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