Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12 07 17 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesburg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 7, 2017 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, December 7, 2017 in Town Hall Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present included Susan Berry -Hill, Irish Grandfield, Rich Klusek, Tom Brandon, Shelby Caputo, and Debi Parry CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Commissioner Robinson who noted that Chairman Welsh Chamblin was absent this evening and determined a quorum was present. Members Present: Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Kidder, Lanham, Robinson, and Walker Absent: Chairman Welsh Chamblin ADOPTION OF AGENDA Commissioner Robinson asked if there was anyone present that would like to move the Montfair Timeline Extension discussion ahead of the Eastern Gateway Small Area Plan Work Session. Seeing none, she called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Lanham Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2017 Commissioner Babbin noted that she had had a number of conversations and emails earlier in the day with the Commission Clerk, Karen Cicalese, regarding the inclusion of specific detail regarding the FAR, however Ms. Cicalese was not able to find this detail in the minutes. Commissioner Babbin, explained that Commissioners Lanham and Walker, as well as herself, remember Mr. Klusek explaining that the new State Proffer Statute for small area plans requires a FAR of up to 3.0, however there was not an expectation to achieve this ratio. She further explained that she felt that it was important to include this in the minutes and wished to delay approval of the minutes until she could listen to the recording of the meeting herself. Commissioner Robinson commented that she would be comfortable with just referencing the law, however it was Commissioner Babbin's prerogative to listen to the recording if this was acceptable to the Commission. All Commission members were agreeable to this and the approval of the November 16, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes was delayed until their next meeting on January 4, 2018. DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Commissioner Babbin disclosed a meeting with representatives of The Peterson Companies about the small area plan. The meeting was fairly lengthy and informative. There was a lot of discussion about the Battlefield Interchange. They had a color coded chart which showed the Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes intersection as proposed by VDOT and superimposed in a different color, the augmentations Peterson is recommending. She found this chart to be very helpful and felt that more discussion was needed on the interchange. Commissioner Robinson suggested adding this discussion to their next meeting on January 4th which was agreeable to Commissioner Babbin who also requested that copies of the chart be made available to rest of the Commissioners and that representatives from Peterson Companies bring a slide to present to the next meeting. Commissioner Babbin continued with her meeting disclosure noting that there was also discussion on density and specificity as it was felt that the proposed small area plan was too specific and needed to be more visionary to allow for flexibility in the future. Commissioner Robinson disclosed a meeting with Molly Novotny, Colleen Gillis, Susan Berry - Hill and Rich Klusek regarding the small area plan and discussed the same topics and depth as disclosed by Commissioner Babbin. CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT None PETITIONERS Charles Kieler, Kettler, came forward and explained that Kettler constructed and owns Village at Leesburg, He wished to discuss the small area plan as a portion of Village at Leesburg, a piece of Land Bay D and Land Bay E, are still undeveloped and will be affected by the small area plan. The proposed plan still has these 2 parcels designated for light industrial use and he asked that the Commission consider making these parcels mixed-use to enable development of an apartment building with ground floor retail as he felt it would provide more of a continuation of the Village at Leesburg. He would like to see better, more intense uses and continue this dialog with the Planning Commission. Taylor Chess, Peterson Companies, came forward and noted that he had had the opportunity to meet with some Commission members and was happy to do so with any of the other members. He informed the Commission that, as of yesterday, he has a contract on the parcel in front of Lowes on the south eastern quadrant of Battlefield and Route 7. This will be a new development and he would like to discuss its designation in the Town Plan which is currently regional retail and he would like to have that changed to neighborhood retail. He noted that he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with staff but wanted to make the Commission aware as they continue to work on the small area plan. PUBLIC HEARING None SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan Work Session I, Rich Klusek, Sr. Planner and Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner Mr. Klusek explained that, given the wide range of Planning Commission feedback received at the first work session, Staff has not made any specific changes to the Plan yet. He recommended that the Planning Commission begin providing specific feedback and directing changes to the Plan using straw votes after the presentation of the preliminary draft has been completed. Following the presentation, Staff will begin presenting the Commission with questions for straw votes to determine which portions of the Plan will require changes. Mr. Klusek noted that there had been discussion on transportation at the last work session and noted that Tom Brandon, Capital Projects Manager, was at the meeting to discuss the Battlefield Interchange. Mr. Klusek explained that the first transportation objective is to enhance connectivity into and within the Eastern Gateway District to provide better circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This will be accomplished as follows: • Enhance connectivity into and within the Eastern Gateway District • Improve sidewalk and trail connectivity • Improve connectivity across Fort Evans Road • Increase connectivity to the Downtown • Improve transit • Maximize interconnectivity between parcels The impact of the Battlefield Interchange was a major concern expressed by the development community at the previous work session and Mr. Klusek invited Mr. Brandon to provide an update of the project status to the Commission. Mr. Brandon explained that this project started approximately 2 years ago when the Town received some start-up money from NVTA at which time the Town entered into an agreement with NVTA for the funding. During this time, the Town also entered into an agreement with VDOT who is managing this project for the Town. Over the past 2 years, VDOT has moved forward on the agreed upon schedule and in May of this year there was a public meeting where alternatives for the interchange were presented. In June, Town Council endorsed the recommended interchange configuration which is a single point urban interchange, very similar to what is being constructed at Belmont Ridge. Since that endorsement, VDOT and its 3 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes consultant, have moved forward with the development of the plans and the studies agreed to on the schedule. The preliminary plans have been completed as well as the Interchange Justification Report. Both documents are under review currently and it is anticipated that they will be finalized early next year. A final public hearing will be scheduled for March of 2018 to present the final plan and Interchange Justification Report which includes all the traffic analysis for this interchange. At the same time, VDOT has begun the environmental work to meet the requirements of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) for this project. Federal Highway Administration has concurred on the type of document that is required and VDOT has moved forward on this. Final approval of the NEPA document is anticipated in May of 2018. Development beyond May will require a Design Build Contract and VDOT has advertised for contractors last week. The first step in the Design Build Procurement process is to ask for qualifications which VDOT will review and compile a short list of firms. In May, VDOT will ask for detailed proposals from the short listed firms. The typical timeframe for VDOT to receive the proposals, evaluate the proposals, and negotiate with the contractor is approximately 1 year. It is anticipated that a Design Buildout Contract will be in place the summer of 2019 and work on the interchange will begin. It is estimated that the construction of the interchange will take about thirty months with anticipated project completion in 2022. The total estimated cost of the project is $58 million. To date, NVTA has given the Town funding at 3 different points totaling $33 million. Next week, the Town will be applying for the remaining $25 million. There have been a number of discussions with NVTA over the past several years and Staff feels very confident that they will look favorably on the Towns application as NVTA is committed to this project at this time. The Town is also looking at other funding opportunities as they become available. Last month, the Town applied to VDOT for revenue sharing funds in the amount $4.5 million which is the maximum allowed under this program. In early 2018, the Town will be applying to VDOT under another funding program, their Smart Scale Program, for the $25 million. This was done to ensure that the Town has other opportunities for funding to be able to fully fund this project in the event that NVTA does not award the full amount. The funding received from NVTA has specific schedule restrictions and the ability to get further funding is dependent upon the Town meeting the schedules it has committed to. To date, the Town has met those schedules. There have been a few issues that have come up including: • Keystone Drive and the LCPS Board's Proffer — When the elementary school was rezoned, the School Board had a proffer that required them to provide the right-of-way and design and construct a portion of Keystone Drive. That proffer was dependent upon availability of funding from the School Board. VDOT has had discussions with representatives of the School Board and those discussions are continuing. Nothing has been resolved to date, however Staff is hoping to have a favorable conclusion. VDOT wishes to reach an agreement with the School Board where they will provide the funding to VDOT to include that roadway in the Battlefield interchange project. This is a timing issue as it is felt that the School Board will not be able to design and build the roadway in the time in which the Town needs the road to be built. • The Peterson Companies Proposal — Last summer, when Town Council approved the configuration, representatives from Peterson spoke to the Council and offered the option of a braided ramp into that area. Council gave Staff direction to move forward with the interchange configuration that was proposed by VDOT. Prior to that proposal being n Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes offered by Peterson, VDOT had looked at braided ramps as part of their alternative configurations and found it to be very problematic from a grade standpoint and a weave standpoint so that was not carried forward as a final design. Last week, Staff received the same drawing Commissioner Babbin referred. Staff reviewed the design and reached the decision that it would be impractical and probably impossible to build it the way it was configured. After the Peterson representatives had discussions with NVTA regarding the proposed braided ramp, NVTA called the Town to request a meeting. A telephone conference was held with NVTA, who expressed concerns about the impact on the agreed upon schedule and the Town's ability to meet said schedule. NVTA informed the Town that if it was decided to proceed with something that would impact the schedule, they would need to re-evaluate how they funded this project. This information was relayed to Council and Council recommended that Staff move forward with the approved design. Mr. Brandon noted that he would be available for questions this evening and would also be available to meet off-line to answer specific, detailed questions. Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. Brandon if there was anything that could be done to the design to provide access to the Peterson property from Route 7 that would not delay the project and endanger funding from NVTA. Mr. Brandon answered that there is access to the Peterson Property from Battlefield Parkway and Potomac Station Drive. Staff looked at 4 different alternates for the interchange. Three of them would not have allowed access off of Battlefield. The endorsed design provides access off of Battlefield Drive. Commissioner Babbin noted that there was something in the Plan about a service road in order to access one of the parcels on the east side of Battlefield Parkway and asked if a service road would work for the Peterson property. Mr. Brandon responded that it could provide access but it would not be from Route 7. There could be a service road off of Battlefield. Due to the complex nature of Commissioner Babbin's questions, Commissioner Robinson deferred further discussion to their next work session in January and called for additional clarifying questions from the other Planning Commission members. Commissioner Lanham asked if staff had any concerns regarding the traffic study analysis numbers and the feasibility of the proposed interchange. Mr. Klusek explained that part of the required process for the small area plan is a submission to VDOT of a traffic study that looks at the overall growth and density that would be possible with the small area plan. A traffic study was done by ATOS, consultant hired by the Town, who did the analysis and found that overall, the network operates adequately. There might be a need for certain spot improvements, but the traffic consultants believed that it was possible to accommodate the traffic from this small area plan on the current network. This traffic study did consider the full growth. VDOT typically only looks at the existing land uses and don't consider 5 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes pending actions for a project like this. With the small area plan, the Town did. The traffic study, per requirements of the State Code, will need to be reviewed by VDOT and they will provide any feedback and input to ensure that everything works and operates according to their standards. Commissioner Lanham asked if VDOT had reviewed the plan yet. Mr. Klusek responded that Staff will be sending the Plan and Traffic Analysis to VDOT in January. Commissioner Lanham asked what would happen if VDOT determines that the proposed design will not work and that determination's impact on NVTA funding. Mr. Brandon explained that NVTA does not get involved in approving designs. NVTA's role is to supply funds for projects and it would not be in their best interest to fund a bad interchange. NVTA has had discussions with Staff and expressed concerns similar to those expressed by Commissioner Lanham. NVTA wanted assurance from Staff that they had looked at the proposed design, transportation plan, and traffic analysis to determine that it would work. The Town has done an independent study and from a network standpoint the traffic seems to work. That study is currently being completed and will be reviewed by VDOT. Commissioner Kidder asked if there was a summary of the information that had been given to the Planning Commission about this interchange. Mr. Brandon responded that he could produce a memo summarizing this information for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Robinson asked that the memo include a timeline for the project through 2022. Additionally, she asked for information on the Keystone Road segment that will provide access to those businesses that will be losing access from Route 7 when the interchange is built. She also asked if the proposed design included an access for the Clarion hotel. Mr. Brandon responded that access to the hotel is not under consideration with this interchange project. The hotel is outside of the area for interchange so the hotel will maintain its current access. There are opportunities to construct a roadway parallel to Route 7 at a later date, but that is not part of the interchange project. Commissioner Robinson asked for information on the amount of money needed to construct the Keystone extension, and the amount the School Board is stating they don't have. Mr. Brandon explained that VDOT is in the process of estimating that portion right now. They do not have that estimate to date. Commissioner Robinson asked when VDOT expects to have that information. Mr. Brandon responded that it should be before the end of the year. 1.1 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Robinson asked to have that information for their January 4"' meeting. Mr. Brandon responded that he would hope to have it by then. Commissioner Robinson asked if there was any information from VDOT that could be shared with the Planning Commission that documents VDOT's determination regarding the grade levels not being able to support the braided weave design. Mr. Brandon replied that he will put something together to demonstrate how that design would not work. Commissioner Babbin asked if there were any other alternatives that can be added to that interchange, without drastically changing anything that could provide access from Route 7, either by an access road or some other alternative, to the Peterson tract. Mr. Brandon responded that he was not aware of any. Staff has looked at this interchange and it presents a difficult situation due to the locations of the Bypass ramp and the Battlefield ramp. Commissioner Babbin asked if the Battlefield access would be a right -in right -out intersection. Mr. Brandon responded that it would be a full intersection just like the Best Buy intersection. The Town has the ability to close this intersection, however the adopted design does not require it to be closed. Mr. Klusek continued with the outline of the draft plan as follows: Natural Resources • Development should work towards achieving Town objectives, and state mandates while providing environmental stewardship • Ensure that environmental quality is maintained when development occurs • Identify opportunities for community engagement Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Mr. Klusek explained that there are no specific polices about how much and what type of park land should be included however, Staff felt it was important that new park land is provided to offset the demands of new residents. He noted it was also important to work with appropriate agencies and departments to identify new infrastructure and community needs, such as school capacities and the ability of the police department and fire department to serve the project. Heritage Resources Mr. Klusek discussed heritage resources noting that there were 2 of particular importance in the Eastern Gateway District; the stone house by the River Creek Parkway ramp and Carradoc Hall. Policies should encourage preservation and enhancement of heritage resources. Economic Development 0 Work collaboratively with land owners Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Identify opportunities for public private partnerships Consider public investment Consider grant funding opportunities Development Process Objectives • Ensure Zoning Ordinance and Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) allow for desired development • Review procedures and processes for land development review • Establish internal zoning review committee to identify short term needs • Develop materials to show that Leesburg encourages innovation • Consider processes for administrative approvals in the Technology and Employment area New Land Use Categories Mr. Klusek explained that there were 2 new land use categories, the "Mixed -Use" designation and the "Technology and Employment" designation. Additionally, Staff is renaming "Community Commercial" to "Neighborhood Center" as it was felt that the new name better reflected the vision. Staff has remapped some of the areas in the Eastern Gateway District to better reflect what was actually built on them such as Lowes and Brown's Automotive. These properties had been designated as regional office however, the plans that have been approved are not consistent with regional office. The 2 new land use categories were discussed as follows: Technology and Employment The intent of this district is to have tax and employment generating uses, foster an environment that is attractive to businesses, provide apace for service related uses, and enhance the image of the Eastern Gateway District. Typical uses include office and light industrial, employment supportive retail, uses related to the W&OD trail, and temporary uses. Mixed Use Designation The intent of this district is as follows: • Recognize existing mixed use neighborhoods • Create "Main Street" or community core that becomes a center of activity or gathering space • Promote economic development in amenity rich environment, expand the tax base, promote tourism, provide employment opportunities, and minimize demands on town services • Create an environment that is favorable to employers and employees • Provide community facilities and amenities Typical uses would include employment uses that are compatible with an urban setting, large gathering areas and open spaces, retail, recreation, entertainment, restaurants, service related, community facilities, urban residential, and age restricted and active adult. Undesirable uses would be largely suburban type uses such as single family detached and suburban style strip malls. The uses would not be appropriate as they don't encourage walkability. Mr. Klusek discussed density in a mixed-use neighborhood. He explained that the community Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes core has an intensity of 4 to 6 stories, which is the typical building height. The Plan tries to put forward what should be the typical. There are policies that also allow for deviation from that if somebody has a good idea or there is reason or rationale to go above 6 stories or less than 4 stories. The typical intensity in the supporting area would be 2 to 4 stories. The typical FAR in the community core is 1.0 to 3.0 and 0.25 to 0.75 in the supporting area. The typical residential density would be up to 50 dwelling units per acre in the core and up to 16 dwelling units per acre in the supporting area. The Mixed Use Neighborhood policies have some specific design considerations as follows: • Grid of streets • Auto -oriented development is discouraged • Streetscape design (setbacks, planting strip, street furniture, and wide sidewalks) • Incorporate large format retail into urban streetscape • Varied building materials, colors, and patterns • Provide interesting spaces that promote activity • Variety of open spaces in close proximity • Block lengths should generally fall in the range of 250 to 500 feet • Blank walls should be avoided • Primary building entrances on pedestrian roads • Provide on -street parking • Provide additional parking in rear of buildings • Development should relate to adjoining properties Location Specific Policies Mr. Klusek discussed these policies as follows: Northwest Quadrant • Plan for a connection between the outlets and any new development • Consider long-term redevelopment potential of outlet mall and designate for mixed use • Provide strong pedestrian connections between existing residential development and any new development across Potomac Station Drive • Preserve natural features on a portion of the Peterson property and create a community open space that is compatible with a mixed-use community • Create a central mixed-use community core with surrounding supportive development • Provide crossing of Route 7 along Cardinal Park Drive or Sycamore Hill Drive • Provide high quality architecture along Route 7 and internal to the site • Provide transit infrastructure to allow area to serve as a transit hub Northeast Quadrant • Improve sidewalk and trail connectivity between Potomac Station Apartments and nearby uses • Consider opportunities for infill development to strengthen Potomac Station Market Place as a neighborhood center 9 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes • Create a new local roadway network to improve connectivity between businesses and create a neighborhood center • Consider opportunities for redevelopment of properties along Route 7 to strengthen Potomac Station Market Place as a neighborhood center • Consider opportunities for development with compatible residential uses (Hamblet Property) Southeast Quadrant • Develop land west of Lowes with compatible nonresidential uses • Maintain long term potential for "Main Street" roadway • Provide screening and streetscape improvements near Town facilities • Consider approved car dealerships as interim use • Improve connections to the W&OD Trail • Ensure safe pedestrian crossings along Russell Branch Parkway • Encourage uses that are compatible with heavy truck traffic, power lines, and nearby industrial uses • Provide gateway landscape feature on Village at Leesburg Land Bay D and E parcels Southwest Quadrant • Maintain viability of light industrial and employment generating uses along Cardinal Park Drive and encourage new technology and employment uses • Provide high quality architecture and landscaping along Route 7 to make it an attractive gateway into Downtown • Provide crossing of Route 7 along Cardinal Park Drive or Sycamore Hill Drive • Maximize connectivity to the W&OD Trail and other future trails • Develop area north of Future Trailview Boulevard with a focus on employment generating uses Mr. Klusek explained that the last remaining section is the Implementation Section which they won't go into at this meeting as it essentially repeats the other policies elsewhere in the document, These are things that Town Council can look at 1 to 5 years in the future and consider what can be done to enhance the Eastern Gateway District. As the Plan evolves, so too will the Implementation Section. Mr. Klusek described the review process as follows: • Review each section beginning on page 12-6 • The Planning Commission will propose specific changes to be made • A straw poll vote will be taken to determine if a change will be made • Focus on concepts — Commissioners should email wording changes to staff after next draft Commissioner Robinson called for a short recess at 8:18 PM and the meeting resumed at 8:26 PM 10 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Babbin stated that she thought there was disagreement amongst the Planning Commission Members as to how they wanted to proceed and wished to take a vote as to whether or not they would be allowed to ask questions on the presentation that was just made before going back to the beginning and focusing on the line by line review. It was her understanding that staff will do a redraft and she would like to ensure that all their questions are addressed in the redraft and that they would not be limited to the line by line review that staff proposed. Mr. Klusek clarified that Staff's is to review each section of the document beginning on Page 12- 6. Staff does not want to do a line by line changing of words, rather they want to ensure that the overall concepts are captured. It was his hope that following the overall organization of the document will provide a guide as to what the topic of conversation. He noted that Staff struggled at the last meeting as there was a lot of discussion that was not really focused and Staff did not get the sense that some of the comments made represented the opinion of the full Commission. Commissioner Babbin stated the she did not have a problem with discussing specifics however, she had a couple of issues with the general concept of the whole Plan that she wished to address first. Commissioner Robinson called for a straw vote to see which Commissioners wanted to proceed with to the agenda as proposed and which Commissioners wished to address Commissioner Babbin's concerns first. The vote was tied 3-3-1. Commissioner Robinson then called for a straw vote to determine whether or not the majority of Commissioners wished to have the opportunity to ask overall questions first. The vote failed 2-4-1. Commissioner Robinson addressed Commissioner Babbin's concerns and suggested that she come back with specific questions that can be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Babbin asked if the public hearing on the Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan was still scheduled for January 4"'. Mr. Klusek responded that the public hearing will most likely be pushed back to the following meeting on January 18ct' Commissioner Babbin confirmed that staff will be preparing a redraft for the Planning Commission's review and asked if there would be an additional work session after their initial review prior to going to a public hearing. Mr. Klusek responded that it would depend on the progress made at this meeting. Staff definitely wants to do a redraft prior to the public hearing to allow the public to respond to the concepts as presented. He felt that there would be a need for additional work sessions and Plan redrafts after the public hearing. Commissioner Babbin stated that she wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission gets the redraft incorporating their comments with at least 1 work session before the public hearing. She 11 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes did not want the redraft to go to a public hearing without the Commission having an opportunity for discussion and input. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that Staff's plan was to do the straw votes and get through as much as they can, prepare the redraft and include it in their agenda packets for their next meeting. This will allow the Commission Members time to review the redraft to determine if it incorporated the Commission's direction and then going into the next set of straw votes at that meeting. Commissioner Robinson wished to clarify that they will have a clean redraft at a meeting prior to the public hearing. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that it was Staff's intent to redraft the document for their next work session on January 0'. This process will be repeated for the following meeting. Redrafts will be provided as the Commission works through the straw vote issues. The final draft for the public hearing will incorporate all Planning Commission direction. Commissioner Lanham asked if the public hearing would be the second meeting scheduled for January or the first meeting in February. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that ideally it would be second meeting in January 18t", but likely will be the first meeting in February Mr. Klusek asked Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner, to explain how he would be tracking the comments and feedback. Mr. Grandfield explained that he had prepared a matrix of the major topics of the Plan's goal and vision and will note comments, suggestions, alternatives, etc. as they move through the process. This will enable Staff to determine direction from the body as a whole, not individual preferences. Commissioner Babbin asked why they were starting on page 12-6 as she had a concern regarding language on page 12-5 regarding the Plan being updated periodically as land use trends evolve. It was her opinion that the Town Plan should be a visionary document for many years into the future. Flexibility needs to be built into the existing Plan to minimize updates. She would like to replace this language such as "The intent of this Plan is to create a vision for the future with the flexibility to position the Town in the best possible place to capture new development opportunities". Mr. Klusek explained that mixed-use is popular now however, in 5 years, if mixed use is no longer viable, Staff expects that the Plan would need to be updated. Commissioner Babbin stated that this speaks to the big overall issues she wished to address first. She opined that eleven different use regulations did not belong in the Town Plan. Additionally she wanted to get away from use designations in Zoning Ordinances in general as they were very 12 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes antiquated. Broader use categories need to be identified. The Plan should not have to be updated every 5 years. There is too much specificity. Commissioner Barnes asked if Mr. Klusek agreed with the language proposed by Commissioner Babbin. Mr. Klusek explained that from a typical, standard approach to comprehensive planning, the language proposed didn't fit. Commissioner Kidder commented that she did not think the Commission was here at this meeting to change the Town's planning policies. Comprehensive planning has always had the ability built within to update as the trends and economics indicate. She noted that she did not want to spend the evening changing the Town's planning policy, but rather reviewing the Plan being proposed. Commissioner Robinson called for a straw vote to determine if the Commission supported the proposed language change. The poll resulted in a tie vote 3-3 (Welsh Chamblin absent) Commissioner Babbin asked what the tie vote meant. Commissioner Robinson responded that it meant the vote failed. Commissioner Babbin asked if she would able to raise the issue again when all 7 members were present. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, responded that she can raise the issue again since this was a straw vote. Mr. Klusek moved on to with specific discussion and straw votes as follows: Overall Goal Concerns expressed included language changes, more usable open space and a de -emphasis on urban until such time as dependable transit is in place. Emphasis was placed on a robust transit system needing to be in place. Open Space Straw Vote: 6-0-1 in support of usable open space De -emphasis on Urban Vote: No vote was taken as it was determined to defer this topic to the land use designation discussion. Mr. Grandfield commented that wordsmithing can be done via email and asked the Commission to focus on the broader concepts Overall Vision 13 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Concern was expressed regarding the term "uniquely Leesburg" and it was suggested to change this to "traditional Leesburg". Straw Vote: 6 -0 -lin support of the proposed language change. Guiding Principles Concerns expressed included • Principle 9 removal as it was felt that this should apply to the Town as a whole • Principle 3 Clarification of development incentives • Principle 10 Housing and the ability to provide housing types that limit new demand on Town services, affordability and attainability; • Principle 1 - alter language as it was felt that mixed use should not be a guiding principle. Principle 49 Straw Vote: 6-0-1 in support of removing this principle and including it in the Town Plan to address the Town as a whole Principle 1 Straw Vote: 2-4-1 the majority of Commissioners were not in favor of replacing Principle 1 No votes were taken on Principles 3 and 10 Overall Planning Objectives Concerns expressed include: • Objective 1 - adherence as opposed to creation of a streetscape • Objective 3 — it was felt that this could compromise the Downtown as there is no connectivity, • Objective 6 — language changes to address cut -through traffic. Mr. Klusek explained that explained that a streetscape has yet to be developed. Objectives 1 and 3: No vote taken Objective 6a Straw Vote: 6-0-1 in support of reducing traffic congestion Objective 6b Straw Vote: 1-5-1 with the majority of Commissioners not is support of including this language. Land Use Concerns expressed include list of uses, Euclidian Zoning, too many land use distinctions, need for additional open space, affordable and workforce housing, and conceptual issues that need to be addressed with the overall plan as it contains too much specificity. Removal of this objective was suggested. 14 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Removal of Objective Straw Vote: Failed 3-3 -1 Architectural Design Concerns expressed include: • Objective 2 - Contains too much detail for a Town Plan, corporate trademark franchise color schemes can be critical to a business's success, inflexibility, too restrictive and whether this portion should be eliminated. • Objective 5 - 5 Quadrant specific design guidelines and whether they were to be considered as part of this plan or to be developed at a future date, and language changes. • Objective 6 - Pattern Book was too specific and it was suggested that it be removed from the Plan. Mr. Klusek explained that this language proposes that design guideline be developed later on for each quadrant. Commissioner Babbin proposed the following language for Objective 5 as follows. "Recognize the character and function within each quadrant of the Eastern Gateway District and develop design guidelines as appropriate. Removal of Section Straw Vote: Failed 3-3-1 Language Change Straw Vote: 4-2-1 to support proposed language change to Objective 5 Pattern Book Straw Vote: 4-2-1 in support of removing this objective. Streetscape Design Concerns expressed included: • Objective 1 - gateway designs and differentiation from County, H-2 Committee's work and its effect on this Objective, landscaping, and mitigation of Dominion's power lines. • Objective 8 — Too much detail for legislative applications, this type of detail should be found in the Zoning Ordinance and the suggestion was made to eliminate it. Mr. Klusek responded that he thought that the H-2 Committee will certainly have input into what is ultimately developed. Right now, we have general policies to recognize the importance of streetscape design, in particular the bridge design. Mr. Klusek wished to address concerns expressed regarding Objective 8. He referred to the car dealership picture he displayed earlier and explained that without a rendering, a sketch, or something to demonstrate what that would like would leave the Town with no guarantee that it would not be another Jerry's Ford or Toyota. He cautioned that right now, there would not be a Zoning Ordinance to fully implement this Plan, so a developer could come in with a B-3 Zoning designation, claim it is mixed-use and build a Lowes so there needs to be something in the 15 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes interim period. Once the Town Plan is approved, development applications that come in would follow the guidance in the Plan. Objective 1 — No vote taken Delete Objective 8 Straw Vote: Failed 3-3 Housing Concerns expressed include: • The preamble needs to include the need for parks, recreation, etc. to be added to serve this intense type of housing • Objective 2 — The language needs to be broadened to include groups other than young professionals. • Objective 5 — Infrastructure assistance, ability of infrastructure to handle unmet housing, and incentive amounts Straw Poll Vote: No vote was taken as there was a general consensus to leave this section as it is. Transportation Concerns expressed include: • Objective La — Modify language regarding the overpass between the southwest and northwest quadrants, and either modify or delete the map. • Objective Lc — Delete or modify language to encourage to evenly disperse traffic and not create cul-de-sacs and eliminate the map graphic • Objective 4 — Eliminate as there currently isn't any bike or pedestrian connectivity from the Eastern Gateway District to the Downtown • Objective 5 — Too costly, regional transit service, and circulator bus. It was proposed to amend the language to "Plan for and provide for regional transit service" and eliminate language about the long term goal of providing a circulator bus • Objective 7 —Include "metro" Objective La Straw Vote: 6-0-1 in support of modifying the language to eliminate reference to the Roadway Network Map Objective Le Straw Vote: 6-0-1 in support of modifying the language and eliminating the map graphic Objective 4 Straw Vote: Failed 2-4-1 as the majority of Commissioners were not in favor of eliminating Objective 4 Objective 5 Straw Vote: Failed 3-3-1 16 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Objective 7 Straw Vote: No vote taken as staff agreed to the inclusion. Natural Resources Concerns expressed include: • Objective 1 — Disincentive to encourage LEED for all projects, storm water management, green infrastructure, modification of language of Objective La, redevelopment, historic preservation, and the recommended deletion of Objectives Lb — d as it is too broad Objective La Straw Vote (modification of La language) e: Failed 3-3-1 Objective Lb Straw Vote: Failed 3-3-1 Objective Lc Straw Vote: Failed 3-3-1 Objective Ld Straw Vote: Failed 3-3-1 Parks & Community Facilities Concerns expressed include: • Objective 1 —Provide at least 1 sports complex • Objective 2 — The need to identify new infrastructure and community facilities in the Plan to provide guidance to developers, and too much specificity, No vote was taken. Heritage Resources No concerns were expressed. Economic Development No concerns were expressed. Development Process There were a number of concerns expressed and discussed as follows: 1. Objective La and Lb are inconsistent, as we don't need form based code and use categories and use lists, form based code is the opposite of use based Euclidean zoning. Concern was also expressed as to whether or not these objectives belong in the Plan. There was also a concern that it was crucial to have a process in place prior to publishing the small area plan, not created after. Mr. Klusek explained that La and Lb are intended to serve as the implementation tools to ensure 17 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes there is a mechanism in place to allow development to occur. He recognized that these 2 objectives are a little bit in conflict of each other and there might be an opportunity for some wording changes. Staff is not completely sure which mechanism they will use yet and what the Town Council will ultimately endorse. These 2 objectives represent 2 separate ideas of implementation tools. He noted that he will review and bring reworded objectives to the Planning Commission for review and discussion at the next work session. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that is has been Staff s intent to look to see what could be accommodated in the existing Zoning Ordinance to implement the Plan. If we don't have the right zoning districts, they can be created to implement the Plan. Staff has not taken this step yet. Mr. Klusek further clarified that the Village at Leesburg development was implemented under the existing Zoning Ordinance. That doesn't mean that the existing ordinance is perfect to implement this Plan however, with tweaks it might be possible. There is the opportunity to go a step further and perhaps develop a form based code. The implementation measure is going to become very dependent on exactly what we are trying to implement. At the end of the process, once we have the exact land use plan together, we can come up with a more solid proposal and recommendation. Ms. Berry -Hill added that staff could probably come up with this, either before or by the time we get the draft prepared for the Public Hearing as we will have a better idea where the Planning Commission is on this and we may have some ideas. She recommended tabling this discussion for now and addressing this topic at a future work session. 2. Clarification of intent of Objective Lc to ensure that it would not lead to numerous Plan amendments. Mr. Klusek responded that the intent of this objective is to invite the stakeholder community to help identify problems and issues that staff might not be aware of. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that we want to develop our Zoning Ordinance and DCSM to implement this Plan and that we should communicate with our development community when those implementation tools are being identified. This was not to be thought of as an ongoing process, but rather to help implement this Plan. Mr. Grandfield further clarified that this objective was also an effort to be responsive to what we have heard from the development community during the development of this draft Plan. 3. Concern was expressed regarding Objective 2, as it appeared to create a review process for this small plan area that was separate from the Town's review process. If not, it should not be in the small area plan. It was suggested that this should be moved to the appropriate section of the Town Plan, A Straw Vote was taken and passed 5-0-1-1 (Kidder abstained) in support of moving this objective to the appropriate section of the Town Plan. M Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes 4. Delete Objectives 3.a -c as it encourages use lists. The objective is to get rid of use lists and the small area plan should not encourage use lists. There are other options besides form based code and use lists. Mr. Klusek explained that this was similar to Objective 1 as there were 2 different tracts. Option 1 is to go to a form based approach. Option 2 is to maintain the use list set up we have now. He did not know if one was necessarily preferred over the other at this point, but would go back and determine how he can clarify these 2 options. If Town Council does not direct form based code, we need to make sure that we have more uses. No vote was taken as staff was agreeable to reviewing that language and making changes to clarify options. The revised objectives will be reviewed and discussed at the next work session. 5. It was suggested to eliminate Objective 4 as it was unnecessary for the Town to spend money on marketing materials given the low number of developers in the small plan area. A straw vote was taken and passed 4-2-1 in support of deleting this objective. 6. Concerns were expressed that Objective 5 is too narrowly focused and only fast tracks applications for this 1 area of Town. Mr. Klusek explained that the intent of this objective, for the Technology and Employment area, is to allow staff to administratively approve a proposed appropriate employment use by right rather than having it go to the Planning Commission. Alternately, given the complexity of a mixed-use area and the emphasis on design, staff could look at ways to expedite the process, however approval should not be administrative. These types of applications need to go to through Planning Commission and Town Council. No vote taken as all were in agreement with the staff's explanation. Commissioner Robinson wrapped up discussion on the small area plan noting that they would be staring on Page 30 of the draft Plan and confirmed that they would be getting revised draft language up to Page 29 for the next work session. She also requested a listing of what the Commission did and did not alter and the straw vote results if a change was not made change. Commissioner Babbin wished to readdress concern regarding her requested correction to the minutes from November 16"' and asked that the following be made a part of the minutes: Commissioner Babbin: "Correct me if I am wrong. You said that the 3.0 FAR is probably not achievable and not something you are going to expect to see in these developments. Is that accurate?" Mr. Klusek: "Let me try and sort of capture the whole conversation as I remember it. A 3.0 is required to achieve the exemption from the proffers. So we need to have 3.0 allowed somewhere 19 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes here [in the small area plan]. We say a typical building height is 4 to 6 stories. Typically you would not get a 3.0 building at 6 stories. It's possible. It's pretty unlikely. What the plan also does say, typical building heights of 4 to 6 stories there is an opportunity for increased height if an application develops benefits to the Town, that it's a good idea in some way, shape, or form. Does that get to your question?" Commissioner Babbin: "Yeah you're saying its' not expected that anyone is going to achieve that at a 6 story building height." Mr. Klusek: "No we say a typical FAR is 1.0 to 3.0 and typical heights are 4 to 6 stories." Commissioner Babbin: "Thank you and that takes care, I think, of the issue and I don't have to go back and try those minutes so if you want to approve those minutes now, that's fine otherwise we can just leave it to the next time since everyone's tired." SRTC REPORT None OLD BUSINESS TLZM-2014-0009 Montfair Time Line Extension Mr. Grandfield explained this application cane to the Planning Commission at a public hearing in March of 2017 and per the Zoning Ordinance there was a 100 day time period for Planning Commission action, otherwise it would move forward with a default recommendation of approval. In June the applicant requested a timeline extension of that 100 day limit and the Commission extended the timeline to December 31, 2017. That original extension is expiring this month and the applicant is requesting a second extension thru September 30, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to send a recommendation of denial on the Town Plan Amendment but did not vote on the rezoning. The applicant has started to look at the recommended changes and staff has met with them twice since the public hearing in March where they floated ideas on alternative residential type and still exploring the feasibility of doing that. The Commission must take an action tonight. If the Commission does not take action to extend then Staff recommends that you make a motion to deny the application, otherwise, a recommendation of approval will be sent by default. Commissioner Robinson called for comments from the Planning Commission members. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern over granting the extension as it would be giving the applicant 1 year and 3 months and the applicant has done nothing since they were last seen by the Commission because someone retired and somebody was out on leave. Commissioner Babbin opined that the Planning Commission created the problem by not approving the Town Plan Amendment and didn't see the harm in granting the extension request. 20 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Kidder commented that she was pleased that the applicant was trying to improve this project. It is a difficult location and she would be honored to give them the time to make the improvements that they want and to work with staff. Commissioner Robinson called for a motion: Commissioner Kidder moved that the Planning Commission grant a timeline extension for TLZM-2014-0009 Montfair to allow Planning Commission action by September 30, 2018 instead of December 31, 2017 on the basis of the information in the letter dated November 20, 2017 from Ms. Chris Gleckner of Walsh Colucci which satisfies the requirements for an extension set forth in TLZO-Sec. 3.3.11 Commissioner Lanham seconded the motion. Commissioner Robinson called for discussion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. The motion carried 5-1-1 (Nay -Robinson, Absent Welsh Chamblin) NEW BUSINESS Question: Does the Planning Commission wish to direct staff to prepare a memorandum for the Planning Commission for discussion of: 1) how the Town Plan is used by Staff, Planning Commission, and Town Council to evaluate legislative applications; and 2) when Town Plan amendments are required (policy on applicant -initiated and town -initiated plan amendments)? Commissioner Robinson explained that there had been a number of emails exchanged in November which began with the Deputy Town Attorney to try and explain this. There were responses from 2 members of the Commission that saw items in different ways. She asked Commissioner Babbin to explain what initiated this. Commissioner Babbin stated that she thought this was an excellent idea. She and Commissioner Lanham certainly understood this issue as they had debated it at length at Economic Development Steering Committee meetings and came up with a recommendation on page 45 of the Economic Development Steering Committee Report which she gave to each Commission Member, The Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to talk about this as extensively as she and Commissioner Lanham have. She felt this was an excellent opportunity to bring everyone else up to where they were on this issue and to initiate a discussion. Commissioner Robinson commented that it was more than just a discussion. It required work on Staff's part. She expressed concern regarding the concepts of these 2 issues and asked Commissioner Babbin to iterate the concept she has for a Comprehensive Plan and what she considers to be its use. Commissioner Babbin stated that the Comprehensive Plan, is by law and by decision of the Virginia Supreme Court a guideline, and only that. Because of some wording that we have in our Town Plan she felt that Staff has felt that they need to put more reliance on the Town Plan. They have dealt with it as criteria for rezonings and we've seen this during rezoning public 21 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes hearings. This is not how the Town Plan is supposed to be used. It is supposed to be a guideline. This is also shown by the fact, and Montfair is an excellent example, that we have required applicants to come in with Town Plan amendments. When she first started on the Planning Commission these amendments would come in at the same time as the rezoning. A new policy was initiated where they had to be reviewed consecutively. Then there was a period of time where the Town would not accept applicant initiated Town Plan amendments. The Economic Development Steering Committee recommended the elimination of 3 words: the current Plan says the "Plan objectives for every Plan Element are to be used as the criteria and guide for evaluating legislative applications, etc." "The reworded proposal says the "Plan objectives for every Plan Element are to be used as a guide for evaluating legislative applications." This is consistent with the Virginia Supreme Court. Commissioner Robinson wished to share her emailed response to Commissioner Babbin. She opined that the Town Plan is a criteria because she thinks that it is the citizens and the government's pact on what you should expect in a certain area. So that if anybody comes in and wants to buy a house, do development, or research any portion of the Town, they should be able to go to the Plan and say in the future, the property next to me should be something that resembles what is stated in the Plan. When the Plan is not adhered to or there is some bright idea that comes up, there needs to be an amendment to that Plan because it is the agreement between our Council and the public at a public hearing that said this is what it is. So if something such as a new land, or new building proposal are suggested it is Council's responsibility to get back to the citizens and broach the new land use or idea with them. That is why the Plan is used as a criteria for deciding upon proposals. It is the community's agreement for how and where development is to happen. So if, for example, mixed-use is expected in the Plan, some other land use proposal would not be expected instead. Commissioner Robinson asked the Commission Members if they would like Staff to go back and find out legal reasons, precedent, etc., as to how this is used and our policies on initiated Plan amendments. Commissioner Babbin wished to add to the request to provide information on where the Town has required Plan amendments prior to consideration of a rezoning and special exception and what happed with said Plan amendment. More importantly, she would like to know how much, time wise, this adds to the whole development process. This was something examined carefully by the Economic Development Steering Committee. The Town has a development process that can go up to 2 years which is way beyond any of the other jurisdictions in the area. The objective, according to the professionals that we had as consultants and who appeared before us, was to get the process to under a year and if we require Town Plan amendments our development process will continue to drag on. Commissioner Barnes expressed concern regarding the amount of Staff time required to compile this information and didn't feel this was necessary. Commissioner Kidder would like some information on the basic reasons and legal and traditional precedents as to why legislative applications are reviewed as they are. She did object to having 22 Leesburg Planning Commission December 7, 2017 Minutes discussions about changing the entire policy that the Town Plan is based on as she felt this was an entirely different issue. Commissioner Lanham noted his agreement with Commissioner Kidder and felt it was important to get direction from Staff to develop a baseline. Ms. Berry -Hill clarified that it was her understanding the Planning Commission was requesting the following: • Basic legal direction provided by the State Code on Comprehensive Plans and how it is used to review applications • The question of how staff practically uses the Town Plan to review applications. Staff will provide background on their approach. • Information on which projects have had Town Plan amendments accompanying rezonings. Staff will provide a list of applications over the last 3 years and timeline from acceptance to Council action. After further discussion, it was determined that Staff would return to the Planning Commission with this information at their January 18, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Kidder asked why the parking discussion was still on the tracking chart as it had been on there for over a year. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that the parking ratio question was going to Council on December 11 t" and an update will be coming to the Commission. The Meeting was adjourned at 11:03 PM Ar oved by: an LC"nicia I -e -s e__ommission Clerk Gigi R i on, Vice Chairman 23