Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-28-16 PC MinutesThe Town of Leesburg in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, January 28, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan Berry -Hill, Irish Grandfield, Bill Ackman, Calvin Grow, Scott Parker, Shelby Caputo and Debi Parry. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Burk, Kidder, and Robinson, and Council Member Burk Absent: Harper, ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Robinson Second: Commissioner Burk Vote: 6-0-1 (Harper absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS None CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that she was looking forward to this evening's meeting and thanked the Applicant for getting the materials to the Planning Commission despite the overwhelming snow fall over the weekend. PETITIONERS John Burnham, 114 Slack Lane, Leesburg, came forward and noted his support of the courts expansion and the importance of incorporating the project into the community intelligently. He expressed concern regarding the cinderblock appearance of the parking garage and the type of trees screening North Street. PUBLIC HEARING None 1 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None ZONING TLZM-2015-00032, TLZM-2015-0003, and TLTA-2015-0001 Courthouse Expansion Work Session, Irish Grandfield, Sr. Planner Mr. Grandfield discussed the outstanding issues relating to the applications as follows: 1. The Applicant has not demonstrated the value of the proposed off -site transportation contribution to show its value relative to the $1.9 million per Appendix B of the Town Plan. 2. North/King Street Signal: Staff believes construction is warranted vs. applicant proposed contribution based on need for signal when courthouse opens ($470,000 projected cost vs. $400,000 proffered) 3. Contribution to Edwards Ferry Road/Catoctin Circle Improvement: ($450,000 to $500,000 Projected cost vs. $400,000 proffered) — the County has a proffer from 1998 where they would be required to construct the traffic signal 4. Add architectural quality language on Town Plan Amendment for the Pennington Lot due to its' proximity to the H-1 5. Proffer to specific garage architecture and design 6. Proffer storm drainage routing in front of homes on North Street — The storm drainage proposed routes storm water behind the homes on North Street. While this meets engineering standards; there is a history of flooding in this area. Rich Brittingham, Dewberry, thanked the Planning Commission for holding this special meeting and helping to move this project along. He summarized the revised proffers as follows: TLZM-2015-0002 Courthouse/Church Street Lot • Revision of language allowing for flexibility in intersection improvements for North Street/King Street intersection improvements • Construction hour start revised from 6:30 am to 7:00 am TLZM-2015-0003 Pennington Lot • Description of North Street access • County commitment for snow removal along pedestrian path • Operation controls revised defining hours of top deck lighting: Lights off 7:00 pm to 5:00 am daily during winter operation Lights off 9:00 pm to 5:00 am daily during summer operation • Construction hour start revised from 6:30 am to 7:00 pm Commissioner Kidder commented on the revision of the North/King Street Intersection proffer and suggested it should be changed to include the following language "Intersection improvements at North Street and King Street in consideration of the Town's removal of the first 2 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes existing parking space on the southwest corner of the intersection". She included this because she did not think a four-way stop would work if the parking space remains; and for the safety of traffic turning right onto King Street the Town should remove that parking space. Additionally, she would like to add the following language to the proffer "The applicant will design, construct and pay for a four-way stop intersection with appropriate striping and signage prior to the receipt of a zoning permit for the new courthouse facility. If after sufficient time it becomes evident that the four-way stop does not work and a signal is warranted, the applicant will design, construct and pay for the signal". Commissioner Barnes responded that County has proffered $400,000 for the intersection improvement at that intersection and opined that it would be up to the Town to determine which approach will be taken at this intersection Commissioner Babbin noted her agreement with Commissioner Barnes. She asked the applicant how the $400,000 proffer now compares to the 1998 proffer requiring the County to construct the signal. Mr. Brittingham explained that the Town bond estimate provided the cost for the signal, the initial figure was $253,000 and they used this as the initial figure in their first submission of their proffers. Town Staff provided a detailed estimate for the cost of constructing that signal which amounted to $470,000. The applicant reviewed the estimate and found it to be fairly accurate; however there were some points of disagreement and they offered the current amount of $400,000 cash in lieu. The County standard is $350,000; however it was determined that there may be additional difficulties as this intersection is located in the historic district and felt that was justification for the additional $50,000 proffered. The language in the 1998 proffer was not specific and County staff has never been in agreement that the County would bear the entire cost of the installation of all the improvements related to that signal. The language in the proposed proffer specifically addresses this issue and, if approved, will replace the 1998 proffer. Commissioner Babbin asked if the figure included pedestrian walk signs. Mr. Brittingham answered that he did not recall. Calvin Grow, Transportation Engineer, answered that the figure included pedestrian crossing signs. Commissioner Burk clarified that it is Staff's recommendation that the County construct the signal based on the traffic study which determined that it is needed. Commissioner Babbin noted that she preferred the way it is written now. In the current situation we have the luxury of not having to deal with traffic studies as we can see the reality and can wait until it is needed. In her opinion, putting in a signal or four way stop now, before it is necessary, will create more congestion. Commissioner Burk expressed concerns regarding accepting cash in lieu of the applicant being required to construct the improvement. The cash amount is based on current estimates which will most likely be higher when it is time to construct the improvement. 3 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson would like the proffer language to state that the County will be responsible for the design, construction and total cost for signalization when it is determined to be required by the Town of Leesburg. Mr. Brittingham noted that was not something he could commit to as it was an issue that would have to be decided by the County. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the concern regarding the North/King Street intersection was the possibility of uncovering something of historical significance which could potentially delay or postpone construction of the courthouse. Chairman Welsh Chamblin clarified that the recommendation was not that it be constructed prior to the completion of the courthouse and if the applicant is not able to make that call tonight it could be added as a recommendation or condition. Mr. Grandfield noted that the State statute requires utilization of the cash proffers within twelve years or it is returned (Note to correct this statement — State Code requires cash proffers be used within seven years or they must be returned to the applicant). Commissioner Robinson asked if there would be a timeline if the proffer was worded to design and construct and the Town did not accept any monies toward the improvement. Mr. Grandfield answered that the twelve year time line only applies to cash proffers. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked how long the lights would remain on once activated and if this was something that could be set off by an animal such as a bird. Mr. Brittingham answered that they while they have not committed to a specified time frame; there had been some initial talk as there are standards which he believed to be fifteen to thirty minutes. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the motion sensor would require a larger body to set it off. Commissioner Kidder referenced an email from a Leesburg resident who expressed concern regarding the evening hours of construction and asked how late into the night it could go. Mr. Grandfield answered that it was 10:00 pm per the Town Code. Mr. Brittingham clarified that the construction hours were from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm weekdays and from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekends. There will be some construction activities associated with the Church Street tunnel construction that will require a later time frame to minimize disruption of traffic patterns, etc. Mr. Brittingham addressed the following Planning Commission concerns and questions: • Proposed Tree Canopy on Church Street Lot — 10% is required and 13% is provided. • Statement of Justification language — Its intent is to provide an overview of the project and describe how the application relates to goals outlined in the Town Plan. It is not a proffered document and all specifics on detailed proposal are clearly defined in zoning documents and proffers. • Pole Height vs. Tree Height — The deck elevation is 365' and the light pole elevation is 390'. The existing topography in the tree save areas range from 340' to 352' with tree heights ranging from 390' to 402'. 4 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes • Church Street Utility Pole — The current sidewalk currently does not meet ADA requirements; with proposed widening ADA requirements are met. Total sidewalk width at pole increased from 3.5' to 6.3' • Blasting Notification — Town Code requires a 300' radius notification; which the applicant increased to 450; to occur no later than fifteen days prior to blasting Commissioner Barnes referred to the petitioner's comment regarding the use of evergreen trees. Mr. Brittingham answered that there are evergreen trees provided per the ordinance. Commissioner Barnes asked if they could add some type of treatment on the bottom to prevent people from walking into the utility pole. Mr. Brittingham answered that he felt the proposed sidewalk improvements would provide a pleasant pedestrian experience; but it was something he could look into. Mr. Hargreaves explained that they are constrained by ADA requirements and if they added a treatment to the bottom they may not meet ADA requirements for access around the pole. Commissioner Robinson noted that there were nine poles that needed to be removed from the corner of Church Street and Edwards Ferry Road to North Street. Removal of the poles is required to address safety and liability issues. If the applicant is going to improve this entire pedestrian walk way it needs to be made safe. Those utility poles need to be removed so that they are not in the middle of the sidewalk. Mr. Brittingham noted that while her comments were appreciated; the best they could do at this time is to make the sidewalk ADA accessible. Mr. Brittingham addressed the following Staff Report comments: • North Street/King Street and Edwards Ferry Road/Catoctin Circle Intersection Proffers — The applicant has proffered $400,000 cash in lieu for each intersection which is higher than the County standard of $350,000 • Off -site Transportation Improvements Per Town Plan — Throughout this process, in determining what the County applicant obligation is for off -site cost, they have utilizing the government land use average daily trips which are 11. The applicant feels that they are meeting the Town Plan requirement. • Garage Architecture — Mr. Hargreaves discussed changes to the architecture which would include an increased brick percentage and an elevated area way. He asked the Planning Commission to allow them to work on the architecture and design in order to make it appear more residential in character. • Pennington Lot Stormwater Routing — The applicant will add a proffer committing to Town staff's recommended storm sewer alignment down North King Street Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the 11 average daily trips included the thought that there would be over two hundred parking spaces used by the County and not the courts. Mr. Brittingham answered that the 11 daily trips is solely for the courts use. The entire traffic study is only for the courts use and does not have anything to do with the total amount of parking spaces. 5 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Kidder noted that Mr. Hargreaves mentioned that the drawings shown tonight are strictly conceptual and asked if they will be getting into more detail when they go before the BAR. Mr. Hargreaves answered that what they would like to do is to take this drawing and develop it further so they can begin to indicate the different character of the spandrel panels. He was not sure if Dewberry intends to provide reveal in the walls but is has been discussed. He also clarified that this property is outside the H-1 and is not subject to BAR approval. Commissioner Kidder expressed concern that the property is adjacent to the 11-1; however the building design relates more to a modern downtown; and not an historic downtown. Mr. Brittingham discussed the comprehensive land scape plan and garage screening. He noted that the garage would be centrally located on the property and surrounded on the north and east by four acres of mature 50' tall hardwood tree stands. Distances to adjacent residences have been identified and range from 135' fee t at the closest point to 450' on the northeast side. The required buffer is being provided along North Street as well as a tree save making that buffer almost 50'. Changes to the North Street exit have allowed them to save trees and add supplemental plantings which provide an effective 75' buffer. They are providing enhanced evergreens along the edge of the tree save along the eastern property line and west of the garage where they are removing spaces from the existing Pennington Lot. The planting area on the west side of the surface lot has been widened resulting in a double row to provide screening from the west. Comprehensively looking at the location and the architecture the applicant feels that they are doing a good job in mitigating the impact of the parking structure on the surrounding properties. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was fine with the proposed screening but did have concerns regarding the design. Since the intent is to vote on the application tonight; she asked if it were possible to add a condition to the motion that the Applicant be required to provide Town Council more detail design plans for the parking garage incorporating brick facades and other architectural improvements to improve quality given the proximity of the structure to existing residential uses and the 11-1 Old and Historic District. Commissioner Robinson requested the condition to be re -worded to include "improve its relationship to the H-1 Old and Historic District" as opposed to "quality" as well as incorporate something that is floral or greenery disguising. Commissioner Babbin agreed and suggested adding "vegetative screening". She then asked the Applicant if they wished to comment on the proposed condition. Mr. Brittingham answered that this condition meets their intent. Commissioner Kidder suggested cylindrical tall skinny evergreens which would do a great deal to camouflage buildings and give a different motion to the building. These trees grow very tall, are low in maintenance; and would address building mass. Mr. Hargreaves noted his agreement and that their preference is to plant something closer to the building versus planting on the building as they have not had a lot of success with plantings on buildings. 6 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson asked if the County should include reconfiguration of the Bank of the Valley building in the proposed land uses as the four buildings on Edwards Ferry Road were included. Mr. Hargreaves answered that the Bank of the Valley building was not on their site. Commissioner Robinson made the following comments and suggestions regarding the Proffer Statement for TLZM-2015-0002 Courts Expansion — Church Street Lot: • Proffer 1 B: Proposed Land Uses — Change the last sentence to eliminate "other related offices, government offices" and replace with "other court related offices" as it was her opinion that this expansion should be for courthouse and court related uses and not government office uses. • Proffer II A — Transportation Improvements: 1. (c) — North/King Street Signal — remove "cash in lieu" and substitute "design, construct and pay" 1. (d) — Catoctin Circle/Edwards Ferry Road intersection improvement — remove "cash in lieu" and substitute either "% of the design and construction" or: design, construct and pay" 1. (e) — Driver feedback signage — remove "cash in lieu" and replace with dollar amount 2. Replace traffic signal with "intersection improvements" and add "the applicant shall design, construct, and pay for signalization when it is requested by the Town of Leesburg. • Proffer II C — Pedestrian Improvements 3. Sidewalk along Cornwall Street" - The sidewalk cuts off at the Masonic Lodge property and the plat is incorrect. Commissioner Robinson requested to include language from the ZM-155 proffers which indicated that it would ensure that maps, etc. will be used to make sure the public use the parking lot as well as understand how to get there. • III B — Design, Landscaping, Buffering The proposed 8' brick wall by the utilities area; located behind the cemetery and one of the residences: is not necessary and should be removed or replaced with a 4' brick wall behind the residence. Commissioner Robinson also expressed concerns regarding the undergrounding of utilities and removal of the light pole in the pedestrian walkway along Church Street. Commissioner Robinson made the following comments and suggestions regarding the Proffer Statement for TLZM-2015-0003 - Pennington Lot Rezoning 7 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Plat 3 is proffered, however Plat 9 is not and she would like an explanation as to why this is so. • II A — Transportation and Pedestrian Improvements 1. The last sentence should read "open for traffic and accepted by the Town for maintenance" 3. The second sentence, regarding entrance to the parking lot temporary access, needs to be updated to insure that no parking on the deck will happen until Church Street, the surface lot, walkways, etc. are completed. This is the first phase of construction and should be completed prior to moving on to the next phase. • III C - Site Lighting — Suggested shorter poles and more lights • III D - Operational Controls — Request to change the hours of lights off to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm year round • IV — Garage Use - Prefer not to have County or any non -litigant related personnel in this parking lot and did not think it should be used for storage. It was Commissioner Robinson's opinion that by not allowing anything other the court -related parking, it would be possible to eliminate one level of the parking structure. Commissioner Kidder asked what was involved in the Semones Parking Lot improvements. A representative from Dewberry answered the lot will be re -striped as shown on the concept plan with accessible spaces; some spaces will be removed due to sight distance issues; and landscaping will be added to those spaces. Commissioner Kidder asked if provisions were being made for resident only parking for Harrison Street residents. Chairman Welsh Chamblin answered that a group of residents can request it but would need to go through an established process. Commissioner Kidder expressed concerns regarding the construction hours going until 10:00 pm and suggested an end time of 9:00 pm. Council Member Burk asked how wide the ADA portion of the sidewalk was. Mr. Brittingham explained that it was not a simple answer; 5 'is preferred, however it can be reduced to 4' as long as you have a maximum length of 200 linear feet before bump -outs of 5'. Within that linear 200' there is a minimum of 32" in selected areas if needed; dependent upon obstacles. Council Member Burk asked if this was how they were justifying the light poles. Mr. Brittingham answered that it was the best solution in order to make that walkway ADA accessible. Council Member Burk asked why the light poles had to be 25' in height. Mr. Brittingham explained that the applicant had looked at a number of options. They are constrained by ISENA criteria which require a minimum foot candle average of 3 foot candles across the surface and a minimum of one foot candle. To achieve this you can either do a lot of poles; or as they have 8 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes done with less poles interior at a certain height. It was their opinion that this provides the best balance and keeps all the poles on the interior of the garage as opposed to the edges. Council Member Burk asked how far the spill -over was. Mr. Brittingham answered that they were at the minimum on the corners. Chairman Welsh Chamblin solicited Planning Commission Member's comments and clarified that they would be voting on the three applications separately. Commissioner Barnes commented that the conversion of the exit only ramp on North Street to an emergency access ramp and the timing of the lights alleviated a majority of his concerns. Commissioner Kidder commented that she was looking forward to voting for as well as seeing all the improvements that will be included in the presentation to Town Council. She asked if it would be possible to see this prior to the Town Council meeting. Ms. Berry -Hill explained that the Town Council meeting is scheduled for February 9th and everything will be available online through LIAM, which is typically the Friday before the Town Council meeting which in this case would be Friday, February 5th Commissioner Burk opined that part of the Planning Commission's job is to improve projects on their way to Town Council and he felt the Commission, Staff and the applicant have done a nice job in this area. He noted that the lights were always going to be an issue but he liked the mitigation of the cut-offs with motion sensors. He was particularly impressed with the slide that showed absolute height of poles relative to the trees as it took into account the elevation of the base and the height on the garage. He felt it was important to show, even though the trees are not evergreens; that there are still natural vertical things that are as high as manmade vertical things. He noted that he was looking forward to the improvements in architecture and appearance. He expressed concern regarding the standards for the number of trips generated when dealing with the proffers for off -site traffic mitigation. The standard, which Staff used, was 68.93 and the traffic study shows that the existing courthouse uses 11 trips. He felt that the actual number lay somewhere in between 11 and 68.93 with 11 likely referring to government use in a way that is different from a courthouse use. It was his opinion that the proposed proffer for this contribution is too low. Mr. Brittingham explained that this is an off -site transportation contribution that is supposed to be off -set by the off -site improvements. The cost of the improvements being made to Church Street such as the Church Street extended improvement and the sidewalk improvements, etc. are being used to off -set the guidelines set in the Town Plan. There is not a major intersection on this site, such as the Village at Leesburg development, so in this case they are estimating costs in the historic district which is difficult. Mr. Grandfield explained that Staff has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding the value of their improvements and Staff is confident that the value of the improvements; when you consider the traffic signals, Church Street extended, and all the pedestrian improvements; is well above $ lmillion The value of their improvements is probably closer to $1.5 million. 9 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Babbin felt that she had made her comments clear at the last meeting. She thanked the applicant for all their work as well as working with the Planning Commission. Great advances have been made; however, we have not gotten to the 100% mark. She noted that she was happy to have Council Member Burk at the meeting to bring forward valid points for Council to consider. She noted that she would be honored to bring forth a motion to recommend approval. There were two conditions from tonight's discussion that will likely be included in the motion; Commissioner Robinson's language change for the North/King Streets intersection and the other which she had read about the architecture for the parking garage. Commissioner Burke thought that there were two other conditions; storm drainage which was agreed to tonight but is not in the proffers; and there seemed to be general agreement to bring former language from the prior proffer to notify people with maps, etc. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a motion for TLZM-2015-0002 Courthouse expansion. Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that TLZM-2015-0002 to amend previously approved concept plan and proffers for TLZM-1998-0155 to allow a 92,000 sf. courthouse and associated improvements at 2 Church Street NE, Leesburg Virginia, 20176, consistent with the Concept Plan prepared by Dewberry and dated January 20, 2016 and the proffers dated January 27, 2016 be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval on the basis that the amendment meets the Approval criteria of TLZO Section 3.3.15 and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice as outlined in the January 7, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Vote: 6-0-1 (Harper absent) Chairman welsh Chamblin called for a motion for TLTA-2015-0001, Pennington Lot Land Use Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Town Plan Amendment TLTA-2015-0001 to convert approximately 9.9 acres from "Low Density Residential" to the "Downtown" land use on the Town Plan Planned Land Use Policy Map together with the proposed policy language be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval 011 the basis that the amendment meets the Approval Criteria of TLZO-Section 3.16 and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice as outlined in the January 7, 2016 Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Kidder seconded that motion. Commissioner Robinson stated that she could not support this Town Plan Amendment and read the following statement: 10 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes I disagree that the Statement of Justification and associated materials adequately addresses the criteria to justify a Town Plan Amendment as proposed. - Not listed in 5.5.2 R-6 Uses is a use for public garage. Even though in 1990 the Zoning Administrator interpreted putting in a surface lot, a 4 level deck with a 56,000sq ft. base is very different. - This does not "mitigate potential negative impacts through site design, including location of facilities and access, building height, scale and massing and buffers between different uses." (Objective 11) - The Town Plan also states that "Facilities should not have a negative impact in terms of automobile traffic, noise, lighting and visibility."(Objective 12) - Land Use or intensity/density transitions should be provided between non-residential uses and residential areas. (Objective 13) - The Central Planning Area Objective to integrate compatible land uses that strengthen the existing suburban residential character of other Central Planning Area Areas outside of the Downtown area is not met. (Objective 1.) - The elevator Tower height of 55' which is almost twice the height of most of the surrounding buildings is not commensurate with the necessary setbacks to provide a harmonious streetscape or neighborly harmony. (Objective 7) - Economic Development is cited 17 times in the Statement of Justification. However, not once in any of the documents is it quantified. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the vote. Vote: 4-2-1(Nay — Kidder, Robinson, Absent — Harper) Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for a motion for TLZM-2015-0003 — Pennington Lot rezoning Commissioner Babbin made the following motion: I move that Rezoning TLZM-2015-0003 to rezone the 9.9 acre parcel known as the "Pennington Lot" from R-6 (Moderate Density Residential) to GC (Government Center) to allow a 4 -story parking garage consistent with the Concept Plan prepared by Dewberry and dated January 20, 2016 and the proffers dated January 27, 2016 be forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval on the basis that the amendment meets the Approval Criteria of TLZO Section 3.3.15 and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice as outlined in the January 7, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report. The conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant design, constructs, and pays for the traffic signal at King and North Streets when deemed necessary by the Town. 2. The applicant provide Town Council with detailed design plans for the parking garage incorporating brick facades, vegetative screening, and other architectural improvements to improve the building's relationship to the H-1 Old and Historic District. 11 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes 3. The storm drainage proposed to be directed from the eastern portion of the site and behind the homes on North Street be redirected instead along North Street in front of the homes. 4. The applicant add a proffer regarding notification to users of the garage similar to the previous proffer for TLZM-1998-0155 listed as item 3A on page 8 of the proffers. Commissioner Burk seconded the motion. Commissioner Robinson read the following statement: Leesburg is an established town. It buildings are close to the road and close together. Therefore neighbors need to be amenable to each other. Uses need to complement each other or provide a boundary that suitable to separate. Architectural design is one way to make a structure acceptable. Buffers are another. But the government is not required to step back the structure as the height increases. Nor is it required to conform to Architecture standards because it is outside the H-1. The County needs to understand its impact on the surrounding uses — which are all residential. The County needs to up the game on its architecture and buffering. The County needs to reduce the number of spaces by limiting the use to the court system business only. If the County needs to look at more structured parking, it needs to look elsewhere in Town. In fact it has been approached by the Town to put up a structure by the creek, south of Market Station. This proposed structure was outlined by NV Commercial. Commissioner Robinson noted could not support the rezoning for the following reasons: • I do not think the use is valid under our Town Plan. The County seems to discount that the parking structure is surrounded completely by residents. Whether it is the back of King Street properties or the residents directly adjacent. • I do not think that the County has spent enough time since 1998 thinking through attendant parking impacts and their mitigation either through Architectural enhancements or plant walls. • Because of the mass of the structure and the height of the lighting, the actual sighting will be visible from many other spots in Town, just as the County building is; just as Paxton's Tower is. • The pedestrian walkway places the Town in legal jeopardy with its utility poles in the middle of the sidewalk. • If the County wants to park non -Court related vehicle in Town, it should initiate a new structure. This intrusive structure should be kept to a minimum. Commissioner Kidder thought Commissioner Robinson's comments to be relevant and asked if it would be appropriate that her comments go as a minority report to Council. 12 Leesburg Planning Commission January 28, 2016 Minutes Ms. Berry -Hill answered that Staff will include in detail the statements Commissioner Robinson has made and will be reflected in the Town Council Staff Report. Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked the public for coming out and speaking on the topic; the applicant for compromising and making changes; and Staff. She expressed concerns regarding the four story garage as she believes three stories would satisfy the needs of the court. She noted that she agreed with Commissioner Robinson's statement regarding parking garage location; as she too felt that excess parking could possibly be put somewhere else in the Town of Leesburg and does not need to necessarily be in the courts garage. It was her opinion that they have done all that they can at the Planning Commission level and look forward to Council and the Board of Supervisors working together to address the outstanding issues of the four story parking garage. Chairman Welsh Chamblin called for the vote: Vote: 5-1-1 (Nay- Robinson; Absent —Harper) COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that the Commission will be discussion Planning Commission liaison appointments to other boards and commissions at the next meeting. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 PM Apiroved by: a.?)ren Cicalese, Commission Clerk 13 2 V (k,rwqul%w - h Chamblin, Chairman