Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 16 17 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2017 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, March 16, 2017 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present included Susan Berry -Hill, Irish Grandfield, Bill Ackman, Lee Phillips, 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, Kidder, Lanham, Robinson, and Walker ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Barnes Second: Commissioner Kidder Commissioner Robinson moved to amend the agenda to move TLPF-2016-0013 Potomac Station Marketplace Street Name Approval ahead of the Montfair public hearing. Vote: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 2, 2017 Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0-1 (Barnes abstained as he was not at the meeting) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Commissioner Robinson disclosed a meeting on March 13th with the applicant, the applicant's attorney, and staff to discuss the background and philosophy, and answer some questions regarding soil, the through roadway, and EPA credits. Commissioner Lanham disclosed a meeting on March 13th with the developer of Montfair and their representative and discussed items similar to those discussed at Commissioner Robinson's meeting. Commissioner Walker disclosed a meeting with the Montfair developer and their attorney regarding questions on the background of the land. 1 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she was looking forward to a great meeting and welcomed members of the public in attendance. PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLZM-2014-0009 and TLTA-2014-0002 Montfair (formerly Sycolin Commons) Public Hearing - Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:07 pm and invited staff to make their presentation. Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner explained that there'were two applications before the Planning Commission; a Town Plan Amendment and a rezoning. A rezoning application has to be compliant with the Town Plan in order to be approved. There are rezoning applications that are not compliant with a section of the Town Plan and an applicant will request a Town Plan Amendment jointly with the rezoning application. The first decision for the Commission is whether they wish to support the Town Plan Amendment. The Town Plan Amendment deals with policy and the Land Use Policy Map. In this instance the Applicant is requesting to replace the Community Commercial planned land use with Medium Density on the Land Use Policy Map. The subject property is approximately 7.4 acres located on the east side of Sycolin Road across from Hope Parkway. Beauregard Estates is to the east, Stratford to the west, the Bypass to the north, and the Battlefield Intersection to the south. The land is wooded, currently vacant, and contains the remnants of a non -historic house and out building. The existing Land Use Policy Map designates this property, the adjacent property to the north, and other land further down the east side of Sycolin Road as Community Office. Other land designations in the area are "Low Density Residential" and include Stratford and Beauregard Estates. Oaklawn and some other areas are planned for other uses such as "Office/Light Intensity". The purpose of the Community Office category is to help provide for diverse employment needs and to provide some of the needed retail. Acceptable uses include office, hotels, conference centers, and higher education. Intensity for this category is a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60, no more than 20% retail, and at least 5% for well integrated outdoor use. The property is currently zoned R-1 which allows 1 unit per acre. The surrounding property to the east, Beauregard Estates, is R-2 which allows up to 2 units per acre. The Stratford development located across Sycolin Road is zoned Planned Residential Community (PRN). To the north is 0-1 (Office) and to the south B-3 (Business District) and R-8 which allows 8 units per acre. Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Existing Town Plan policy guidance for the South East Planning Area states that parcels on the east side of Sycolin Road are to be developed as Community Office subject to providing appropriate buffers, consolidating the undeveloped parcels on the east side of Sycolin Road, and aligning access with Hope Parkway. The proposed application meets only one third of these 3 criterion. Mr. Grandfield summarized the Zoning Ordinance Approval Criteria, staff's findings, and recommendations as follows: • The application does not meet Zoning Ordinance criteria to justify approval. • There is a lack of evidence that residential use is preferable to office use at this site. • Conflicts with the Town Plan Land Use and Economic Development policies. • Creates a precedent for conversion of land planned for employment purposes to residential use. • The Fiscal Impact Analysis does not accurately compare a reasonable commercial use on this property to the medium density residential use requested. • Staff recommends denial of the Town Plan Amendment based on the findings in the Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report dated March 16, 2017. • If the Town determines that residential use is appropriate at this location, staff recommends that the Planned Land Use be Low Density Residential and that the adjoining parcel to the north be included in that designation to provide a more harmonious land use with the surrounding development. It was determined to solicit clarifying questions from the Planning Commission members on the Town Plan Amendment prior to proceeding with the rezoning presentation. Commissioner Kidder asked if there were any findings that the land was contaminated due to its prior use as an automobile junkyard. Mr. Grandfield responded that there was nothing submitted with either application that would indicate that the site was contaminated. Commissioner Robinson asked if a Town Plan Amendment would still be needed if the site were to be zoned "Low Density Residential". Mr. Grandfield responded that an amendment would be required. He explained that he was of the opinion that community office was an appropriate use for this site as the parcel to the north is also in the same category. Council, in 2012, had a discussion regarding this parcel and chose the Community Office designation based upon the zoning of the parcel to the north and neighborhood commercial zoning of the property to the south. Commission Kidder asked Mr. Grandfield to explain what Community Office might look like to the adjacent neighbors in terms of height and visual impact. Mr. Grandfield explained that he would need the specific zoning however, he believed that it could be a 3 story building, or higher, with a special exception. It could have significant visual impact on the neighboring properties and design would be a key element to consider. Commissioner Lanham asked when and what led Council to change the planned land use to Community Office. Mr. Grandfield answered that it was 2012 and Council believed it to be the 3 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes correct designation due to the office use to the north and the idea that commercial uses were all along the east side of Sycolin Road between the Bypass and Town limits. Commissioner Lanham referenced the Land Use Policy Map displayed earlier and noted that the Sycolin Center/Walgreen's sites were zoned Low Density Residential and asked if staff was basing their evaluation on the Land Use Policy Map or if they were they also considering the prevailing land use pattern. Mr. Grandfield explained that those properties had been zoned "Low Density Residential" since the Town Plan was adopted in 2005. The Land Use Policy Map is a long range plan for development within the Town. Neighborhood retail is a permitted use in a low density residential development. Additionally, Planned Residential Communities (PRC) are largely residential but may have a commercial component to support them. Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification on how the townhomes at Oaklawn came to be developed as the property was zoned for light industrial. Mr. Grandfield explained that the area had been planned for office/light industrial use due to its proximity to the airport. Council approved a rezoning application to allow the townhome development within that designation in the early 2000's. Commissioner Babbin asked if the Sycolin Center retail was in conflict with low density residential zoning. Mr. Grandfield answered that it was not as low density residential can be part of a planned residential community which are largely residential but still provide some neighborhood retail services. Commissioner Babbin asked which parcels, if any, designated in yellow on the Land Use Policy Map were vacant. Mr. Grandfield responded that it was his understanding that they were all developed however, there were some additional multi -family units approved approximately 2 to 3 years ago that have not yet been built. Commissioner Babbin confirmed that the proposed site is zoned R-1 and asked if a developer would be able to build a 1 unit per acre residential development without a rezoning and/or Town Plan Amendment. Mr. Grandfield answered that it could be built by -right and would not require a rezoning or Town Plan Amendment. Commissioner Babbin noted that the site was a very steep hilly area and asked if Beauregard Estates had similar topography. Mr. Grandfield replied that Beauregard Estates is an elevated area with a lot of slopes within it however, he was not able to comment if the slopes were the same as the subject parcel. Commission Babbin asked if low density residential or commercial office were practical solutions due to the topography of the site. Mr. Grandfield explained that there would need to be grading for the low density residential development as well but did not think it would be as extensive as what was being proposed for medium density residential. With regard to a commercial office use he noted that they would need to cut and fill. Depending on the design it could be a dramatic cut and fill or a series of terraces. 4 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Babbin asked if low density residential was built by -right would the Town still have control over the degree of grading. Mr. Grandfield responded that a grading plan would need to be approved by the Town as well as stormwater management, site distance. Commissioner Babbin asked how the by -right low density development would affect the Town Plan in relation to the undeveloped parcels. Mr. Grandfield opined that this parcel should be developed consistently with the parcel to the north and that an appropriate Town Plan Amendment would address those 2 parcels in tandem. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying questions. Seeing none, she asked Mr. Grandfield to continue with his presentation on the rezoning application TLZM-2014-0009. Mr. Grandfield explained that this was a request to rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential Estate (R-1) to Planned Residential Neighborhood (PRN) to allow the development of 62 townhouses. The Concept Plan was discussed and it was noted that there are 2 entrance points and a reservation for inter -parcel access to the undeveloped parcel to the north. Mr. Grandfield discussed the following compliance criterion and staff's analysis as follows: • Density — The proposed density is not justified as it does little to protect natural resources, provide design amenities, provide affordable housing, or meet compatibility requirements. • Community Design — Staff does not believe the proposal meets community design objectives as it is not in scale with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, has significantly different massing than other residential developments in the area, does not promote safe use of all modes of transportation, and will have a negative visual impact on surrounding neighborhoods. • Site Design — The grading/ retaining walls on the proposed hillside development doesn't mimic natural terrain or preserve many trees. Massing is also a concern as the large retaining walls create massing not commonly found in Leesburg. • Building Design — Staff finds that the design guidelines submitted contain sufficient detail to ensure a quality of design consistent with recent developments in Town. The massing of the buildings is an issue relative to neighborhood compatibility and the view of the hillside development. • Traffic — The development will generate traffic however, it will not be problematic as the Level of Service (LOS) will continue to be a "C" or better • Parking — There are 155 spaces required and 214 provided. There are 2 spaces in each driveway and 1 space in each garage with 28 total common spaces distributed in 4 areas. • Stormwater Management — Staff believes that conceptually the overall stormwater management plan is feasible; the details will be worked out at site plan. However, there are ongoing concerns about some aspects of the proposed conceptual stormwater management. Concerns include the inadequate access to storm drainage and BMPs. Staff recommends the Village Green be put on the Concept Development Plan and the stormwater management pond be removed. • Landscaping — Meets the minimum requirements. • Open Space — The required amount of open space is 25% and 40% is provided. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes • Active Recreation — The requirement is 1.24 acres. The Applicant is proposing 0.36 acres plus $1,000 per unit. There is an additional 0.32 acres possible (total of 0.68 acres) with underground stormwater detention. • Fiscal Impact - Staff has several concerns about the Fiscal Impact Analysis that was prepared for this project. The study concludes a net fiscal gain of $377,000 over twenty years and staff questions the comparative assumptions for office use. • Fiscal Impact to HOA — There are significant maintenance costs associated with the proposed development (retaining walls, underground storm water management, etc.) The Applicant has proffered $30,000 starter money for HOA retaining wall maintenance and there is a dedicated yearly HOA budget item. The conditional approval letter for underground detention requires the developer to escrow the full amount for maintenance and replacement. • Unresolved Staff Review Comments — There are a number of unresolved issues from staff's review of the sixth submission and include: ■ The use is inconsistent with the Town Plan and the proposal fails to meet several Community Design and Economic Development objectives. ■ The 6 modification requests do not meet the Town of Leesburg Zoning Ordinance approval standard. ■ The Applicant should clarify or revise the concept plan, elevations, proffers and design guidelines as they are misleading. ■ The Typical Lot Layout needs to be revised ■ The HVAC details are insufficient. ■ There are problems with the street tree location along Sycolin Road. ■ There is inadequate access to the top of the retaining wall to maintain storm drainage ditch. ■ Other minor corrections. Mr. Grandfield moved on to discuss proffers. The Applicant has proffered to substantial conformance with the Concept Development Plan, the establishment and maintenance of a Homeowners Association, stormwater management, energy conservation, tree preservation, as well as contributions for school capital facilities, offsite transportation improvements, and fire and rescue. Additional proffers include offsite tree planting for adjoining landowners in Beauregard Estates, and an unspecified capital facilities contribution of $2,918.73 per dwelling unit, installation of artwork onsite, and a public art contribution of $45,000 to be used at the discretion of Town Council. Proffer issues remain including substantial conformance commitments are lacking, a commitment to Village Green/underground detention has not been made, and some minor edits. Mr. Grandfield explained that the Planned Development Approval Criteria included nineteen separate criterion related to such things as Town Plan conformity; health, safety, and welfare, neighborhood compatibility, adequate public facilities, traffic, and open space requirements and staff did not believe the majority of these criterion have been met. D Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Mr. Grandfield concluded his presentation with a recommendation of denial for the following reasons: • An alternate use and/or design could better preserve trees and mimic natural topography. • The plan results in more residences in the Airport Overlay District. • The site design is incompatible with the surrounding area. • There is a significant financial burden on the HOA. • Unresolved staff review comments. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Walker asked for clarification regarding the necessity for the access road reservation. Mr. Grandfield explained that there is not sufficient spacing or site distance for the northern parcel to establish an ingress/egress directly onto Sycolin Road and, due to safety issues, will need to share an entrance where there is a traffic signal at Hope Parkway. Commissioner Babbin referenced retaining wall maintenance costs and asked how long a retaining wall would last before it had to be replaced completely. Mr. Grandfield responded that, according to the Applicant, it would be approximately fifty years before the walls would need reconstruction or significant work however, there are maintenance requirements that happen on a much more frequent basis. Commissioner Babbin asked if the same type of retaining wall would be needed if it were developed under the current R-1 zoning. Mr. Grandfield explained that it would depend on the Applicant's design but it would not be cost effective for the Applicant to construct the same type of retaining wall. There would be individual grading for the residential units, as well as access, travel ways and either flat pads for the house to be built on or stepped up the hillside. Bill Ackman, Director Plan Review, explained that it is difficult to determine the type of retaining walls that would be used for R-1 development without looking at a design. It was his opinion that the houses would be separated by a public road with a cul-de-sac. It is very likely that there would be a need for some retaining walls, but not nearly as many nor as high as those proposed. Commissioner Babbin asked if the proffer for public art would only be available for that purpose or would Council have discretion to utilize those funds for other purposes. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, responded that she would need to review the proffer to determine if Council would have that flexibility. This proffer may not be acceptable for legal reasons. Under Section 15.22303 of the State Code the Town must determine if the proffer is reasonable. There does not have to be a specific nexus between the proffer and the rezoning. Commissioner Lanham asked if the application meets the parking requirements. Mr. Grandfield answered that it exceeds the parking requirements. Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification on stormwater management. Mr. Grandfield explained that the Applicant has asked to have the option of either a stormwater pond or an underground detention system. Staff has asked for a clarification in the proffers and on the Concept Development Plan. As worded currently, the proffer states that should the underground VA Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes detention facility be approved, then they would do the Village Green. The underground detention facility was conditionally approved in October by the Town's Department of Public Works. Commissioner Lanham asked if the underground detention system was approved under a Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) waiver. Mr. Ackman explained that underground detention systems in residential neighborhood are reviewed carefully due to concerns regarding cost, maintenance and location. The Applicant has agreed to the condition of approval requiring them to escrow 100% of replacement costs and twenty years of maintenance costs. Commissioner Lanham asked if there were conditions in place to insure that maintenance will be done. Mr. Ackman answered that proof of maintenance will be required. Staff also required an underground concrete vault as they tend to last fifty to one hundred years. Commissioner Lanham asked if there would be a system in place to ensure the retaining walls are inspected routinely. Mr. Ackman explained that the initial construction of the wall would require a building permit from the County which will require that the County's Structural Engineers inspect the structure to ensure that it meets all building codes and design criteria. Commissioner Lanham referenced the conceptual grading plan displayed earlier and asked if an easement would be required above the wall. Mr. Ackman responded that was still outstanding as there are some cases where public utilities go through those walls. The wall would not have a public easement on it as it is not the Town's intention to maintain the wall. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for additional clarifying questions. Seeing none, she invited the Applicant to make their presentation. Andrew Painter, Land Use Attorney, Walsh Colucci, Representative for the Applicant, Park Street Beauregard Development L. L.C., noted that he was joined by several members of their team including Christine Gleckner, Sr. Land Use Planner, who will also be presenting. He will be discussing some general planning concepts and then turn it over to Ms. Gleckner to discuss some of the specific mechanics of the application. Mr. Painter began with a brief history, noting that Ray Schupp, a Principal of Park Street Beauregard Development, had purchased two properties; the property where Walgreens is located and the subject property. This was to be developed as a mixed use integrated community however, due to the decline in the residential market the decision was made to develop the commercial aspect first. Key project drivers include a legacy of strength, dedication, permanence, and the desire to design the site as a gateway development into the Town, compatible with adjacent residential and commercial properties. Additionally, the development must be beneficial to the Town from a traffic impact, fiscal impact, and design perspective. Planning considerations include a less than prime office market and retail site, design benefits, and the existing shopping center. It is the Applicant's position that residential is more compatible with the adjacent established neighborhoods and this project provides the best alternative of doing so. The have reached out to the Beauregard Estates community and have individually visited each of the 10 homes that back up to the site two time. In addition, they Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes provided written communication. They have also met with the residents of the Stratford development and he was of the opinion that the discussions were relatively positive. Mr. Painter also discussed the site, design elements, open space amenities, and storm water management before turning the presentation over to Ms. Gleckner. Ms. Gleckner displayed a copy of the concept plan and commented that it was their feeling that they have proposed a very well designed development with a dramatic look and feel that meets the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance for exceptional and superior design in the planned communities. Ms. Gleckner discussed the non-financial commitments which include design guidelines, Village Green and Tot Lot, promenade walkway, 2 pergola seating areas, bus shelter, solar streetlights, traffic signal upgrade, tree save area/tree preservation, on-site public art, and provisions for inter -parcel access to the north and south. Although staff mentioned these she did not feel that they had given justice to what the Applicant is doing above and beyond the standard and that is their justification for the density requested. Ms. Gleckner moved on to discuss the monetary contributions as follows: Schools - $742,400, Capital Facilities - $181,000, Parks & Recreation - $62,000, Off-site Transportation - $121,600, Fire & Rescue - $7,400, Public Art - $45,000, and Adjacent Landscaping/Tree Fund - $30,000; totaling $1,189,400. Ms. Gleckner noted that most of the outstanding issues referenced in the staff report are technical in nature and the Applicant will be able to correct those. They would like to include comments received from the Planning Commission as they prepare their next submission. She noted that the Applicant is not in agreement with staff's characterization of the requested modifications and explained that the modifications stem from the proposed design and not driven by attempts to maximize density. Ms. Gleckner concluded her presentation noting that the Applicant is looking forward to working with staff and the Planning Commission on this application. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for clarifying questions for the Planning Commission members. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification regarding which units had the rear open porches removed. Mr. Painter responded that they were removed from the stick immediately facing Beauregard Estates. Commissioner Robinson asked what the anticipated price range for the units would be. Mr. Painter responded that he believed it was between the mid $500's to the upper $600's. Commissioner Babbin noted that staff raised concerns about the building elements proposed for the side elevations of the end units and asked the Applicant if they would commit to 100% masonry. Mr. Painter responded that they would. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification regarding the difference in elevation between the houses in Beauregard Estates and the rear stick of townhomes facing them. Mr. Painter deferred the question to their engineer, Peter Rinek, from BC Consultants. Mr. Rinek explained that there is basically a 6 foot difference and the home owners in Beauregard Estates would actually be looking over the top of the townhomes. 01 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for clarifying questions, seeing none she called for a brief recess at 8:57 pm. Chairman Welsh Chamblin reconvened the meeting at 9:04 pm and called for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Emails were received from Leesburg residents John Bigalbal, Shirish Dholakia, Sheri and Scott Page, Holly Chapman, Jacqueline Browder Chaffee, Peter Hill, Jason Lee, and Sherri Grigsby and Scott Hale all noting their opposition to the proposed development. Concerns expressed included lack of compatibility with adjacent uses of land, lack of a sufficient transition, buffering, extensive use of retaining walls, safety, density, congestion, view shed, financial feasibility due to its remote access and hilly topography, and the negative impacts on adjacent properties. Susan Matheson, 512 Fortress Circle, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward in opposition. Concerns expressed included impact on view shed, retaining walls, safety, and traffic. Kelly Keener, 513 Fortress Circle, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward to note her opposition to the proposed development. Sean Keener, 513 Fortress Circle, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward in opposition. Concerns expressed included slope, public safety, and inadequate parking. Rocco Tenaglia, 517 Fortress Circle, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward in opposition. Concerns expressed included the amount of ground work required, retaining walls, and monetary feasibility. Jason Lee, 515 Fortress Circle, SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward as a representative of the Beauregard Organized Opposition Team (BOOT). Concerns expressed included density, safety issues, view shed, landscape and topography, drainage and runoff, overstated economic analysis, economic impacts, quality of life, complexity and risk, and lengthy impacts of the construction proj ect. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked for additional public comment. Seeing none she called for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission members. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 9:30 pm and asked the Planning Commission members if they felt that were ready to act on the Town Plan Amendment at this meeting. The majority of Commission members were prepared to act at this meeting. Noting this, Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there were any additional comments prior to her calling for a motion. Commissioner Babbin commented that she was looking at the Town Plan Amendment as a way to explore alternative uses for this site. She did not feel that it was a feasible site for single family homes or compatible with community office. She opined that was is being proposed, from a land use standpoint, is reasonable. 10 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Lanham commented that he felt that it should be low density and would not support the Town Plan Amendment. Commissioner Babbin asked if it were possible for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to Town Council to change the Town Plan to designate this property as low density residential which is consistent with its current zoning. Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that the Commission could propose that Council change the designation to low density within their motion. Commissioner Kidder made the following motion: I move that Town Plan Amendment TLTA-2014-0002 to convert approximately 7.4 acres from Commercial Office Land Use Category to the Medium Density Residential Land Use Category be forwarded to Town Council with a recommendation of denial on the basis that the amendment does not meet the approval criteria of Town of Leesburg Zoning Ordinance Section 3.16 and will not serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice based on the findings as provided in the March 16, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. Second: Commissioner Barnes Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for discussion on the motion. Commissioner Robinson asked if the Commission wanted to add an amendment to propose a more moderate density. Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that they could not add it as an amendment to the motion however, they could send comments and suggestions with their recommendation. Seeing no additional comments, she called for the vote: Vote: 5-2-0 (Nay - Babbin and Walker) Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if any member wanted to make a motion with suggestions for appropriate density. Commissioner Babbin was not comfortable sending comments on density and wished to see more information from the Applicant on the economic feasibility and practicality of a single family home development on this property. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked staff if the denial of the Town Plan Amendment would render the rezoning null and void. Susan Berry -Hill, Director explained that the Commission could still act on the rezoning. They could also choose to defer discussion if they feel they need more information from the Applicant. 11 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes Ms. Caputo encouraged the Planning Commission to send their comments and recommendations on the Town Plan Amendment to Council with their motion. After further discussion, Ms. Berry -Hill suggested continuing discussion of the Town Plan issue at a subsequent meeting to give staff time to prepare some ideas in terms of low density residential and low scale office for the Commission to consider. She suggested continuing the discussion to the April 201h or May 6th meeting. Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that she did not wish to have staff spend time looking into other options if the Applicant is not willing to consider an alternative. Mr. Painter commented that there was a lot to consider and suggested deferring discussion on other Town Plan Amendment options and the rezoning to allow them time to make revisions to address comments and concerns from staff, the Planning Commission, and the public. After further discussion, Commissioner Babbin motioned to continue discussion on the rezoning to a future meeting. Commissioner Walker seconded the motion and the motion carried by a vote of 7-0. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TLPF-2016-0013 Potomac Station Marketplace Street Name Approval — Lee Phillips, DPR Planner Mr. Phillips explained that this was a request for the Planning Commission to approve the street names for Potomac Station Marketplace. He noted that this was an unusual case as typically the names are included in the rezoning. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for questions from the Planning Commission. Seeing none she called for a motion. Commissioner Robinson made the following motion: I move that the street names proposed by application TLPF-2016-0013 Potomac Station Marketplace and accepted by the Loudoun County Addressing Coordinator be approved. Second: Commissioner Lanham Vote: 7-0 ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None 12 Leesburg Planning Commission March 16, 2017 Minutes SRTC REPORT Commissioner Robinson informed the Commission that the SRTC had put in a request for a new monitoring device to aid in reducing speeding in residential neighborhoods. STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Babbin noted that there had been a lot of new information given to the Planning Commission from the public and asked if there were guidelines in place regarding due dates for information to be received from the public. Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that there were guidelines in the Commission's Bylaws requiring the Applicant to submit information no later than 21 days prior to the public hearing however, she was not aware of rules for any outside entity that may be interested in an application. After further discussion suggestions were made to either add a note in the public hearing ad or on the Planning Commission website page regarding a time frame for public input. Ms. Caputo will research this possibility and come back to the Commission at a future meeting ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Ap oved by: Karen Cicalese, Commission Clerk `` Lyndsay elsh Chamblin, Chair 13