Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 04 18 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesburg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2018 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, January 4, 2018 in Town Hall Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present included Susan Berry -Hill, Brian Boucher, Chris Murphy, Rich Klusek, Shelby Caputo, and Debi Parry, CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice Chair Robinson who informed the Commission that Chairman Welsh Chamblin had resigned from the Planning Commission and determined a quorum was present. Members Present: Vice Chair Robinson, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Kidder, Lanham, and Walker. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Commissioner Lanham proposed an amendment to move the Planning Commission election of officers to a future meeting where there is full membership of the Board present. Motion: Commissioner Lanham Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Babbin motioned that the Commission move forward with the two public hearings on the agenda and then work through a portion of the Eastern Gateway Small Area Plan discussion, adjourning by IOpm. Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Walker Vote: 6-0 Commissioner Babbin proposed that the Planning Commission election of officers be placed as the first item on the next agenda. Vice Chair Robinson suggested that this proposal be considered at the next meeting. Vice Chair Robinson asked for a motion to adopt the entire meeting agenda as amended. Motion: Commissioner Barnes Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2017 Vice Chair Robinson noted that Commissioner Babbin had expressed a concern at the last meeting which was later resolved at that meeting and called for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Lanham Vote: 6-0 December 7, 2017 Motion: Commissioner Barnes Second: Commissioner Kidder Vote: 6-0 DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Commissioner Walker disclosed a meeting with Roy Barnet, Molly Novotny, and Denise Harover regarding the Meadowbrook application. Commissioner Babbin disclosed that she had a couple of telephone conversations with Mike Banzhaf regarding the Village at Leesburg Pad -X application. Commissioner Lanham disclosed that he was at the same meeting with Commissioner Walker regarding the Meadowbrook application and spoke with Mike Banzhaf earlier in the day regarding Village at Leesburg Pad X. CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT None PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLZM-2017-0001 Village at Leesburg Pad X Public Hearing, Rich Klusek, Sr. Project Manager Vice Chair Robinson opened the public hearing at 7:08 PM and invited staff to make their presentation. Mr. Klusek explained that TLZM-2017-0001 is a Concept Plan and Proffer Amendment to replace a previously approved 55,440 square foot office building with a 60 unit multi -family building. The site is located at the Village at Leesburg on Russell Branch Parkway behind the southwestern parking garage. The current zoning is PRC (Planned Residential Community) and the Planned Land Use Designation is Regional Office. The Applicant is proposing to put the residential building in front of the parking garage. 2 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Klusek discussed Town Plan Compliance as follows: • Land Use The Town Plan calls for office to remain a predominant use in the Regional Office Designation and includes optional mixed-use neighborhoods. However, Town Council approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2016-0008 on February 28, 2017 which essentially amended the PRC Zoning District regulations to allow residential to be a greater use of a mixed-use community. Additionally, the Eastern Gateway project is addressing changing office market conditions. The Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan does not exist as of yet however, there is a general momentum to realize that office may not be a viable use in the future. Optional Use and Design objectives for mixed-use have been met and the proposed building is well integrated into the Village at Leesburg site and surrounding area. • Community Design The proposal is consistent with the BAR approved code of development and is compatible with the character of existing and planned development. Mr. Klusek explained the proffers for this application have been revised to account for only what is still applicable. Proffers pertaining to other land bays have been removed as they have been superseded and previously fulfilled proffers, such as the Interchange Construction, have also been removed. The proffers are typical of what would be seen for residential applications and include proffers for school facilities, off-site transportation, fire and rescue, and parks and recreations facilities totaling $519, 517.80. Mr. Klusek gave an overview of the Rezoning Approval Criteria and compliance as follows: • Compliance with Town Plan - Partial Compliance, as the Plan calls for Regional Office to be the predominant use • Binding agreements with Loudoun County — None, meets criteria • Mitigates traffic impacts — Yes, meets criteria • Compatible with surrounding uses — Yes, meets criteria • Adequate public facilities — Yes, meets criteria Mr. Klusek explained that another key aspect is the Planned Development Ratio Modification Criteria which is the Zoning Ordinance amendment referred to earlier. Section 8.2.2.E.3.d contains essentially 3 criteria that allow for additional residential development. 1. 75% of non-residential is constructed — Satisfied at 89% 2. Maximum 10% decrease in non-residential density — Satisfied at 7% 3. Maximum 15% PRC Density Increase — Satisfied - 15% = 63 units 3 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Klusek concluded with staff's recommendation noting that staff can support approval based on the following: • The project is successfully integrated into an existing mixed-use project • The project is consistent with TLOA-2016-0008 criteria • Precedent from previous Town Council Actions Mr. Klusek asked the Commission if they had any questions for hien before he turned this over to the Applicant. Commissioner Walker asked if this building would consist of apartments or condos and if adequate parking had been provided. Mr. Klusek answered that he believed they were apartments and that the residents would park in the parking garage which can supply adequate parking. Commissioner Kidder asked for clarification as to how this development mitigates traffic impact. Mr. Klusek explained that the original Village at Leesburg Application was approved with an office development and the traffic analysis accounted for that office development. This application converts the office to residential and a residential development with 60 units would generate less traffic than the 55,440 square foot of office. Emily Struck, Director of Development, Rappaport, explained that they are the third party manager of Village at Leesburg and the Applicant on behalf of the owner. Rappaport has been managing this project for 4 years and the owner has been working very hard to come up with ways that could improve the Village as a whole. Over the last 4 years, there have been a series of property improvements, site -wide lighting improvements, enhanced lighting on the buildings and around the perimeter, landscaping enhancements, pop-up water fountain, the water and fire fountain, expanded outdoor dining, installation of art pieces, new pedestrian furniture, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic improvements. She explained that every opportunity that they had to try lure a big office tenant over to Pad -X did not pan out as it did not fiscally make sense for an owner to develop a 55,000 square foot office building. Constructing a Class A office building, which the elevations have already been preliminarily approved, did not work out as it would demand at least $40 per square foot in rent and right now the Village is averaging around $27 per square foot. They also recognized that with the expansion of the Silver Line and subsequent Metro Stations that was where future office development was going to be centered. Other opportunities, besides residential and office, were not met with any interest from retailers or stand-alone uses. The Village at Leesburg has established successful residential with current occupancy around 96%. Residential presents opportunities for complimentary building design, utilization of existing amenities as there are adequate facilities provided, and last but not least, the opportunity to hide the existing parking garage. Additionally, there is a complimentary use on both sides of the street with the development of the for -sale condos on Land Bay C. This application meets the zoning ordinance amendment requirements and they have worked with staff to comply with the adopted BAR guidelines for design. The landscaping plan focuses on the space between the building and the garage and creates additional outdoor amenity space for rd Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes the residents. The only issue that needs to be addressed is compliance with the Town Plan which calls for a predominant office use. The mixed-use designation for Village at Leesburg was approved with office not being a predominant use and they have gone through 7 zoning applications since then and it has been proven that the Village at Leesburg falls within the Town Plan Policy. The center is built out with the exception of this parcel and they feel that with everything else they've brought to the table and the fact that the Village has never been office heavy, that this application should succeed. Ms. Struck concluded her presentation by thanking staff and noting that it had been a great experience to work with staff throughout the application process. Commissioner Barnes asked if there were any other open space areas in the Village. Ms. Struck responded that there was one small area along Russell Branch Parkway and the amenity areas that they have created throughout the Village. Commissioner Barnes commented that he has seen many people using the proposed site to walk their dogs and asked where people would be able to walk their dogs if this space was no longer available. Ms. Struck explained that there was a dog run in that area for the residents and there is sidewalk space all around. There is also an area west of LA Fitness. Additionally, they are not using the entire grassy area to the west of the proposed multi -family residential building. Mr. Klusek reminded Mr. Barnes that this parcel was designated for office development. Commissioner Barnes expressed concern that the residential use will change the dynamics as many of these residents will have pets. Commissioner Kidder commented that she liked the idea of the building hiding the parking garage and noted that it was a great addition that provided added convenience. She asked if the residents of the proposed building would be able to park in that garage. Ms. Struck responded that they would and explained that they would have a separate area for parking. Commissioner Kidder asked how much of the parking garage would remain exposed and what was the plan for screening that portion. Ms. Struck answered that it was about 100 linear feet and explained that this was an issue that they have looked at over the years for various reasons. One problem is that that side of the garage is a south facing wall with limited sun exposure and they have been advised, by their landscapers, against planting tall trees. There could be the opportunity to paint the garage so that it blends in, but they were not planning to treat that corner given the fact that the proposed building would hide the majority of the garage. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Vice Chair Robinson called for additional clarifying questions, seeing none she called for public comment. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:32 pm and solicited Commission members for comments and discussion. Commissioner Lanham asked if the open space near the pool was planned for another building. Ms. Struck answered that it was not, Pad X was the last component. Commissioner Kidder commented that she would like the applicant to consider camouflaging the portion of the garage, not hidden buy the building, with landscaping or greenery on the garage itself. The proposed building is very attractive and she thought there could be an innovative solution to screen that portion of the garage. Vice Chair Robinson asked if the BAR had reviewed this building. Mr. Klusek explained that there was a code of development approved by the BAR at the time of the original application and this application was administratively approved to be consistent with that code of development. Commissioner Robinson expressed concern over the shared parking agreement and asked if the residents of this building would be able to park in this garage during the day, in the event of inclement weather. Ms. Struck responded that the residents will have guaranteed parking spaces with their units, just like the other residential building. Vice Chair Robinson asked if the 15% residential increase was for the entire Village at Leesburg site. Mr. Klusek responded that it was for the entire PRC Zoning District, and the proposed increase was slightly less than 15%. Vice Chair Robinson asked the Applicant how long she thought we would have to wait for an office use at this location. Ms. Struck responded that, speaking on behalf of their leasing team, it would be at least twenty years to construct a new office building of the quality previously approved for this location. It would be a long time before they would be able to justify rental rates for this type of construction. Vice Chair Robinson called for additional, questions, comments, or discussion. Seeing none, she called for a motion. Commissioner Babbin moved that rezoning application TLZM-2017-0001, Village at Leesburg Pad X, be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval, on the basis that the Approval Criteria of Zoning Ordinance Section 3.3.15 and 8.2.2.F have been satisfied and 0 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes that the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Commissioner Kidder seconded the motion. Vice Chair Robinson called for discussion on the motion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. The motion carried 6-0. TLOA-2017-0009 uses in the I-1 District Public Hearing, Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator and Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Vice Chair Robinson opened the public hearing at 7:37 pm and invited staff to make their presentation. Mr. Murphy explained that this was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise Recreation Facilities and establish "Auditorium" use in the I-1 District. He further explained that the Town had been presented with a positive economic development opportunity involving the development of a recreational/special event center in the I-1 Zoning District and Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-169 to initiate this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment on November 14, 2017. In the early 2000's the I-1 was developed to meet Town Plan objectives to promote more lucrative, high -paying, office and light industrial business opportunities. In 2009, post -recession expansion prompted Town Council to add transitional uses to the I- Ito allow income generating opportunities in existing buildings during this challenging economic period. This permitted recreational uses in existing buildings only, along with other uses such as child care, art center, school of general education, and school of special instruction. Now, with most vacant I-1 developed and/or rezoned to fit other Town Plan land use objectives, population growth, and shifting demands and attitudes has prompted a need for commercial venues to serve a mix of recreation and events and in response, the Town has devised the "Auditorium" use. Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed amendment would establish a new use "Auditorium" in the I-1 and would remove the current restriction limiting recreation facilities to buildings that existed on October 29, 2009. An auditorium will be defined as a fully enclosed facility to be used primarily for spectator sports, sports tournaments, athletic training and instruction, and recreation. Ancillary uses may include public assembly special events, such as civic, educational, political, religious, social, or entertainment events, conventions or trade shows, and retail sales such as a pro shop and food concessions. The new use "Auditorium" will be subject to the following use standards found in Article 9: A. Minimum seats: 2,000 B. Maximum seats: 5,500 C. Minimum lot size: 10 acres D. Minimum distance from residential uses: 1,000 feet E. Fully enclosed and sound proofed (70 dB) F. Traffic Management Plan G. Special Exception required when proposed use can't comply with A -F 7 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Murphy also explained that there would be changes to parking and loading requirements. This amendment would delete the parking calculation for the Institutional and Community Service Use "Auditorium or Stadium" which is 1 space per 4 and add it to Commercial Use "Auditorium", maintaining that same ratio. There will also be a requirement of a minimum of 1 semi -trailer loading space. Mr. Murphy concluded his presentation with staff s recommendation of approval. Commissioner Babbin asked if the facility had to be enclosed for noise mitigation only. Mr. Murphy responded that it was the primary reason, however most of these types of facilities are completely enclosed due to the day to day activities, such as sports oriented recreation. Commissioner Babbin asked if a building with removable panels would be considered to be fully enclosed. Mr. Murphy responded that it would not. It would fall under the criteria for recreation facility. Commissioner Babbin wished to confirm that the recreation definition will still be in the I-1 and thereby a building still be built as a recreational facility without the limitation of an existing building and asked if there were use standards associated with this type of facility. Mr. Murphy confirmed that she was correct and that there were use standards specific to recreation uses in Article 9. Commissioner Babbin asked if a recreation facility would be allowed by -right. Mr. Murphy responded that it would be permissible by -right as long as it met the specific use standards for recreation facility found in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Babbin asked how the parking ratio of 1 space to 4 seats was determined and if staff had looked at other jurisdictions. Mr. Murphy explained that this ratio, currently in the Zoning Ordinance, is a standard for "Auditorium/Stadium" and has also been used for places of worship. It is assumed that most people will be coming to a recreational event, such as a sporting event, 4 to a car. Commissioner Babbin asked, that rather than assuming, if staff had looked at other jurisdictions with these types of facilities to determine if that ratio would work. Mr. Murphy responded that a typical assembly parking ratio is 1 to 4 throughout the region as well as other parts of the country. Commissioner Babbin asked how the 2,000 seat minimum had been determined. Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Murphy responded that the scale of these types of facilities tend to be larger. He noted that he had mentioned an economic opportunity available to the Town and boundaries were based on this opportunity. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern regarding unnecessary regulation to accommodate 1 use when it can be broader to accommodate future development. Vice Chair Robinson noted that she had a concern regarding the definition of "Auditorium" and the ancillary use of public assembly. Mr. Murphy responded that through research, it was found that the American Planning Association publishes a document that provides regulations and definitions from various parts of the country. Staff found the term "Auditorium" and it seems to fit the bill for what this use is going to be. Staff is using this definition to further narrow it down. The primary use is going to be recreation; athletic training and instruction, sports. Maybe 1 day a month there might be a gathering, such as leasing out for church's Christmas and/or Easter celebrations, convention, or graduations: Vice Chair Robinson expressed concern over the soundproofing as she felt a decibel of 70 was too high. Mr. Murphy explained that it was 70dB at the property boundary and this level was currently in our Zoning Ordinance for Industrial Districts for continuous noise. There is also a required separation distance of 1,000 feet from residential which staff feels will aid in mitigating noise volume. Vice Chair Robinson also expressed concern regarding the amount of required parking and the potential need for additional loading spaces. Mr. Murphy responded that l loading space is required. If more are needed, they can have more, they just have to have at least 1. Vice Chair Robinson called for additional clarifying questions. Seeing none, she called for public comment. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:58 pm and solicited Commission member discussion. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern regarding the minimum seating requirement as the use standard states sitting or standing. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, commented that he and Mr. Murphy were just discussing this very point and whether or not a minimum is really needed due to the other regulations that need to be met. Commissioner Babbin suggested eliminating this use standard in their motion. 9 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Commissioner Lanham asked staff how they determined that the 1 to 4 parking ratio will provide adequate parking. Mr. Boucher explained that different standards can be found such as a 1 to 3 ratio. The Chantilly Expo Center has a massive sea of parking in front of it and there have been times when that has not been adequate for an event. The question is do you plan for the worst case scenario or go with a standard that has worked in the past. Staff feels that the 1 to 4 ratio is reasonable however, there could be occasions when it will not be adequate which is why a traffic management plan is required that addresses overflow parking. Additionally, this is being built on industrial land, a minimum of 1,000 feet from residential uses, to avoid overflow parking in residential areas. In this way, we avoid having a vast sea of parking that is empty most of the time and have a system in place for more popular events. Commissioner Barnes also expressed concern and felt that a 1 to 3 ratio might work better. Mr. Boucher responded that staff's concern is that this is primarily a recreational facility, such as tennis, skating, etc. The high parking capacity is related more to the potential ancillary uses and not the day to day usage. Commissioner Barnes felt that parking was related to the permitted number of seats and the need for a controlled amount of seats. Mr. Boucher explained that building capacity, which is determined by the Fire Marshall, must also be considered. There is a maximum stated in the ordinance which will remain. Only the minimum seat requirement will be removed. Commissioner Kidder asked for examples of the types of recreation that will be permitted in this facility. Mr. Murphy responded that it has been presented as an ice skating facility and would allow ice skating tournaments, hockey, etc. Vice Chair Robinson expressed concern regarding handling overflow parking and whether or not it could be required to provide a service for overflow parking direction and transportation from the overflow parking area to the event. Mr. Boucher explained that that is why a traffic management plan is required. The 1 to 4 standard requires that parking be provided on the site and the traffic management plan is a back- up plan for contingencies. This would be addressed when an individual application comes forward. Vice Chair Robinson called for additional discussion. Seeing none, she called for a motion. Commissioner Babbin moved that Zoning Ordinance Amendment TLOA-2017-0010 establishing Auditorium in the I-1 District be forwarded to Town Council with a recommendation of approval, on the basis that the amendment furthers the objectives of the 10 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Town Plan and the proposal would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice with the proviso that item A under the Use Standards proposed in the Staff Report dated January 4, 2018 which refers to a minimum number of seats/occupancy be removed. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Vice Chair Robinson called for discussion on the motion. Seeing none, she called for the vote. The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Robinson called for a short recess at 8:13 pm and the meeting resumed at 8:26 pm. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan Work Session 3, Rich Klusek, Sr. Planner and Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Vice Chair Robinson noted that the Commission would resume their discussion of the draft plan beginning on Page 12-30 Eastern Gateway District Land Use Categories. She asked Mr. Klusek to give an overview of what they have discussed so far and what major changes have been made to this point. Mr. Klusek explained that a matrix had been provided in their agenda packet that documents Commission comments, staff responses, and straw vote results. He stated that staff had done their best to record those votes as accurately as possible however, in some instances they may not have gotten it completely correct and suggested that, during tonight's discussion, it would be helpful if each Commissioner would make his or her vote clear. Additionally, public comments had been received, either in writing or people speaking during the petitioner's section, and staff had created a table tracking these comments and staff s response which was also included in their agenda packet for tonight's meeting. He explained that as for the draft plan itself, any changes that had been made were highlighted in yellow on the draft document included in their packet for tonight's meeting. Some of these changes were based on the Planning Commission's comments, some were staff corrections, and others were based on public comment. Commissioner Babbin stated that she had more concerns about this page than anywhere else in the draft document. She opined that there were too many land use categories for such a small 11 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes area of land and too many single parcels with a specific land use designation that is too specific and in some cases contrary to what we've heard the property owner wants. Adequate explanation is missing for the need to designate in this manner and there is not significant justification to overcome stakeholder's expressed concerns. In her opinion it resembled spot zoning. She commented that she would like to see fewer land use categories and would like to see broader uses in a Town Plan as it was her feeling that the Town Plan was to serve as a guideline from a visionary perspective. She suggested that perhaps optional zoning would serve better than categories so that we have a visionary plan that is flexible for the future. She referenced a sentence on the top of Page 12- 31 which states that "These designations should be reconsidered over time as redevelopment opportunities arise." She did not feel that this was an accurate statement as the Town Plan is visionary and it is necessary to look at things in the long term, leaving flexibility now, and not requiring property owners to amend the Town Plan as opportunities arise. Economic development depends on flexibility. Commissioner Babbin moved that the Commission ask staff to come back with a new proposal for land use categories that reduces the number of land use categories for this particular area and puts in optional land uses in our Town Plan to allow flexibility for different land uses and grant stakeholder designation requests unless there is an overwhelming public reason to not consider their request. Commissioner Robinson stated that she had a concern as she was unsure how optional zoning works. Commissioner Kidder asked if Commissioner Babbin's proposal would result in less standards as it was her objective, as well as some other Commission member's, to have the East Market area look better than it does currently. Mr. Klusek responded that it was fundamentally a difference of opinion and direction as to how this plan gets put together. He explained that staff felt the purpose of a small area plan was to provide greater vision and a greater level of specificity for a specific area in the Town that is a strategic development site. For instance, the Planning and Zoning Department receives calls daily from individuals looking to buy a home and wanting to know what they can expect to see developed next door. Without specifics, the answer would be that we don't know as there are many different options for that parcel. Staff's goal is more specific vision versus what Commission Babbin is suggesting. Commissioner Kidder expressed concern regarding eliminating specifics and asked Commissioner Babbin if this is what she intended. Commissioner Babbin responded that it was more an issue of flexibility, not specifics. She commented that in the scenario presented by Mr. Klusek it was her opinion that "there are many options" would be a preferable answer as opposed to someone coming in for a Town Plan Amendment and Rezoning and discovering what they had been told was untrue. Commissioner Kidder noted her opposition to a lack of specific standards as it was a disadvantage to both the Town and the residents. Residents want to have a general knowledge of 12 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes what can be developed around them. The Town Plan has changed time and again, just like tonight with Pad X at the Village at Leesburg, and that is a good thing. We already have the flexibility needed without loosening our standards. Commissioner Barnes commented that while he understood what Commissioner Babbin was suggesting, he too felt that the flexibility she was referring too already exists. Commissioner Babbin responded that she felt that there were philosophical differences amongst the Commission members and staff. She stated that her idea of a Town Plan was that it was a visionary document for the future that will provide options and flexibility. It was her opinion that if we change the Town Plan each year, it is no longer a Town Plan; it is a Zoning Ordinance and it counter purposes what Commissioner Babbin and Mr. Klusek are saying. If you have an inflexible Town Plan with too many specifics, and you feel the need to keep changing it, then no one will know what to expect and any information you give them is not going to be accurate. She noted that she strongly disagreed with this approach as she thought the Town Plan should be visionary and leave the specifics to the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Kidder agreed that the Town Plan should be visionary, however what Commissioner Babbin had suggested had no vision and leaves it wide open to interpretation. Staff is proposing a vision and certain things are going to go in certain places. This doesn't mean it is never going to change, but at least for the present this is how we envision development taking place in this area. Commissioner Babbin stated that she thought they were all reacting to something they haven't seen yet. She requested that the Commission ask staff to come back to the next meeting with some alternative approaches such as fewer land use categories, optional land uses, and more flexibility. It was her opinion that once this had been done the Commission would see that this is exactly what they have been talking about. A visionary plan that is flexible. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning commented that the focus of tonight's discussion was the addition of 2 new land use designations, Technology and Employment and Mixed-use Neighborhood. She asked Commissioner Babbin for clarification of what she was expecting from staff in terms of category reduction or compression. Commissioner Babbin used Land Bays D and E as an example noting that the property is I-1 and the property owner has requested that it be designated as mixed-use like the rest of the Village at Leesburg. There should be the option for the property to be either I-1 or mixed-use. Staff should review this area and determine if there are possible other categories for these parcels and also combine some of the categories. Commissioner Lanham commented that 9 of the 11 categories reflect what has already been developed such as the Potomac Station Neighborhood Center. The outlet mall is a highly successful reginal retail use and he didn't see the logic of re -designating it as mixed-use. The small area plan covers a large area, but essentially there are only a few parcels that need new land use designations. 13 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Commissioner Babbin stated that she would like to revise her motion based on Commissioner Lanham's and Commissioner Kidder's comments. She proposed that the Planning Commission vote on asking staff come back to the Commission with an alternative Land Use Map (Page 12- 30) that takes the following into consideration: 1. Optional uses so that you might have more than 1 appropriate use for Town Plan purposes only 2. Existing uses, as suggested by Commissioner Lanham, for parcels whose current designation is different from what is being proposed, i.e. outlet mall 3. Take into account stakeholder requests and recommendations regarding the use of their land. Vice Chair Robinson asked Commissioner Babbin if she was requesting a third category for the stakeholders. Commissioner Babbin replied that she was not and explained that there was a document in their packet that tracked stakeholder and/or petitioner recommendations and it was her opinion that the comments by staff did not reflect a public purpose in support of their position that was sufficient to override what the stakeholder had presented or desired. She would like staff to reconsider to determine if there is significant justification of public purpose. It is her belief that a land owner's preference should take priority unless there is a very strong public reason why a land owner's request is not given credibility. Mr. Klusek explained that staff did have a very extensive process and almost every stakeholder that spoke to us is getting something that they are happy with, evidenced by the fact that there were no stakeholders still present at this meeting. Staff has received only 1 letter with specific concerns from the owner of Land Bays D and E who is looking for residential development and staff s professional opinion is that it is not a good idea to put residential in this location because of the quarry and heavy truck traffic. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that staff had quite a long debate regarding the timeline for this plan. We needed to determine if we wanted the timeframe to be in the immediate future, i.e. address development within the next 5 to 10 years or should we also look towards the long term when we will be seeing some redevelopment. We met with the owners of the outlet mall to discuss their preferences for the Plan and they are happy with the current use and intend to continue use of the outlet mall for the indefinite future. Staff respected their preference and incorporated it into the land use plan before the Commission tonight. The reason the Plan has designated it as mixed- use was to allow flexibility if, at some point, they want to consider adding residential components to a retail format. Many different shopping centers throughout the region are doing this and staff felt that adding the potential for this type of development would be a recognition of what is there now as well as what could happen in the future if they wanted to expand the uses on their property. The timeframe for the plan is always a debate and something the Planning Commission should consider if they want the Plan to address the immediate future or go beyond that. Staff felt that we should address both; the immediate development concerns expressed by stakeholders and also the future. Staff felt that they had done a good job in reaching out to the stakeholders and incorporating their desires for what they would like to do with their property in the near term. However, it was also thinking for the future as well as the Plan is supposed to be a 14 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes visionary document that looks at the short and long term vision for the Town. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with this approach to planning then it is something that needs to be discussed. Commissioner Barnes commented that we can't let the developers and property owners decide what the Town Plan will be. The Town Plan should include staff direction as well as stakeholder input. Commissioner Kidder noted her agreement with Commissioner Barnes. The Planning Commission is tasked with both short and long range planning and she was opposed to not having the specifics staff had incorporated. Commissioner Lanham noted that staff had not given an overview of the land use section of the Plan and expressed concern regarding the potential development should the outlet mall be designated mixed-use. He stated that he recognized the need have a Plan that considers both the long and short term however, there were 9 categories that recognizes current development and 3 remaining undeveloped parcels which make up about 25% of the Eastern Gateway area. It was his opinion that land use was the most important component of this small area plan and needs to be the focus. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that there are vacant parcels within the small area plan and it is critical to the planning process to develop a vision that incorporates stakeholder ideas, but also Town ideas to determine what we want to see developed on those vacant parcels. She explained that staff's intent was to also look at possible redevelopment potential and this is how the new use, technology and employment, evolved. Staff is hoping that overtime the Town will see higher and better uses redeveloped within the Cardinal Park area as they have heard from real estate brokers that this is a very important area for the Town in terms of allowing more industrial and technical type uses. Redevelopment is part of the intent of this Plan, not just green field development. Commissioner Lanham stated that one thing people look at, when looking at Comp Plans, is flexibility and stability. When someone invests in property they want to be able to rely on a Plan that aids in maintaining property values and provides stability. There needs to be a balance between flexibility and stability. Commissioner Babbin stated that she agreed with everything Commissioner Lanham has stated and wanted to address 3 items. The first being Mr. Klusek's comments about the stakeholders not being present. A lack of presence does not mean there is a lack of concern. Secondly, the outlet mall having the option to become mixed-use in the future demonstrates exactly why there needs to be flexibility and optional use. She does not think that land use categories for existing categories need to be eliminated however, they need to be broader and more flexible for certain parcels. Lastly, she has demonstrated herself to be a great supporter of staff and their professionalism and has been the one who has encouraged placing more responsibility for administrative approvals on staff. However, she feels that there is a need to have a full discussion on this and she relies on staff to come forward with what options exist, what had been considered, and what other uses could be permitted on this land. 15 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Ms. Berry -Hill responded that staff was happy to provide options however, staff needs to know the direction the Commission wants to take. Commissioner Babbin stated earlier that she wanted to reduce the number of land use categories, and recognize existing land use. She asked Commissioner Babbin if she was looking for base categories such as commercial for both the outlet mall and Potomac Station Market Place and then an overlay that says these properties could potentially be used for other things. Commissioner Babbin responded that yes she was looking for base categories and no she was not looking for an overlay. She expressed concern regarding the outlet mall, currently designated as regional retail, would be limited by a mixed-use designation as they would need to meet the criteria for mixed-use. Mr. Klusek explained that the Draft Plan states on the Land Use Map on Pagel 2-45 _."Consider long-term redevelopment potential of outlet mall and designate for mixed use." Perhaps it would be better to look at specifics like the outlet mall and add a policy that recognizes the outlet mall as a viable, commercial use that is generating significant revenue to the Town and ensures that the outlet mall can remain viable while also allowing an option for additional mixed-use. Commissioner Babbin opined that problems arise when there is a partial redevelopment, such as the Crescent Design District, and demonstrates why the Land Use Map on Page 12-30 needs to include optional uses to allow the flexibility for the outlet mall to remain an outlet mall as well as add additional buildings. Mr. Klusek responded that the Plan, as a whole, allows for this. The Land use Map is the long term vision and there are additional policies in between where additional specificity can be provided. Commissioner Babbin suggested that this issue could be solved with some language on Page 30 that is a little more descriptive of what is intended with this particular Land Use Map. Vice Chair Robinson asked Commissioner Babbin if she had some specific ideas in mind. Commissioner Babbin replied that other than the ones they've discussed for specific parcels, she did not. She wanted staff to assist the Commission on the revisions. Vice Chair Robinson clarified that it was her understanding that Commissioner Babbin wished to change the introduction to the land use section and had concerns regarding the Land use Map. She asked Commissioner Babbin to come back to the next meeting with language she would feel comfortable with that would explain optional use, existing use, and stakeholder uses. Commissioner Babbin was agreeable to this and explained that she was going to try to take different portions of the Town Plan that may say things that could be misinterpreted in the future and put in a paragraph that would explain how these different sections work together. 16 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Klusek commented that staff agreed that it was not possible to look at just one page of the Plan and understand everything. It needed to be taken in its entirety. Staff had attempted to capture this in the first couple of paragraphs following the Land Use Map on Page 12-30 and were open to suggestions on how to refine that. Ms. Berry -Hill stated that these paragraphs following the Land Use Map (Page 12-30) address the following 4 components: 1. Preventing incompatible uses. 2. Rectify potential conflicts between existing and approved land uses. 3. Addresses potential redevelopment overtime as opportunities arise 4. Balance long term vision with current market conditions Commissioner Walker suggested addressing duel uses in the Plan now. Vice Chair Robinson clarified that if it is thought that that there could be duel uses on a parcel it should be addressed now to avoid constantly updating the Land Use Map. Mr. Klusek responded that to the extent that staff thought there was a duel use, it had been addressed such as residential and non-residential, both of which are allowed in mixed-use and neighborhood center. As for updating the Plan, the State Code requires that we look at the Plan every 5 years and make amendments and updates as needed. The Plan is supposed to be dynamic and evolve over time as trends evolve and development technologies change. Mr. Klusek gave an overview on Page 31, which discusses the first of 2 new land use categories; technology and employment. The first page provides some ideas being considered such as the shared and collaborative office spaces, i.e. Makersmith, are new trends being recognized by this Plan. On the next page intent of this area, sample uses and design considerations are discussed. Vice Chair Robinson called for questions on the Technology and Employment Section, Commissioner Babbin proposed the creation of a technology zone, created under State Law, to allow the Town to offer incentives should the right opportunities arise. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that this could be included as an implementation. Commissioner Babbin proposed language changes to Page 12-32 to avoid misinterpretation. Vice Chair Robinson expressed concern over the image of light industrial and potential compatibility issues and would like language changes to place more emphasis on employment and less on aesthetics. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that staff will revise the language to address this concern. Commissioner Lanham expressed concern regarding the introduction paragraph and offered to work on some alternative language for this paragraph. Additionally, he suggested moving the picture of a technology/employment center currently at the end of the technology and 17 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes Mr. Klusek commented that staff agreed that it was not possible to look at just one page of the Plan and understand everything. It needed to be taken in its entirety. Staff had attempted to capture this in the first couple of paragraphs following the Land Use Map on Page 12-30 and were open to suggestions on how to refine that. Ms. Berry -Hill stated that these paragraphs following the Land Use Map (Page 12-30) address the following 4 components: 1. Preventing incompatible uses. 2. Rectify potential conflicts between existing and approved land uses. 3. Addresses potential redevelopment overtime as opportunities arise 4. Balance long term vision with current market conditions Commissioner Walker suggested addressing duel uses in the Plan now. Vice Chair Robinson clarified that if it is thought that that there could be duel uses on a parcel it should be addressed now to avoid constantly updating the Land Use Map. Mr. Klusek responded that to the extent that staff thought there was a duel use, it had been addressed such as residential and non-residential, both of which are allowed in mixed-use and neighborhood center. As for updating the Plan, the State Code requires that we look at the Plan every 5 years and make amendments and updates as needed. The Plan is supposed to be dynamic and evolve over time as trends evolve and development technologies change. Mr. Klusek gave an overview on Page 31, which discusses the first of 2 new land use categories; technology and employment. The first page provides some ideas being considered such as the shared and collaborative office spaces, i.e. Makersmith, are new trends being recognized by this Plan. On the next page intent of this area, sample uses and design considerations are discussed. Vice Chair Robinson called for questions on the Technology and Employment Section, Commissioner Babbin proposed the creation of a technology zone, created under State Law, to allow the Town to offer incentives should the right opportunities arise. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that this could be included as an implementation. Commissioner Babbin proposed language changes to Page 12-32 to avoid misinterpretation. Vice Chair Robinson expressed concern over the image of light industrial and potential compatibility issues and would like language changes to place more emphasis on employment and less on aesthetics. Ms. Berry -Hill responded that staff will revise the language to address this concern. Commissioner Lanham expressed concern regarding the introduction paragraph and offered to work on some alternative language for this paragraph. Additionally, he suggested moving the picture of a technology/employment center currently at the end of the technology and 17 Leesburg Planning Commission January 4, 2018 Minutes employment section to the beginning of the section to avoid confusion with the mixed-use neighborhood section. After further discussion is was determined to end discussion on the Plan at this point and pick up on the mixed- use neighborhood on Page 12-33 at their next meeting. Vice Chair Robinson summarized the following actions: Commissioner Lanham will work on an introduction paragraph for the technology and employment section which will be reviewed at the next meeting prior to moving on to the mixed use neighborhood section. Commissioner Babbin will work on alternative language following the Land Use Map. SRTC REPORT None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Inclement Weather Resolution, Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney Ms. Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney, explained that this was the same Resolution that the Commission had signed the past 2 years. This Resolution allows, in the event a meeting is cancelled due to inclement weather, to continue any public hearing item to the next regularly scheduled meeting without the need for re -advertisement of the public hearing. If adopted, the Resolution would need to be advertised in a local newspaper 7 days prior to their next meeting on January 18th. Commissioner Barnes moved to adopt the Resolution. Commissioner Kidder seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-0. The Meeting was adjourned at 9:41 PM Ap roved by: a en Cicalese, ommission Clerk 6;— Gigi o son, Vice Chairman