision was added to allow this to happen elsewhere in the minor floodplain areas as well. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked how existing redevelopment applications in major floodplain areas will be regulated with the adoption of the Flood Plain Overlay District. Mr. Grandfield responded that it was his understanding the Town has entered into a contract if they have done a rezoning and accepted proffers and the landowner has a vested right to continue with that development, however they still will need to meet floodplain standards. Commissioner Welsh Chamblin asked if adoption of the Floodplain Overlay District would prohibit a new development application in a downtown major floodplain area. Mr. Grandfield responded that it would not as the Town had adopted Floodplain Regulation Amendments in 2011that specifically dealt with the downtown area between South Street and Harrison Street on the north side of the Town Branch Channel. Council adopted special standards for regulations for land use in that area because it is already fully developed and there are opportunities for redevelopment. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked how primary and secondary flood plain would impact the H- 1 guidelines. Mr. Grandfield explained that both regulations would be in effect as it would be subject to the base zoning as well as the Floodplain Overlay District Zoning. In the proposed 12 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes floodplain regulations there is a provision regarding historic structures and there are special standards for historic structures and some provisions allowed by FEMA and the NFIP. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying questions. Commissioner Robinson asked if the definitions pulled out of Section 18 and put into Section 7.11 should be duplicated in Section 18. Mr. Grandfield answered the definitions were moved, as recommended by our current Zoning Administrator, for specialty situations such as Overlay Districts. This was done to make the ordinance more user friendly. Commissioner Robinson wished to add definitions for "Floodplain Hazard" and "Overland Relief' and to clarify that if flood waters can't go through the channel man-made or otherwise, or buried culvert, etc. it must find a way to go over the land. Commissioner Robinson also asked to add an example of the calculation for density to show how net area is derived. Commissioner Robinson referenced Section 7.11.7 regarding Prohibited Activities and the meeting of appropriate DCSM provisions. She requested that the most common provisions or the place in the DCSM where these provisions are listed be included. Mr. Grandfield responded that staff could do this. Commissioner Robinson referenced Section 7.11.8.B.1 Permitted Uses in a Major Floodplain noting that it lists forestry. Forestry is not only the planting but the harvesting and replanting of trees and questions why it is in major floodplain as FEMA prohibits this. Mr. Grandfield explained that FEMA is concerned with new trees. The model that they did already accounted for existing forest and these trees can be replaced. FEMA is concerned with new trees, for as they grow they will displace water and if there are a number of new trees this could cause water to be disbursed onto adjacent properties. Commissioner Robinson commented that the language was confusing and recommend further defining forestry or forestry uses for clarification purposes. Commissioner Robinson noted that in 7.11.8.13.2 and B.3 allowable uses in major floodplains included day camps and play areas and expressed concern regarding flash flooding and recommend excluding these uses from the list of permitted uses. Commissioner Robinson moved to Item 5, in the same section, which prohibited the storage of gasoline, fuels, and chemicals to be stored in sheds and expressed concern regarding the ability to police this regulation. Mr. Ackman responded that this is a FEMA regulation that was mandated to be included in out ordinance. Commissioner Robinson move to Item 8, in the same section, and asked for the definition of a rooftop connection. Mr. Ackman explained that instead of piping water directly into a storm sewer system it is disconnected so that it falls down from the gutter to the ground and dissipates and spreads. Commissioner Robinson felt this should be clarified and examples given as most people are not familiar with the tern. Mr. Ackman responded that he was hesitant to do so as this was a definition within the "Clearing House" under Best Management Practices. It is defined in the State Code. Ms. Caputo clarified that it was defined in the Virginia Administrative Code. 13 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Babbin suggested adding language such as "as defined in" and include a citation of where the reference can be found. Mr. Grandfield answered they could do so in this Section. Commissioner Robinson moved to Item 10, in the same section and asked if it should read "a building" or "any building" used solely for residential. Mr. Grandfield explained that these are the existing regulations adopted in 2011 to allow redevelopment of that area on the north side of Town Branch and confirmed that her question was whether there was a difference between the use of "a building" and "any building". He felt they were one in the same, however it is the Zoning Administrator that made that determination. Commissioner Robinson referenced Section 7.11.10.0 and asked if language should follow such as "unharmed" or "affected". The language seems declarative. Mr. Grandfield responded that staff would review this. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification of Section 7.11.11 - Factors to be Satisfied for a Variance. Mr. Grandfield explained that this pertained to an application that had been denied and went before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the standards come directly from FEMA. Commissioner Robinson referred to Attachment 11 of the staff report, Article III — Floodplain and Section 14-49 - Penalty for Violations and asked where the penalties were listed. Mr. Grandfield answered that they could be found in the Town Code. Commissioner Robinson asked where in the Town Code. Mr. Ackman responded that it was section 14-49 Penalties for Violations. Ms. Caputo added that it then refers back to the Zoning Ordinance and State Code. Zoning Violations can be civil violations and monetary violations depending on what the jurisdiction adopts. The Town of Leesburg has adopted civil remedies for zoning ordinance violations which include fines and avenues of abatement. Commissioner Robinson recommended that they be included or clarified. Ms. Caputo noted that she would look into re- wording this section. Commissioner Babbin commented that it was her understanding, at least within the County, that one of the major uses for floodplain are recreation fields such as soccer and baseball fields. She expressed concern regarding eliminating these uses as she felt there were appropriate for these areas. Commissioner Babbin asked if the proposed amendments would affect the amount of land covered by floodplain for the Raflo Park area on Harrison Street and if the Virginia Village property was in floodplain. Mr. Grandfield responded that his recollection of the property line for Virginia Village is that it abuts to the flat area adjacent to the stream. There is some floodplain on an unused portion of the area that abuts to the park. Commissioner Babbin asked if the proposed Floodplain Overlay District expands or decreases floodplain in this area. Mr. Ackman explained that Crescent Place had conducted a Floodplain Alternation Study to reclaim some of the land for development. This required that they model the floodplain from Tuscarora through Raflo Park. Once that portion of the construction was done it was as -built and sent to FEMA. He felt that there would be a map revision coming out in the next 90 days or so based on that study. As FEMA updates their maps, the Town will update theirs accordingly. Mr. 14 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Grandfield added that the Town would not have approved a Floodplain Alteration Study that would have pushed water onto another person's property. That study would have had to demonstrate that they weren't increasing the floodplain without that offsite property owner granting an easement. Commissioner Babbin asked what Virginia Village would be permitted to have if they were to redevelop. For example, would they be allowed to have restaurants or stacked seating areas overlooking the stream? Mr. Grandfield responded that anything that would be within the floodplain, such as piers, would have to be evaluated and demonstrate that it wouldn't cause an increase in flood height. This would fall under the Special Exception category and ultimately be decided by Town Council. Commissioner Babbin asked if it would be prohibited by FEMA. Mr. Ackman responded that it could be as this is a major floodplain and to cantilever over that floodplain would require FEMA's approval. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying questions. Commissioner Lanham referenced Section 5-420 noting that there are regulations that require separation of 15 horizontal feet and 2 vertical feet between the floodplain if it is residential noting his assumption that this was not FEMA mandated but rather an additional safety measure mandated by the Town. The same separation exists for non-residential, however there is language that allows the director to modify that to allow non-residential buildings to be built closer together provided certain measures such as flood -proofing are met. He requested language that addressed redevelopment of a non-residential where there is mixed use such as a commercial use on the first floor and residential above. Mr. Ackman responded that both rules are applied. Crescent Place is a great example. There are some commercial front buildings with residential above, however the opening for the residential is through a garage in the back allowing the residential separation to be maintained and the commercial separation to be modified. Commissioner Lanham referenced concerns expressed by Mr. Beible regarding the Loudoun Cares property. Mr. Ackman explained that this was a different situation. The flood elevation can go over 12 inches in some places which can prevent emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Kidder commented that she had noted that other Commission members have made requests of staff and commented that she would like to have a response to Neely Law's concerns expressed in her email as well as a more thorough explanation on the impact of the revisions Mr. Grandfield mentioned at the beginning of his presentation. Commissioner Barnes clarified that no changes can be made to the Floodplain Map even if they were to continue action to the next meeting. Mr. Ackman replied that to do so would jeopardize the Town's approvals with FEMA and strongly recommended that no changes be made to the maps. Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that while changes to the maps can't be made, requests for additional information and potential changes made by the Commission could result is some text alterations. Mr. Ackman responded that some of the language changes could be made while others could not. 15 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional questions. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 8:58 pm and asked the Conunissions members to comment on whether they would be comfortable acting tonight or continuing to the next meeting. Commissioners Barnes, Robinson, Lanham, Walker were comfortable with either option. Commissioner Babbin wished to take action at this meeting as she didn't feel there were any substantive changes that could be made. Commissioner Kidder requested another meeting. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited comments and discussion from the Commission members. Commissioner Robinson again requested the addition of the definitions she discussed earlier. Commissioner Kidder noted that she would appreciate the clarifications they would get with another meeting. Commissioner Barnes asked about the language request by Mr. Meyer and if it had been included. Mr. Crrandfield responded that it had. The Commission determined to carry discussion and action on the proposed Floodplain Regulation Amendments to their February 2, 2017 meeting. Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked the public for their input as well as staff for working with the public to address their concerns. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None STAFF DISCUSSION None 16 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes rA]_117: 1&4 M M_V H-2 Guidelines Process and Timeframe Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that the Commission had received a memo in their agenda packet which outlines the proposed H-2 program review and process going forward. This would begin with a joint orientation meeting between the Planing Commission and BAR on February 0" at 7:00 pm. At this meeting some of the parameters would be set and a working group would be formed to work on the review on how to proceed forward with the H-2 Guidelines. It is proposed by Town staff that the working group consist of 2 Planning Commission members and 2 BAR members to serve jointly on this with regular reports back at each meeting on the status. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, clarified that there will be a kick off meeting that includes all the BAR and Planning Commission Members on February 6`11 . At that meeting an overview will be given as the new members might not understand what the H- 2 is. Staff will facilitate discussion of this issue and from there each body is to appoint 2 to 3 members to serve on a working group with staff. Status reports will be given at each body's regular business meetings as to the progress being made. Input is welcome at any time and other Planning Commission and BAR members are welcome to attend the working group meetings. Town Council has asked that staff report back by June 27, 2017 so we will need to have our recommendations in order by then. The kick-off meeting will be on the BAR's normally scheduled work session meeting and the concluding report out and recommendations will be at a Planning Commission meeting scheduled in either late May or early June. The Commission was agreeable to the joint meeting on February 6`" and Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked for members who wished to volunteer to serve on the working group. Commissioner Kidder and Commissioner Robinson volunteered to be the Planning Commission representatives and Commissioner Lanham volunteered to be a back-up. NEW BUSINESS Elections Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that the Commission's Bylaws require that the Commission elect officers at the first meeting in January with the full board and this is the first meeting with the newly appointed full board. She explained the procedure and opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Commissioner Kidder nominated Chairman Welsh Chamblin Commissioner Barnes seconded the nomination. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional nominations. Seeing none, she closed the nominations and called for the vote. Vote: 7-0 Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the floor for nominations for Vice -Chair. Commissioner Barnes nominated Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Kidder seconded the nomination. 17 Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional nominations. Commissioner Lanham nominated Commissioner Babbin. Commissioner Walker seconded the nomination. Chairman Welsh Chamblin polled the members for their vote. Commissioners Barnes, Kidder, Robinson, and Chairman Welsh Chamblin voted for Commissioner Robinson. Commissioners Lanham, Babbin, and Walker voted for Commissioner Babbin. Commissioner Robinson won the vote 4-3 Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the floor for nominations for Parliamentarian. Commissioner Babbin nominated Commissioner Lanham. Commissioner Robinson seconded the nomination. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional nominations. Commissioner Barnes nominated Commissioner Babbin. Commissioner Babbin respectfully declined. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional nominations. Seeing none she called for the vote. Vote: 7-0 Boards and Commissions Liaisons Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that Town Council decided at their January 9th meeting to no longer have liaisons to Boards and Commissions. One of the things the Planning Commission does in January is to select the Boards and Commissions they would like to serve on as a liaison. She explained why the Commission has had liaisons in the past and asked if the Commission would still like to continue the practice, and if so what Boards or Commissions should be included. The Commissioner members discussed this and it was determined to discontinue the practice of having a formal liaison represent the Planning Commission at the various Boards and Commissions meetings with the exception of the SRTC (Standing Residential Traffic Committee) as this Commission allows the liaisons to have a vote. Going forward, the Planning Commission will be given the upcoming agendas for the BAR, COPA, EAC, EDC, Parks & Ree and Tree Commission. The Planning Commission members can individually determine if they feel there is something pertinent to the Commission being discussed and whether or not to attend. Staff will notify the various Boards and Commissions of the Planning Commissions new policy regarding liaisons. Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that Commissioner Robinson had indicated that she would continue to act as liaison to the SRTC and asked if any other member was interested in doing so. M Leesburg Planning Commission January 19, 2017 Minutes Seeing none, she asked if there were any objections to having Commissioner Robinson continue in this role. No objections were noted and Commissioner Robinson will continue as the Planning Commission liaison to the SRTC. Bylaws Chairman Welsh Charnblin noted that there are some changes that heed to be made to the bylaws. Currently the bylaws outline what the agenda should be and there is no longer a Council representative and Commission members will no longer be reporting back on other Boards & Commissions meetings. This will require the removal of 2 items on the agenda. Additionally language will need to be modified to reflect the Planning Commission's decision to no longer have formal liaisons to the various Boards and Commissions. The bylaws will also need to be modified to clarify disclosure of meetings. These changes will be discussed at their next meeting on February 2, 2017. Tracking Chart Chairman Welsh Chamblin requested that there be a review of the Planning Commission Tracking Request Chart as it needs to be updated and a determination needs to be made regarding remaining items as to whether there is consensus amongst the Commission to complete these requests. Commissioner Robinson requested a status update on the Monopole Commission Permit Application. Ms. Berry -Hill reviewed the Planning Commission action which was to deny the Commission Permit and to send a recommendation of denial to Town Council on the accompanying Special Exception Application. The Applicant has filed an appeal of the Commission Permit to meet the 10 day requirement in place for submission of the appeal. The Applicant is still considering what to do and may choose to withdraw the Commission Permit Application and the Appeal. Other actions have been proposed and staff is working with the Applicant and will continue to update the Commission. In the meantime, the Appeal and the Special Exception is scheduled for the February 14t" meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:48 pm App�oved by: Q..i • J arqn Cicalese, mission Clerk ..Q�l C ndsay W h Chamblin, Chair 19