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