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