Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 18 18 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 18, 2018 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, January 18, 2018 in Town Hall Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present included Brian Boucher, Irish Grandfield, Bill Ackman, Calvin Grow, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice Chair Robinson who informed the Commission that Commission Kidder was going to attend the meeting remotely as she was ill. Members Present: Vice Chair Robinson, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Kidder, and Lanham Absent: JoAnn Walker ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Lanham Second: Commissioner Babbin Vote: 5-0-1 Commissioner Lanham proposed that the Planning Commission adjourn at 10:00 pm due to the heavy agenda before them this evening. Second: Commissioner Babbin Vote: 5-0-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 4, 2018 Motion: Commissioner Babbin Second: Commissioner Lanham Vote: 5-0-1 DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS Commissioner Babbin disclosed a telephone conversation with Charlie Kieler of Kettler where she asked him to provide the Planning Commission with further information on their plans for development of parcels D and E which has become an issue in the Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan. Commissioner Babbin disclosed a telephone conversation with Taylor Chess of Peterson Companies asking him to provide more information on their plans for development of the parcel in front of Lowes and the eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan designation. CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT None Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING TLZM-2015-0006, TLSE-2015-0004, and TLSE-2015-0006-0010 Meadowbrook Commercial Public Hearing, Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner Commissioner Robinson opened the TLZM-2015-0006, TLSE-2015-0010, TLSE-2015-0004, TLSE-2015-0006, TLSE-2015-0007, TLSE-2015-0008, and TLSE-2015-0009 at 7:06 pm and invited staff to make their presentation. Mr. Grandfield explained that this application consisted of a rezoning request and 6 special exception requests to allow a shopping center greater than 100,000 square feet, a bank with a drive-in, 3 eating establishments with drive-ins, and an automobile service station as allowable under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Grandfield gave an overview of the site and borders S. King Street and Evergreen Mills Road. There are 8 parcels currently zoned R-1 and the site is currently undeveloped with few trees. There has been a lot of grading that has occurred as the site is adjacent to the Meadowbrook South residential development. Mr. Grandfield discussed the rezoning component which is a request to rezone 23.56 acres of a vacant property located at the southeast corner of S. King Street and Evergreen Mill Road from R-1 to B-3 to allow development of a Community Commercial Retail Center of up to 199,950 square feet. The Applicant has proposed 2 concept plans so the number of buildings can vary between 17 and 21 buildings at full buildout. Mr. Grandfield gave an overview of the site design which includes a general grid of streets with a traffic circle in the middle, grocery store anchor, the auto oriented fast food oriented towards Evergreen Mill Road, a plaza and a series of buildings are oriented along Traditional Way with on -street parking representing more of a main street character towards the east, the gas station, and bank with drive-in are located adjacent to public roads. The alternative layout is basically the same however, the grocery store in building B would be smaller which allows for additional retails spaces (B-1 and B-2), and a new building H would be located along the part of the property that adjoins S. King Street. In both proposed plans there is a stormwater management pond oriented to the east. Mr. Grandfield noted that there are 6 special exception requests: TLSE-2015-0004 Service Station (fueling facility) Building A-1 TLSE-2015-0006 Eating Establishment with'Drive-in Building E TLSE-2015-0007 Eating Establishment with Drive-in Building F TLSE-2015-0008 Eating Establishment with Drive-in Building I TLSE-2015-0009 Bank with Drive-in Building A-2 TLSE-2015-0010 Retail Center larger than 100,000 square feet which is a site wide request Mr. Grandfield explained that the Town Plan currently designates this area as Community Commercial Center which can be located on either side of Evergreen Mills Road, but not on both sides, and the property owner is seeking approval to locate it on the south side of Evergreen Mills Road. The remainder of the area is planned for Low Density Residential uses. The 2 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes existing zoning is R-1, Country Club, located across the street is R-4, Linden Hill and Greenway Farms further south are zoned PRN (Planned Residential Neighborhood), Meadowbrook Farms is zoned PRC (Planned Residential Community). Mr. Grandfield noted that although the Town Plan designates the site as appropriate for a Community Commercial Retail Center, the site design is inconsistent with Town Plan guidance as follows: • A main street character is not used through -out the site. • The location of automobile -oriented uses is of concern. • The transitions to nearby residential uses could be improved. • Noise and lighting mitigation issues exist. • The Code of Development is insufficient and not yet supported by the BAR. Mr. Grandfield discussed the following components: Traffic Impact — The traffic study assumed a build -out of 2021 and determined that the Level of Service for all roads that will serve this site will be a level of C or better which meets the standard. There will be an entrance on S. King Street that will be right -in or left -in due to a new mid -block turn lane. It will be right -out only. The Marathon Drive entrance is at the traffic circle and the Evergreen Mills Road entrance is a full in -out entrance. Parking — The proposed parking is a combination of surface parking lots and on -street parking and will provide 919 spaces which meets the requirements. Pedestrian Access - There are various trails and sidewalks on site and leading to the site which were sufficient however, staff had concerns with off-site access from the east on Evergreen Mills Road. Wallace Drive feeds into the Evergreen Meadows development and has no berm or sidewalks so there isn't any pedestrian or bicycle access from the residential developments to the east of the site. There is a Capital Project for Evergreen Mills Road improvements scheduled for 2020 and upon completion of the project there will be a multi -use path along Evergreen Mills Road which will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to this site. Building Design — The Code of Development contains guidelines and details for the mixed-use/ mixed retail buildings. Details have been provided for buildings C, G, H, K, L-1, L-2, M, and N however, no detail has been provided for buildings A-1, A-2, B, E, F, I, J, O-1, and 0-2. Due to the missing detail, the BAR has yet to pass a resolution in support of the general concept plan and staff is recommending that detail on the other buildings be provided to the BAR, to enable them to endorse a resolution expressing their support of the general concept plan, prior to moving forward with the rezoning. Landscaping - The Applicant is requesting the following modified buffers along the eastern side of the property: • Buffer E -F: 50' buffer, no medium canopy trees, fewer shrubs • Buffer F -G: 50' buffer, opaque fence, no evergreen or medium canopy trees • Buffer G -H: 50' buffer, opaque fence, no evergreen or medium canopy trees Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes • Buffer H-1: 50' buffer, opaque fence, no evergreen or medium canopy trees Mr. Grandfield explained that each modification request asks for the ability to plant a 25' width of the required 50' buffer off-site and proposes a different planting schedule than what is required. He further explained that, per the Zoning Ordinance, these modification requests will be the decision of the Land Development Official and not a determination by Town Council under recommendation of the Planning Commission. Staff is not in support of these requests at this time. Proffers — The proffers were identified in the staff report and there are outstanding issues as follows: 1. BAR Review/Code of Development — proffer attempts to eliminate BAR role in H-2 review which is inconsistent with the Town of Leesburg Zoning Ordinance 2. Evergreen Mills Road frontage improvements timing — the Applicant should reimburse the Town if the Town's Capital Project builds road frontage improvements otherwise required of the developer 3. Minor edits to proffers 2.A, 4.B, 9, and 14.1) as described in the staff report Mr. Grandfield summarized that a number of outstanding issues remain and include Town Plan main street character, transitions between automobile oriented commercial uses proposed and residential uses nearby, lack of commitments and detail within the Code of Development, pedestrian access, buffer modification requests, lighting, and proffers. Mr. Grandfield discussed the 5 rezoning approval criteria and compliance as follows: • Compliance with the Town Plan — No, does not comply • Binding Agreements with the County — None, complies • Mitigation of traffic impacts — Yes, complies • Compatible with surrounding uses — Not as currently proposed, • Adequate public facilities provided — Yes, complies Mr. Grandfield gave an overview of staff findings noting that it was staff's opinion that this rezoning application could better conform with the policies of the Town Plan, the approval criteria of. Zoning Ordinance Section 3.3.15 have not been satisfied, and the proffers need to be revised to be consistent with the Town of Leesburg Zoning Ordinance. He noted that staff could not recommend approval at this time and suggested that the Commission consider sending this application to a future work session. Special Exception Requests Mr. Grandfield explained that staff uses the same approval criteria for all special exceptions to determine if the proposal meets the following: A. Adversely impacts neighboring properties B. Complies with the Town Plan and Zoning Ordinance C. Hinders development or use of nearby lands al Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes D. Creates any problem related to traffic Mr. Grandfield then gave an overview of each special exception request and its compliance with the special exception approval criteria as follows: 1. TLSE-2015-0004 Service Station (fueling facility) Building A-1 This is a request for a gas station/convenience store with 8 pumps, located at the corner of S. King Street and Marathon Drive, elevated about 6' above S. King Street, and open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Staff has determined that there is insufficient information to judge whether approval criterion A (adverse impact) and C (hinders use) is met, there is a lack of commitment to detail including architecture, and the outdoor dining area must be shown. Staff cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Should the Planning Commission choose to forward this to Town Council, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval to address substantial conformance, no implied waivers, mechanical equipment screening, architecture, and delivery and service hours. 2. TLSE-2015-0006 Eating Establishment with Drive-in Building E This is a request for an eating establishment, up to 5,400 square feet in size, open 24 hours a day 7 days a week located at the corner of Evergreen Mills Road and S. King Street. The Applicant has submitted 3 alternative layouts however, the notes provided with the alternative layouts grant an unending number of alternatives as a lot of the notes state that they won't be held to the particular loading area location or design, etc. Staff has determined that there is insufficient information to judge whether approval criterion A (adverse impact) and C (hinder use) are met, there is a lack of commitment to details including architecture, and the speakers, kiosks, and stacking lanes need to be relocated. Staff cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Should the Planning Commission choose to forward this to Town Council, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval to address substantial conformance, no implied waivers, mechanical equipment screening, architecture, menu board and speaker screening, stacking lane screening, delivery and service hours and size limit. 3. TLSE-2015-0007 Easting Establishment with Drive-in Building F This is a request for an eating establishment, up to 4,300 square feet in size, open 24 hours a day 7 days a week located on Evergreen Mills Road at Traditional Way and elevated 14' above Evergreen Mills Road with fill. The Applicant has submitted 3 alternative layouts however, the notes provided state that there could be variations on numerous things. Staff has determined that there is a significant lack of commitment to details, including architecture, and cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Should the Planning Commission choose to forward this to Town Council, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval to address substantial conformance, no implied waivers, mechanical equipment screening, architecture, menu board and speaker screening, stacking lane screening, delivery and service hours and size limit. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes 4. TLSE-2015-0008 Eating Establishment with Drive-in Building I This is a request for an eating establishment up to 2,100 square feet in size, open 24 hours a day 7 days a week located on Evergreen Mills Road at Traditional Way and elevated 14' with fill. The Applicant has submitted 3 alternative layouts however, the notes provided state that there could be variations on numerous things. Staff has determined that there is a significant lack of commitment to details, including architecture, and cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Should the Planning Commission choose to forward this to Town Council, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval to address substantial conformance, no implied waivers, mechanical equipment screening, architecture, menu board and speaker screening, stacking lane screening, delivery and service hours and size limit. 5. TLSE-2015-0009 Bank with Drive-in Building A-2 This is a request for a drive-in bank up to 4,000 square feet in size located on the northeast corner of the property on Evergreen Mills Road closest to the stormwater management pond, and elevated above Evergreen Mills Road by 12'. The Applicant has submitted 3 alternative layouts however, the notes provided state that there could be variations on numerous things. Staff has determined that there is a significant lack of commitment to details, including architecture, and cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Should the Planning Commission choose to forward this to Town Council, staff has prepared a list of conditions of approval to address substantial conformance, no implied waivers, mechanical equipment screening, architecture, and delivery and service hours. 6. TLSE-2015-0010 Retail Center over 100,000 square feet This request applies to the entire site and is a request to have a retail center up to 199,950 square feet in size. Special Exception approval is required for a retail center over 100,000 square feet. Mr. Grandfield explained that this special exception request was combined with the rezoning as both would need to be approved. Staff has determined that there is insufficient information to judge whether approval criterion A (adverse impact) and C (hinders use) is met, there are concerns about the impact on residential uses, and there is a lack of commitment to detail including architecture. Staff cannot support approval at this time and recommends that the Applicant submit additional information and commitments. Mr. Grandfield summarized staff `s analysis noting that staff does not support approval of the rezoning application and 6 special exception requests at this time based on their failure to meet the approval criterion of the Zoning Ordinance. It was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission refer this application to a work session and request that the Applicant address the outstanding issues identified in the January 18, 2018 staff reports. Vice Chair Robinson called for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission members. [.1 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification on hours of operation and if it was part of the special exception request. Mr. Grandfield responded that the Applicant is asked to indicate what they are looking for in their Statement of Justification and they have indicated 24/7. Hours could be limited as a condition of approval. Commissioner Lanham noted that 1 of the proposed alternative layouts for the eating establishments showed a 100' setback for loading and asked if this was measured from the property line to the opening of the building or from the property line to the loading area. Mr. Grandfield responded that it was measured from the property line to the loading area. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning, explained that the Town does not have a requirement for a loading setback and this was something being proposed by the Applicant. Commissioner Lanham asked what the anticipated use of Building H would be. Mr. Grandfield responded that it would be a B-3 permitted use. The Applicant is not asking for a special exception for that building. Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification on phasing. The staff report mentioned phasing and stated that development over 150,000 square feet would require some level of office development. Mr. Grandfield responded that phasing was not mentioned as a condition of approval for Special Exception TLSE-2015-0010 Retail Center. He explained that this is not required by the Zoning Ordinance, it is a policy within the Town Plan that states development of over 150,000 square feet should be mixed use development. It is in their proffers that they shall construct these office uses however, it is a good idea to have it as a condition of approval as well. Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification of the residential unit orientation as it relates to the pond. Mr. Grandfield responded that the rear of the units would face the pond and it was approximately 300 to 400 linear feet. The pond surface, and the uses in buildings M and K with outdoor seating areas and the possibility of music and speakers raises concerns regarding noise impacts. Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification regarding the amphitheater referred to in the Code of Development and if it was proffered. Mr. Grandfield responded that it is proffered to the extent that it is shown on the concept plan, but was unsure if it was on this site or the stormwater management site. He explained that the proposed plaza area will step down in a series of steps that leads to a trail that goes around the pond. Commissioner Lanham asked if this site was designated Community Commercial in the Town Plan. Mr. Grandfield explained that Community Commercial was one of two options; it could also be Low Density Residential. Commissioner Lanham asked if the proposed development meets the Community Commercial criteria. Mr. Grandfield responded that it did and explained that the Community Commercial guidance offered in the Town Plan does not specifically state that the requested uses are not permissible. 7 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes Commissioner Lanham asked for clarification of who is building the pedestrian access trail on Evergreen Mills Road. Mr. Grandfield responded that the Town will be building it as a Capital Project but it is unknown at which stage of the project it will be constructed and open to the public He clarified that staff has suggested and negotiated with the Applicant and explored several different options to have some sort of interim access from the site since they do have a trail that goes around the stormwater management pond to the east and they have looked at the possibility of connecting or extending that trail to a signalized pedestrian crossing at Wallace Drive. Staff looked into the possibility of having the Applicant construct the Capital Project trail in its ultimate location as the Town is not in favor of spending money on something that will have to be removed in a few years. The Applicant's conclusion was that there were too many unknowns and it would not be possible to build the access trail at its ultimate location. Additionally, they were opposed to doing some sort of trail continuation on the other side of the pond towards Wallace Drive. Commissioner Lanham noted that staff had stated that the buffer modifications would be decided by the Land Development Official and asked if a determination had been made. Mr. Grandfield responded that this had not been acted on as staff was hoping to get some input from the Planning Commission which may be considered in the Land Development Official's decision. Commissioner Lanham asked who the Land Development Official was. Mr. Grandfield answered that in this case, it -was the Director of Planning and Zoning and staff's recommendation is to not support the requested modifications due to the potential impacts to the residences. Commissioner Babbin asked if the homes across Marathon Drive had been built and were occupied. Mr. Grandfield responded that they have been built and believed several of the homes were occupied. Mr. Boucher further clarified that several of the units have received Occupancy Permits however, there are more units under construction than occupied. Commissioner Babbin asked if the primary concern regarding the gas station was due to the homes off of County Club Drive across S. King Street. Mr. Grandfield responded that he felt the potential for impact was much greater across S. King Street than Marathon Drive due to the distance and the substantial berm that exists between Marathon Drive and the Meadowbrook South residential development. Commissioner Babbin noted that it appeared on the concept plan that the convenience store is blocking the gas station and asked staff to clarify their concerns regarding noise and lighting. Mr. Grandfield explained that staff does not have any cross sections to show that relationship to indicate that it is in fact blocking the gas station. Staff has asked for cross sections and perspectives to enable staff to see the layout and the relationship of the canopy to the convenience store given the various heights. Right now it is presumed that the convenience store will provide screening of the gas pumps and help screen the noise. Once staff has a perspective to scale, they can make a judgment in more certainty than just assuming the proposed arrangement, by itself, will mitigate the impacts. Mr. Boucher stated that one of staff's concerns is that the site will be elevated about 5 feet over Marathon Drive and while there is a small berm in front, it will only cover 2 feet of the building. The concern is the building will be of a certain size and is a 24 hour 7 days a week operation and there are single family detached homes located :, Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes across the road. This is not much of a concern during the day, however at 12:30 am or 2:00 am there is a greater potential for noise to carry and that building will only block a certain area. It was staff s opinion that give the site is 24 acres, there are other places to locate the gas station that are much farther away than existing and proposed single family detached uses. Staff is not convinced, given the information they received, that when built it will not be highly visible and impact the residents across S King Street. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification of which residences would be affected. Mr. Grandfield responded that there are other houses that face S. King Street further towards the north and some house's backyards face the development. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification of the Code of Development process and if the Code of Development needed to be approved prior to the rezoning. Mr. Grandfield responded that this was found in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance which addresses the H-2 District regulations and the requirements for approvals. The Zoning Ordinance does not require the Code of Development to be approved prior to the rezoning. Staff has concerns about the risk involved in approving a rezoning and then not being able to come to an agreement in terms of what the specifics are in the Code of Development. The Applicant has submitted a plan, under the General Concept Plan Option, where they can get a resolution of support from the BAR for the general style, size, height, and location of the buildings at this point and then get each individual building a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) later. Commissioner Babbin asked that in the case of a Code of Development approval would the individual COA's be administratively approved pursuant to the Code of Development or would the Applicant be required to go before the BAR for approval. Mr. Grandfield responded that the BAR had approved a Design Guidelines Code of Development process for the Village at Leesburg that would allow some administrative approval with the ability for an appeal to the BAR should staff and the developer not agree on the decision made administratively. Commissioner Babbin asked if this would be the same process for this Applicant. Mr. Grandfield explained that it was not due to how the proffer reads. In conversations with our Preservation Planner it was his understanding that neither the Preservation Planner nor the BAR had a level of comfort that the process would operate the same way based on the proffer language. Mr. Boucher clarified that the process in the proffers would be an administrative approval and there is essentially no COA and it was not certain what type of permit would be issued. This is a different process from anything done previously. The Zoning Ordinance requires a COA for buildings in the H-2. Generally, there is an opportunity for an applicant to appeal to the BAR if they don't agree with the administrative approval and in this instance it appears that the BAR had been removed from the approval process. Staff would like language added to include processes that have been proven to work previously. Commissioner Babbin asked for further clarification on this process moving forward. Commissioner Babbin noted the congested left hand turn traffic conditions at the intersection of S. King Street and Evergreen Mills Road and asked if it had been considered to widen S. King Street and create a double left hand turn lane to ease congestion or if that was the intention of the mid -block left hand turn lane off of S. King Street. Mr. Grandfield responded that the option of a double left turn lane had been discussed but he did not know if it had been evaluated in the Traffic Study. Staff did recommend the mid -block left turn lane off of S. King Street in an effort,, 9 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes to alleviate the congestion at the intersection of S. King Street and Evergreen Mills Road. He deferred questions about the double left had turn lane to Calvin Grow, the Town's Transportation Engineer. Mr. Grow explained that the traffic study did look at a double left coming off S. King Street at Marathon Drive which would require road widening and could be an option however, the Applicant has asked for a right -in, right -out, left -in which is needed to mitigate traffic. Commissioner Babbin asked for further clarification on the pedestrian access trail in relation to the planned Evergreen Mills Road improvements and the timeline for the proposed project build- out and occupancy. Mr. Grandfield responded that that would be a question for the Applicant as it is their decision. Commissioner Babbin asked if the road widening planned for Evergreen Mills Road would require the removal of an interim trail. Mr. Grandfield responded that it if said interim trail existed in the right-of-way, where a permanent improvement needed to be constructed, or temporary construction access was needed, they would have to close that trail or if it were a trail on the north side it would have to be completely removed. There was another option of doing some sort of signalized crossing at Wallace Drive and using the trail system interior to the Meadowbrook South residential that would not require removal however, there is the potential that this access would have to be closed during construction of the improvement. Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification of the buffering materials that would be used to screen the restaurants. Mr. Grandfield responded that staff has asked the Applicant to identify how these restaurants are going to be operated in terms of outdoor or amplified music to enable staff to get a better idea on how the noise can be mitigated. He did not think that landscaping alone would. be able to mitigate the noise. It could be different orientations to the patio and/or solid masonry walls. Staff needs to know the planned use which may be difficult to confirm since the Applicant may not know the ultimate occupier of that space however, there could be commitments made at this point about mitigating amplified or live music that would offer the homeowners on the other side of the pond some assurances of what is going to be built and what they can expect. It was highly likely that these residences will be built prior to the restaurants. Commissioner Babbin asked if the condition of approval for requiring concrete walls to screen the sound and the light on the eating establishments was only required if it was oriented toward the street. Mr. Grandfield responded that staff would like solid masonry walls as opposed to concrete as this development is in the H-2 District. Staff believes these stone or brick walls would be needed wherever features such as the menu kiosk, speaker, and stacking lanes are oriented in such a way that they face the public street, particularly the ones with residential across the street. Commissioner Babbin asked what the distance was that noise from a kiosk speaker could be heard. M.r. Grandfield explained that the concern was for residents late at night when there was less background noise and the speaker could sound louder. Commissioner Babbin asked if more research could be done on this for their next meeting with the applicant. Mr. Boucher confirmed that staff would do this. Vice Chair Robinson asked if requirements for signage, canopies, etc. were incorporated in the Code of Development. Mr. Grandfield responded that it did. 10 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the sidewalk and location and width on Evergreen Mills Road. Mr. Grandfield responded that they were located at road level and 5' in width. Commissioner Robinson asked if the alternate layouts proposed addressed building layout, turning radius, delivery vehicles, parking, etc. Mr. Grandfield noted that he would defer this question to Bill Ackman, Director, Department of Plan Review. Mr. Ackman responded that staff has requested that information and have not received it as of yet. They have asked for information regarding the type of delivery vehicles that will be entering the site which may be dependent upon the size of the grocery store, larger tractor trailers have a larger turning radius. This is an issue that is still outstanding. Commissioner Robinson asked if there would be sufficient turning radius for snow removal vehicles. Mr. Ackman responded that he would defer to the Applicant as that would be an internal snow removal process determined by the retail center. Commissioner Robinson asked if the 6' walls would contain the exhaust from backup cars, as they queue for their food, from the residences. Mr. Ackman replied that he did not know, this would require an expert opinion and not something he is familiar with. Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the canopy height and how lighting will be shielded. Mr. Grandfield responded that is could be high at 23' above S. King Street and there are requirements for the canopy that require the lights to be embedded in the canopy and cannot project down. Lighting level is also controlled and there are other lighting requirements that need to be met. Commissioner Robinson invited the Applicant to make their presentation. Molly Novotny, Sr. Urban Planner, Cooley, LLP cane forward as the representative for the Applicant, Van Metre Communities and Traditional Land LLC. Ms. Novotny noted that with her this evening were Roy Barnett, Denise Harrover, and Mark McIntosh, all from Van Metre, their Civil Engineer, Bob Brown, J2 Engineers, and their Landscape Architect, Adam Steiner, Urban Engineers. The property owner is represented by Peter Kalaris who was also in attendance. Ms. Novotny noted that she wished to begin her presentation with a discussion of the Town Plan. This property, as staff noted, is planned for residential with an overlay of community commercial and stated that they would argue that they are largely consistent with the Town Plan. The community commercial designation in the Town Plan has 2 intents, 4 uses, and 3 intensities all of which they meet. The issue, raised by staff, are the 13 site design and location parameters however, they meet all the uses and the intensities of the plan designation for this property. The Southwest Policy Area gives very specific guidance for what community commercial centers in that area should be. The Southwest Policy Area calls for 150,000 square feet of retail uses, and if this is exceeded, it is required to phase in additional uses, such as office, which may account for 15 to 30 percent of total development or residential may be up to 20 percent. Since this is completely nonresidential project, once they exceed 150,000 square feet of development they will phase in office. The intent is to meet daily and weekly shopping and personal needs of the 11 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes surrounding 4 mile area. Grocery should be the single anchor tenant and the site has been designed with a main street character and layout and they have received guidance form the BAR. Due to this guidance, they have revised their site plan to further strengthen the main street corridor. Ms. Novotny stated that they had submitted 2 concept plans. The first plan shows 17 buildings, the 5 special exception uses all anchored by Building B, the grocery store. The second concept plan would allow them to have a slightly smaller grocery store as they currently do not have a tenant for the anchor space. They don't have tenants for any of the spaces yet which is one of the reasons they have built so much flexibility into the plan and have put all of their options out there with this submission. The difference between the 2 plans is really the size of building B and allows for 2 inline stores to fill out the rest of the grocery store space. It also allows for building H to take up some of the parking that would no longer be needed due to the smaller grocery store size. Ms. Novotny noted that they have a number of zoning requests and staff has given an overview of each. She, wished to draw attention to the number of trees shown on the concept plan, noting that this used to be a sod farm and is completely cleared. They will be adding trees to the site from the beginning. She gave an overview of the requested zoning modifications as follows: • Allow street trees more than 15 feet from the right-of-way — staff supports • Allow a reduction in the amount of loading spaces - staff supports • Allow modified buffers along the shared property line with the stormwater management pond - staff does not support. Ms. Novotny explained that the stormwater management pond is an 8 acre amenity that is being planned off-site from this project as part of the residential development surrounding the property. The amphitheater and all the amenities therein are off-site to the project. The pond is currently under construction and is a wet pond so it will be wet year round and will be a true amenity. A question was raised regarding the distance of the new homes under construction from the patios planned on those 2 pad sites. The closest backyard is 770 feet and it was the Applicant's opinion that noise from those 2 patios would not travel that far back. Additionally all the homes under construction have marketing materials that include information about the shopping center and proposed uses. Ms. Novotny discussed the proposed buffer modifications as follows: • Building A-2 (E to F) Drive-thru Bank The Applicant is proposing a 50' landscaped area which is what is required in the Ordinance. The Ordinance requires a very dense and thick buffer that they and their Landscape Engineer felt would be very challenged for survivability and precludes any views of the stormwater management pond. Within their 50' buffer they are proposing, for every 1,000 square feet of buffer, 1 large canopy tree, 1 understory tree, 1.3 evergreen trees and 10 shrubs. Ms. Novotny commented that they were surprised to learn that staff did not support this modification and stated that in a 2015 Comment Letter there was a comment stating "Acceptable as proposed". 12 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes G -H Buffer (Planned Restaurant Building) This is a buffer between residential uses and the Ordinance calls for a 35' buffer however, the Applicant is proposing a 50'buffer with 25' on their property and 25' off the property. Within the proposed 50'buffer, for every 1,000 square feet, they are providing 1 large canopy tree, 1 understory tree, and 10 shrubs. • H -I and F -G Buffers The Ordinance requires a 35' buffer and they are proposing a 50' deep buffer, 25' on their property and 25' off site. For every 1,000 square feet they are proposing 1 large canopy tree. 1 understory tree, 1 evergreen tree, and 10 shrubs. Ms. Novotny stated that staff had supported this modification in the 2015 Comment Letter referenced earlier which stated "The wider buffer provides more room and results in 30% more canopy trees than required by the 35 -foot buffer: given the design and location next to the pond, staff believes the buffer is appropriate as proposed". Ms. Novotny noted that there had been a lot of discussion about the Code of Development and stated that they had been before the BAR 3 times and they do have their review and approval of a general concept plan for the layout of the site but not for the architecture. They have approved some of the buildings in general concept plan form. The property is divided by the H-2 line. Everything closest to S. King Street is in the H-2. They have developed a Code of Development that would govern the entire property both inside and outside the H-2. They know that the BAR will be reviewing and issuing COAs for all buildings within the H-2. If that was not clear in the proffers, it was their oversight and they do not plan to circumvent the BAR process. They will be happy to work with staff to develop the right proffer language to ensure that the BAR will be issuing COAs for all buildings in the H-2 (A-1, B, C, E, and F). There is an attachment to your staff report which is a referral from the Preservation Planner stating that Building C could be approved today however, more information is needed on the remaining buildings within the H-2. The reason more information is needed is due to the fact that the Applicant does not know who the tenants will be and they know that they will have to back to the BAR once they have the tenants.. Staff will review Buildings G-1, G-2, K, L-1. M, and N-1 for consistency with the Code of Development. In the Preservation Planner's referral attachment it states that these buildings have already been determined to be consistent with the Code of Development. Staff has requested additional information on the remaining buildings outside the H-2 (Buildings A-2, I, J, 0-1, and 0-2) before reviewing against the Code of Development. They will be able to provide this infoi7nation once they know who the tenants will be. Ms. Novotny used a number of illustratives to demonstrate building architecture and pedestrian experience which have also been shown to the BAR. The architecture for Buildings C, L, L-1 and L-2 were reviewed and endorsed at the December 2016 BAR meeting. Ms. Novotny noted that there had been a lot of discussion about the Evergreen Mills Road pedestrian connection. She referenced VDOT's Land Use and Urban Design Elements Neighborhoods Section which states "The 1/4 mile radius between the area's center and edges represents the approximate distance of a 5 -minute walk and the distance that most people could 13 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes be expected to walk to a destination before opting to get into a car. It is sometimes appropriate to expand the '/4 mile radius to '/2 mile, particularly when a neighborhood is served by transit". The '/4 mile radius does not reach the homes on Evergreen Mills Road. There are 2 schools on Evergreen Mills Road, neither of which have a sidewalk or pedestrian trail access. It was her opinion that it would not be possible to open the shopping center prior to 2020 considering it was already January of 2018 and they have yet to obtain zoning approvals. Additionally, they have months of work to do before any tenant can occupy the shopping center. The Town has a fully funded plan to widen Evergreen Mills Road to 4 lanes and include the pedestrian connection. They do have an off-site transportation contribution as part of this application and if the Planning Commission and Town Council wish to have this contribution allocated to that trail they can do so however, they did not feel it would be a good use of the funds as this project is already fully funded. Additionally, as staff noted an interim trail would most likely be removed and replaced with the permanent improvement. Ms. Novotny addressed concerns expressed regarding truck turning movements in the staff report and explained that they have revised the turning movements to allow a 65 foot wheel base; W1365; 72 -foot long truck to access all of the site without crossing into intervening traffic. Ms. Novotny also noted concerns about lighting raised in the staff report and explained that their maximum levels will be the level required to meet the minimum standard by federal, state, or local code however, they can't preclude themselves from meeting code requirements in the future. Light poles at the center of the site will not exceed 20' in height per staff's request, although the Ordinance allows for 25'. All overhead lights will be contained within the site and will not trespass off of the property. The street lights that exist around the site are 25' in height. Ms. Novotny discussed the individual special exception as follows; Special exception for Building A-1 Service Station This is a request for up to a 4,500 square foot building in front of the canopy, which will screen the 8 gas pumps from S. King Street and any homes across the street, and there is a 365' distance between the nearest home (side yard) across the street and the service station. The service station will be screened with evergreen trees, large canopy trees, and shrubs. Additionally, the building will be set back a minimum of 100' from the right-of- way. They will agree to staff's conditions of approval as well as a few that they have added and include the building being subject to COA approval form the BAR; the dumpster will be located between Building A-1 and C; the dumpster enclosure will be architecturally consistent with the buildings; and the building parapet will be a minimum of 1' taller than the gas canopy. Special Exception for Building E, Fast Food This will be located at the corner of Evergreen Mills Road and S. King Street and is 285 linear feet from the nearest home separated by 6 lanes of S. King Street traffic and it was their opinion that the exhaust from the idling cars on S. King Street will be more noxious to those homes than the fast food use. The building will be located at least 100' back from the property line and will be screened with large canopy trees, understory trees, 14 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes evergreen trees, and shrubs at least 3' in height as well as a potential retaining wall. As staff noted, they do have several alternatives for this buildings because they don't know the end user however, they have provided conditions of approval and have strengthened them due to staff comments to include a revised condition for speaker distance changing the distance from 40' to 75' from S. King Street and 60' from Evergreen Mills Road; the speaker mounting height will be capped at 5' so the cars will be shielding the speaker from the perimeter of the property. Additionally they have agreed to the condition of approval that the dumpster enclosures to be architecturally consistent with the buildings. • Special Exception for Building F, Fast Food This is a request for a 4,300 square foot building accessed from Evergreen Mills Road, they have the same flexibility of layouts as Building E, and they have agreed to the same conditions of approval. There are 4 lanes of traffic on Evergreen Mills Road and significant landscaping between the building and the right-of-way. She addressed Commissioner Robinson's question about the sidewalks noting that it was located in the right-of-way. Special Exception for Building I, Fast Food This will also be accessed off of Evergreen Mills Road and they have agreed to the same conditions of approval for Buildings E and F. This building is about 2,100 square feet in size so it will most likely be more of a coffee shop than a true fast food restaurant. There are environmental features which prevent construction of buildings across Evergreen Mills Road from Buildings I and A-2. They have submitted alternative layouts for this building as well. Staff had posed some concerns about speakers and idling cars so they have done a little research regarding noise levels which indicated that light traffic is 50 dBA, a passing diesel truck is 85 dBA, and a motorcycle is 100 dBA. Ms. Novotny explained that they have not done a noise assessment for themselves but did find an assessment for an In -N -Out Burger in Pleasant Hill, California and according to this environment noise assessment a drive-through speaker and patron voices resulted in a maximum sound level ranging from 58 — 65 dBA at 30 feet from the speaker. Their speakers will be located 180' from the closest home and in their opinion will not impact those homes. • Special Exception for Building A-2, Bank Building A-2, as well as Building I are outside the H-2 District so they would be subject to the Code of Development, but not necessarily BAR review. They have agreed to the same conditions of approval for speaker distance and height as the fast food uses. Ms. Novotny stated that they have a significant proffer package with this application and include the following: Widen Evergreen Mills Road to 4 lanes with a pedestrian path along frontage (by Ordinance they are required to do 2 and they are also doing the other 2 west bound lanes) Add right turn lane along S. King Street into the site to allow right -in, right -out and left - in access 15 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes • Install pedestrian path along east side of S. King Street • The proffers will be revised to clarify that they will commit to BAR review for all buildings within the H-2; Preservation Planner would review all other buildings against Code of Development • Agree to repay the Town if it builds the Applicant's portion of Evergreen Mills Road first • Commit to more than $4 million in off-site transportation improvements, through right- of-way dedication, built improvements and cash if needed. • Commit to more than $4, million in off-site transportation improvements, through Right - of Way Ms. Novotny discussed the fiscal analysis they had done for this site noting that it was 100% commercial development. Typically they do a fiscal analysis when they are converting commercial to residential but in this instance they have converted residential land to commercial land. They hired Robert Charles Lesser and Company to do the analysis and they determined that over a 20 year period this proposed development scenario will bring in $10,205,000. Ms. Novotny noted that there were a couple of questions that she wished to address. Commissioner Lanham had a question regarding guidance in the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive plan for hours of operation. She explained that there is no guidance as Mr. Grandfield stated, however while they are proposing a 24 hour center they are comfortable limiting the hours of delivery per staff `s condition of approval. There was also a question regarding building vs. loading setback and she explained that all of the buildings along S. King Street will be a minimum of 100' back which is required by the Ordinance. Commissioner Robinson had a question regarding sidewalk location and she explained that all the sidewalks along the perimeter will be located within the right-of-way and all the internal roads will be private roads so they will be responsible for all snow maintenance and up keep. Vice -Chair Robinson solicited questions for the Applicant. Vice -Chair Robinson asked if the fast food restaurants were 12' above road surface. Ms. Novotny responded that the restaurants are at 343' and Evergreen Mills Road is at 329' and across from this area is vacant land today. Commissioner Robinson asked what a typical building's height was to the roof line. Roy Barnett, Van Metre Communities, LLC, responded that a typical retail building has 14' inside clearance and the roof system totaling about 18'. Vice Chair Robinson asked if the frontage improvements would extend beyond the houses or stop at the pond. Ms. Novotny responded that the Evergreen Mills Road frontage improvements are on their property so they stop before the pond however, the Town's project will run from Battlefield Parkway to S. King Street. Vice Chair Robinson asked about the fiscal plan and asked if they were anticipating starting the project in 2020. Ms. Novotny clarified that they didn't anticipate tenants being there until 2020. Vice Chair Robinson asked for more information on the fiscal analysis and Ms. Novotny responded that she had the report with her and would could get back to her after the public hearing. 16 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes Vice Chair Robinson called for additional questions. Seeing none she called for public comment. Neil Steinberg, 139 Woodberry Road, Leesburg, VA 20176, came forward and expressed concern for the communities surrounding this project as there were a lot of unknowns in this project and the residents in these communities deserve more specific detail and more commitment to ensure their interests are protected. Marion Wolf, 1004 Orr Circle, Leesburg, VA 20175 and Marla Decriscio, 2 Country Club Drive, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward and expressed concerns regarding the gas station size, number of pumps, lighting, noise, and traffic impacts. Commissioner Lanham asked if they were more concerned with the idea of a gas station or the hours of operation. Ms. Wolf responded that both were of concern. Peter Fedders, 318 Nickels Drive, Leesburg, VA 20175, came forward and expressed concerns regarding the gas station, service hours, noise, and traffic. Vice Chair Robinson called for additional. public comment. Seeing none she closed the public hearings at 9:01 pm and called for a short recess. Vice Chair Robinson resumed the meeting at 9:10 pm and solicited comments and discussion from the Planning Commission members specifically in regard to what they would like to have more information on in order to provide direction to both staff and the Applicant to enable them to prepare for the next meeting. Commissioner Kidder noted that she wished to comment on 3 items. 1. She requested more information on the option of moving the gas station to another location on the site and what it would entail. 2. Section 2.5.9 Design Expression of the Code of Development (Page 42, 2"a bullet) states that "Trademark buildings should be modified to reflect the specific site and integrate within the project to project a cohesive look throughout the development. Trademark signs are permitted." She was of the opinion this was a shopping center within a residential development that it might be reasonable that both the commercial buildings and signage would represent a subtle, more residential character. 3. Lastly, she asked if it had been considered to move the buffer, shielding the residential from the restaurant patio, to the other side of the pond to allow patrons of the restaurants to enjoy the view of the pond. Commissioner Barnes addressed the resident's concerns regarding the height of the gas station building and why it had been elevated. Mr. Barnett responded that the elevation of the gas station was not purposely raised or lowered. The grocery store is the first building within the shopping center that has to be set and requires a similar grade all around the grocery store and the need to tie in the grade both on Marathon Drive on the south side and Evergreen Mills Road 17 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes on the north side sets the maximum grades. Commissioner Barnes asked if they would consider moving the gas station to another site. Mr. Barnett replied that he spoke with his consultants and they will look at alternative locations and wished to clarify that it was only 8 pumps, not 16. They will need to look at optional sites accessed by Evergreen Mills Road as it must be immediately accessible. He commented that they can move pads around but something is going to end up on that corner pad. Commissioner Barnes asked why they felt there was a need for 3 fast food restaurants and if they were planning on having any fine dining establishments. Mr. Barnet responded that there will be multiple restaurants and they had already talked about the 2 with patios overlooking the pond. There will be some other in -lying restaurants and in today's world, most shopping centers live off their restaurant business because more and more people are shopping on-line as opposed to brick and mortar shopping. Additionally, they really only have 2 fast food restaurants as the third is a smaller building and about the size of a Dunkin Donuts or a Starbucks Drive-thru. Commissioner Barnes asked why it was necessary to have a drive-thru. Mr. Barnet responded that Starbucks requires a drive-thru. Commissioner Barnes asked if there would be high-end restaurants overlooking the pond. Mr. Barnet responded that they were talking about 2 white linen restaurants, not fast casual, that overlook the pond as the pond is a focal point and the reason they have the entrance coming off of S. King Street. Commissioner Barnes asked if Commissioner Kidder's suggestion to move the buffer behind the pond would be possible. Mr. Barnet explained that landscaping, on its own, is not going to shield all the noise and he didn't think it was the right idea. He stated that he would talk to their partners and the rest of the owners of this property to see if there are other things they can provide that would give staff and the Commission a level of assurance that there won't be bands playing out on the patios at all hours of the night. Commissioner Lanham commented that he felt the Code of Development was light on architecture and they only have to go before the BAR for the buildings in the H-2. He does not have a sense of what the buildings are going to look like due to the alternative options proposed and the flexibility the notes grant. He would like to see this section of the Code of Development strengthened to give more of a sense of what the buildings will look like. Commissioner Babbin stated that she thought the development looked very nice.on the pictures shown by the Applicant but couldn't recall if the elevation drawings for the Town Center portion of the project were proffered. She thought she had heard that they were however, staff was concerned that there wasn't enough regarding the appearance of the pad buildings and asked Mr. Boucher if she was correct. Mr. Boucher responded that she was correct and explained that they have never seen any depictions of any of the fast food restaurants the gas station or the convenience store. These buildings are going to be located on the perimeter and most visible off-site and staff was hoping to get something in the Code of Development that would give an example of what these buildings will look like. The Applicant has stated that they need flexibility due the tenants being unknown however, the whole point of a Code of Development is to have a certain theme or look and staff felt this flexibility could be absorbed in the Code of Development. Commissioner Babbin commented that she understood the need for flexibility and would like to see a little bit more flexibility on both sides. She felt that the Applicant's approach in submitting alternative plans was excellent and asked that staff work with the Applicant to Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes review the 3 alternatives to determine if any issues exist and return to the work session with this information. She too would like to have more architectural detail in the Code of Development to address the appearance of the fast food restaurants as she felt it was possible for fast food restaurants to be consistent with the Town's historical character. She stated that she was not in support of prohibiting trademark colors on the buildings as she felt it was a mistake. Commissioner Babbin clarified that she was not advocating a Mid -King Street entrance or an entrance with more stackable lanes off of Evergreen Mills Road, she was merely asking for more information. She presumed the Mid -King Street entrance is required to keep the main street layout design. She noted that her only concern was the potential for the stacking lanes to back up onto S. King Street and impact traffic. Commissioner Babbin did not support staff's request that the Applicant construct the pedestrian access from Wallace Drive as she felt it was a waste of time and money. Furthermore, if an interim access was constructed it would not be available for use during construction of the permanent improvement and would most likely be destroyed when construction of the permanent improvement was completed. She also did not feel it was consistent with other areas in Town, where pedestrians are walking in unsafe areas to access shopping centers which, in her opinion, needed to be addressed along with snow removal. Commissioner Babbin commented on the buffer modification around the pond and had also thought about moving the buffer to the other side of the pond, however, she felt that some of the homeowners may want to enjoy the view of the pond. It was her opinion that it should be left to the homeowners to determine if they wanted additional screening for their property. Commissioner Babbin noted that she understood the concerns regarding the gas station and appreciated the Applicant's willingness to look at alternative locations however, she was uncertain if it would be fiscally possible and asked that staff work with the Applicant to ascertain what that building, in front of the canopy, will do to mitigate noise. She stated that she did not have an issue with lighting and that wasn't a concern expressed by the 2 Country Club residents who spoke earlier. Commissioner Babbin expressed concern regarding the need for flexibility in building design to allow the Applicant to be able to attract various tenants. She felt that once the tenant was identified, the design could be refined. Commissioner Babbin noted that she felt she was hearing a consensus amongst the Planning Commission members to forward this Application to work session. She explained that Commissioner Kidder had prepared a motion and had asked her to read it for her at the appropriate time. She noted Commissioner Kidder's motion mentions staff time to work on outstanding issues and includes a number of items. She asked Commissioner Kidder if she would be comfortable amending that motion to eliminate the inclusions. Commissioner Kidder responded that she thought she had to be specific for legal purposes. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney clarified that she felt the motion, as Commissioner Babbin would like to amend by deleting the specifics, is perfectly fine as she felt that both staff and the Applicant understood what the Commission would like to discuss at the next work session. There was no legal reason 19 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes to keep those specifics in for tonight's motion. Commissioner Kidder responded that she would be agreeable to amending the motion. Commissioner Barnes commented that the proposed work session should be held at the second meeting in February to allow both staff and the Applicant time to work together to resolve outstanding issues. Mr. Grandfield responded that he felt that would be an adequate time frame. Vice Chair Robinson expressed concerns regarding the proffers and the Applicant proffering to all the allowable uses and special exception where permitted with 4 exceptions mentioned, and references to public utility major and public utility minor and asked the Applicant to clarify the language in the proffers. She also expressed concern regarding the proffer language as it relates to the Code of Development and requested that that be clarified at the work session. Vic Chair Robinson requested that the BAR get to a more final stage in the Code of Development so that the Commission is not voting on something that may get be revised in the future. She asked that staff ensure that the BAR has an opportunity to look at this and have a more final stance prior to the work session as well as answering some of the questions regarding signage to make it a stronger document that everyone understands. Vice Chair Robinson also expressed concern regarding the entrance from S. King Street and the left turn stacking lane. Due to this section of roadway being part of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground pathway, she requested that it be kept as unclutter as possible to prevent accidents. She asked that staff and the Applicant come back to the work session with information on the number of cars being stacked and what the implication would be if there wasn't this third entrance. Vice Chair Robinson reiterated her request for more information on the fiscal analysis. Vice Chair Robinson asked for more specificity on the caliper of the trees being planted as she would prefer larger trees with larger root balls which have a better chance of survival. Vice Chair Robinson summarized that items to be discussed at the work session included the gas station location and buffering, the Code of Development as it relates to the trademark signage and architecture, the landscape buffering around the pond, theme and look of restaurants, signage, traffic, and walkability. Commissioner Babbin had a concern about Vice Chair Robinson's request to have the BAR review and finalize the Code of Development prior to the work session as it was her understanding that the Code of Development did not have to be completed prior to the rezoning. She stated that she didn't want to hold up the rezoning due to the BAR's ability to review this prior to the work session and asked Mr. Boucher for his opinion. Mr. Boucher responded that he did not know what was on the schedule for their work session in February as this was the meeting that staff would try to get the Applicant to attend to discuss this the Code of 20 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes Development with the BAR. Vice Chair Robinson amended her request to have as much BAR input as possible for the work session on February 15, 2018. Commissioner Babbin read the following preamble and motions at Commissioner Kidder's request. "I am not opposed to the concept of this development. I would like to work on this with the developer and staff because it is in and also surrounded by existing residential development. It is a prime location on a major highway leading tourists and others to an historic town and such sets the tone and character of what's ahead. It is proper for the Town and its residents and businesses to know what to expect of a proposed project. What it will look like, how it will affect surrounding neighbors, and how it serves the interests of the Town. The following motions will allow us to explore all possibilities." Commissioner Babbin stated the she would like to proceed with Commissioner Kidder's motions as amended by their prior discussion. "I move that rezoning application TLZM-2015-0006 Meadowbrook Commercial be considered at a future work session in order to give the Applicant, Commission, and staff time to work on outstanding issues." Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Babbin stated that Commissioner Kidder had a second motion. "I move that the 6 special exception applications for Meadowbrook Commercial be considered at a future work session in order to give the Applicant, Commission, and staff time to work on outstanding issues." Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Ms. Novotny wished to confirm that the date of the work session will be February 15`x' Vice Chair Robinson confirmed that she was correct. Vice Chair Robinson asked if the Commission members wished to move to the next topic of discussion and it was determined to defer the 2 discussions scheduled to a future meeting. SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None 21 Leesburg Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Minutes STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Memo and Discussion of how the Town Plan is used in the review of land use legislative applications — Deferred Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan — Deferred SRTC REPORT Vice Chair Robinson reported that the Committee was continuing to address cut -through traffic. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Babbin noted that she would not be at the February I" meeting as she would be traveling but requested that she be able to attend the meeting remotely if there was going to be discussion, with binding votes taken, on the Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan. The Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM Ap roved by: 0 ar n Cicalese, ommission Clerk Gig inson, Vice Chairman 22