TLTA-2013-0002 Lowe’s Land Use

TLTA-2013-0003 Keystone Drive

Town Council Public HearingTown Council Public Hearing

January 14, 2013

Staff Presentation by: Brian Boucher, Deputy Director PZD

The ProposalsThe Proposals

TLTA-2013-0002:TLTA-2013-0002: Town Plan Land Use amendment to allow an option to develop property designated as Regional Office as retail with a minimum office component subject to design criteria

TLTA-2013-0002:TLTA-2013-0002: Town Plan Transportation amendment to remove Keystone Drive between Russell Branch Parkway and E. Market Street (Route 7)

Subject AreaSubject Area Two Parcels totaling 27.61 Two Parcels totaling 27.61

acresacres Location: Southeast Location: Southeast

quadrant of Route 7/Battlefield Parkway quadrant of Route 7/Battlefield Parkway intersectionintersection

Zoning:Zoning:I-1 (6.9 acres)I-1 (6.9 acres)B-3 (20.71 acres) subject B-3 (20.71 acres) subject

to ZM-129 Leesburg Auto to ZM-129 Leesburg Auto

Park Park

Town PlanTown Plan

Southeast Planning AreaSoutheast Planning Area Specific planned land use: Regional Specific planned land use: Regional

OfficeOffice

Land Use Element Land Use Element

Southeast Planning Area

Objective 9:

The area south of Route 7 outside of the bypass, north of Tuscarora Creek, and west of the Village at Leesburg should be developed as Regional Office. Alternatively, existing industrial, auto dealership, auto service, and light industrial uses may be appropriate . . . .

What is Regional Office?What is Regional Office? Intent:Intent: “To help meet the need for a broad

spectrum of local and regional employment that offers high paying jobs and supports a balanced tax base.”

Intensity: FAR between .35 and 1.0 Up to 20% of total s.f. for retail and services

Site Design & Location: 8 criteria, including Office buildings should be located close to

highway with parking behind/underneath/interior. Retail and services should be located within office

buildings or oriented to the interior of the site. Pad sites are not appropriate. Structured parking is strongly encouraged.

What is Regional Office? What is Regional Office?

Building Design: Building Design: 3 criteria, including3 criteria, including Strongly encourage the incorporation of retail Strongly encourage the incorporation of retail

and services into office buildings.and services into office buildings.

Option for Mixed Use Development: Option for Mixed Use Development: Office with retail and residential components. 20 Office with retail and residential components. 20 criteria, includingcriteria, including Individual retail tenant building size should not exceed Individual retail tenant building size should not exceed

60,000 s.f. with a 30,000 s.f. footprint.60,000 s.f. with a 30,000 s.f. footprint. Office component of a project should be the Office component of a project should be the

predominant use as construction occurs.predominant use as construction occurs. Project should have a Main Street character with a fine-Project should have a Main Street character with a fine-

grained land use pattern at human scale.grained land use pattern at human scale. Buildings should be at least two stories.Buildings should be at least two stories.

What is Regional Office? What is Regional Office? Regional Office classification (and all land use classification)

is a policy of a long-term plan. The discussion of the general land use objectives (p. 6-5) states:

The land use objectives are designed to resolve the dynamic tension between current market forces and the overall vision for the Town. For example, the current demand for new housing and retail must be balanced with the community’s desire to have land available when there is a market and where it is appropriate to build offices….

Under the objective “Maintain Land Supply for Employment” (p. 6-6): “If Leesburg wants office, emerging technologies, or other high-wage employers, it must be willing to preserve the designated land until the market is ready.”

Basis of AnalysisBasis of Analysis

A Town Plan amendment is by definition a request to deviate from the existing policies of the Town Plan. Staff evaluated as stipulated by the Zoning Ordinance and the current Town Plan policies to assess whether the extent of the amendment is supported by those criteria and Applicant’s Statement of Justification.

Applicant’s ProposalApplicant’s Proposal Amend Regional Office Optional Uses and Design

policies by language that is specifically applicable to their 2 parcels alone, identified as “Eastern Portion” and “Western Portion”.

Language supplements existing Regional Office policies, meaning that all Regional Office policies will continue to apply to the site except as specifically modified in the proposed language.

Proposal would permit a predominantly retail use (87%) subject to extensive design criteria to be applied at the time of rezoning.

Applicant’s JustificationApplicant’s Justification “ “ . . . The office development envisioned by the Regional . . . The office development envisioned by the Regional

Office designation is no longer viable . . . and that the Town Office designation is no longer viable . . . and that the Town will benefit more from the proposed commercial will benefit more from the proposed commercial development than a prolonged vacancy at this property.”development than a prolonged vacancy at this property.”

Concern: Staff acknowledges that any commercial development of this property will contribute towards the Economic Development Objective 3.c (increase business and employment so that at least 55% of general fund revenues are generated from nonresidential sources), but the proposal fails to address several Economic Development Objectives:

2.a - “support economic development that creates jobs that match the occupational needs of the Town’s residents”

2.b - “give priority to emerging technologies, corporate offices, and research and development”

Concern: Offers only the minimal amount of office in the project as a whole – 13.2% in initial phase.

Applicant’s JustificationApplicant’s Justification Site is different from other Regional Office because:

Close proximity of the Town sewage treatment facility may render a portion of the site, particularly the current B-3 zoned area, less attractive for high-end office users.

75 % is zoned B-3 as an autopark with proffers.

Power lines.

Staff believes these are factors that may be justification Staff believes these are factors that may be justification for an amendment to existing Town policies regarding for an amendment to existing Town policies regarding office uses. office uses.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

A further option to permit a higher ratio of retail use due to unique site circumstances (proximity to the Town of Leesburg Waste Water Treatment Facility) is applied to two parcels designated as PIN 149-46-0836 and PIN 149-45-7383, “The Retail Optional Use Area.” This option shall meet the requirements for Regional Office and the Regional Office Option except as modified below:

a. The Retail Optional Use Area is further defined, for the purposes of phasing, as having a Western Portion and an Eastern portion. See Illustration _1.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

Illustration 1

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

b. The initial development of the Property should include a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2. A higher FAR is expected as redevelopment of the property occurs.

c. Office uses are encouraged on the Property. The initial

development of the Western Portion should include a minimum of 30% office uses. Initial development of the Eastern Portion is not required to have office uses. Upon redevelopment of the Eastern Portion, the Property shall include no less than 30% office and a maximum retail

FAR of 0.5. Proffers shall establish the phased development of office uses on the Property. Figures 1-4 illustrate potential redevelopment of the Property.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

d. If structured parking is provided, office use square footage may be reduced (credited) up to a maximum of 50%.

e. Individual retail tenant sizes should not exceed 60,000 square feet, with a footprint of no more than 30,000 square feet. Initial development of the Eastern Portion is limited to one individual tenant with a footprint no greater than 175,000. f. The use of design guidelines is required.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

g. Special consideration should be given to landscape and building design along the Route 7 frontage. Landscape buffering above minimum standards and high-quality architecture and façade treatments should be used to minimize the visual impact of the development and enhance the

appearance of the Route 7 corridor.

h. To achieve urban densities and intended FAR, Buildings should include multiple stories, with allowances for architectural features to compensate for perceived building height. With the initial development of the Western Portion, no less than one-third (1/3) of building footprints should be multiple stories. This multistory requirement does not apply to the initial development of the Eastern Portion. Upon redevelopment of the Eastern Portion, all buildings should include multiple stories. The design guidelines with the rezoning concept development plan should specify the building height requirement.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

i. Buildings should align and be built close to internal streets to create an urban street edge.

j. Buildings should constitute a predominant percentage of the street frontage along internal streets

k. Buildings should be located at the street edge and include multiple entrances to engage the street.

AnalysisAnalysis What is the impact?

Retail use may be 87% initially; only 30% Office in Western Portion

Development must meet all “Regional Office” criteria (no pad sites, designed as a well-integrated unit, etc.).

Development must meet all “Optional Uses and Design” criteria.

Design Guidelines are required but criteria do not require all 2-story buildings (1/3 in Western Portion initially).

Extensive criteria to judge a rezoning by for compliance.

AnalysisAnalysis

Does it set precedent for other Does it set precedent for other properties?properties? 230 acres Regional Office is undeveloped. Lowe’s properties account for 27.6 acres, or 12%

of the vacant land. Approval of this Amendment should not serve as a

precedent for requests to develop all or a portion of the remaining vacant land in the Rt. 7 Regional Office area with non-office uses because the rationale for the amendment can cite sufficient reasons unique to the site (Location & prior existing B-3 Zoning for autopark).

TLZO: How the amendment better realizes a Town Plan goal or objective.

Applicant relates the amendment to a specific Town objective: the revenue increase will help meet Economic Development Objective 3.c.

Concern: This increase in retail runs counter to Objectives 2.a and 2.b of the Economic Development Chapter.

While there is a change in circumstances in land development in today’s economic environment, the long term vision regarding physical development and land use should not be ignored. The Applicant’s amendment contains conditions that apply to development of the property in both the long and short term, permitting a single “big box” store on the site initially but with the provision that should the store be no longer in use, a more urban form of development with at least 30% office use shall then apply to the Eastern Portion.

Staff believes the proposed uses are an acceptable transition from the wastewater treatment plant south of the proposed amendment area, in that office uses are less likely to locate overlooking this facility when other land is available.

TLZO: How the amendment may rectify conflicting Plan goals or objectives.

 Applicant contends there is a conflict because development under the Town Plan land use classification is not possible under the current economy.

Concern: By expanding the area of retail uses, the amendment conflicts with the prohibition of such expansion set out in other objectives.

Concern: The current economy does not support large office development but converting Regional Office to predominantly Retail will not achieve Town’s long term employment and revenue goals.

There are other areas along Battlefield Parkway where sizeable amounts of retail uses can be constructed without this amendment.

Balancing Test: Planning for Office vs. Changing Market & Site’s Unique Characteristics. Given the unique location of the amendment area & the changing office park model, the proposed amendment may help solve an inherent conflict in plan goals for the two parcels under consideration. Whether the site would be appropriate for concentrated office use is open to question.

TLZO: How the amendment may provide more specific Plan guidance.

The amendment is more specific with regard to the amendment area than the guidelines currently found in the Town Plan for the Regional Office land use classification.

The proposed language is generally consistent with other land use and design policies for regional office except for the allowance of “big box” architecture and building stories.

The requirement for office use on the Western Portion at least will place office uses in this highly visible area of the site at the intersection of Battlefield Parkway and Route 7.

TLZO: How the amendment might adjust the Plan as a necessary result of a significant change in

circumstance unforeseen by the Plan at the time of adoption.

Recent economic situation has been described as the worst since the Great Depression 80 years ago.

Due to overbuilding of office in the region, particularly to the east of Leesburg, attracting high revenue office use may be difficult for the foreseeable future.

Office Model is changing – campus style parks less likely.

Wastewater Treatment facility location.

Circumstances could justify a deviation from the Regional Office designation to promote the economic vitality of the Town and to maintain Town government in a fiscally sound condition.

Planning Commission Planning Commission RecommendationRecommendation

On December 19, 2013 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Town Plan amendment 5-0-2 as an acceptable mix of good site design and proposed uses given the totality of the circumstances applicable to this particular site.

Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested

Land Use amendment because:

The Statement of Justification and submitted materials adequately address the Zoning Ordinance criteria to justify the Town Plan Amendment as proposed.

The amendment does adequately address the potential for some office use on the site.

The proposed guidelines are more specific than the guidelines currently found in the Town Plan for the Regional Office land use classification.

Transportation Transportation AmendmentAmendment

TLTA-2013-0002:TLTA-2013-0002: Town Plan Transportation amendment to remove Keystone Drive between Russell Branch Parkway and E. Market Street (Route 7)

Transportation ElementTransportation Element

Roadway Network Policy Map shows Keystone Roadway Network Policy Map shows Keystone Drive north of Russell Branch Parkway as a Drive north of Russell Branch Parkway as a cul-de-sac, no longer intersecting with Route 7. cul-de-sac, no longer intersecting with Route 7. Road no longer serves as a “through collector”.Road no longer serves as a “through collector”.

Transportation Element: Keystone Drive is a four-lane, undivided “through collector” road with 90’ ROW

Applicant’s property subject to TLZM-129 Leesburg Auto Park. Proffer #7 obligates the developer to construct the four-lane section of Keystone Drive that is sought to be removed by this amendment.

Applicant’s ProposalApplicant’s Proposal

Amend the Roadway Network Policy - Deletion [of] the portion of Keystone Drive between Route 7 and Russell Branch Parkway.

Applicant’s JustificationApplicant’s Justification

Keystone Drive originally planned for an Keystone Drive originally planned for an at-grade intersection with Route 7 to be at-grade intersection with Route 7 to be replaced by a flyover.replaced by a flyover.

2011 Town Plan amendment removed 2011 Town Plan amendment removed Keystone Drive flyover.Keystone Drive flyover.

VDOT will not permit an at-grade VDOT will not permit an at-grade intersection, so 2011 Town Plan intersection, so 2011 Town Plan amendment rendered it as a cul-de-sacamendment rendered it as a cul-de-sac

Adjacent properties (two) have adequate Adjacent properties (two) have adequate access to Russell Branch Parkwayaccess to Russell Branch Parkway

How the amendment better realizes a Town Plan goal or objective.

The amendment does not affect realization of Plan goals or objectives in that the subject Keystone Drive segment is not important to the overall planned road network, though it could provide access to the two adjacent properties.

How the amendment may rectify conflicting Plan goals or objectives.

The retention of a four-lane road segment that could not actually intersect with Route 7 or connect with a flyover above Route 7 is unnecessary. The stance of VDOT and the removal of the flyover from the policy map in 2011 create a conflict with the original purpose intended for this leg of Keystone Drive.

How the amendment may clarify the intent of a Plan goal or

objective. The amendment would clarify that

the need for a public road in this location is no longer the intent of the Town Plan as demonstrated through the 2011 Town-sponsored removal of the Keystone flyover.

How the amendment may provide more specific Plan guidance.

Rather than leave this segment on the Roadway Network policy Map, the amendment would specify that a public road is not required between Route 7 and Russell Branch Parkway.

How the amendment might adjust the Plan as a necessary result of a significant change in circumstance unforeseen by the Plan at the

time of adoption.

The Town-sponsored amendment in 2011 coupled with the realization that VDOT will not permit an at-grade intersection for Keystone Drive and Route 7 constitute significant changes that have affected the importance of the subject road segment. When originally planned and proffered, the intersection of Keystone Drive and Route 7 was anticipated by both the Town Plan and VDOT. The change in circumstances over time demonstrates this is no longer the case.

Planning Commission Planning Commission RecommendationRecommendation

On December 19, 2013 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Town Plan amendment 5-0-2 as a reasonable amendment given the earlier removal of the Keystone Drive flyover.

Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation

Approval of the requested amendment Approval of the requested amendment because:because: In 2011 the Town Plan Road Network Policy Map was

amended to remove the Keystone Flyover above Route 7 so the road will no longer serve as a through collector.

Applicant has submitted a letter from the adjacent property owner (E.V. Hunter Trust) that states they have no objection to the deletion of this segment of the roadway because they will obtain access from Russell Branch Parkway.

Staff has no objection to removal of this segment of Keystone Drive due to elimination of the need for this segment as a public road through actions of both VDOT and the Town, and adequate access for the E.V. Hunter Trust property as described above.

Applicant’s Proposed Applicant’s Proposed LanguageLanguage

The area south of Route 7 outside of the bypass, north of Tuscarora Creek, and west of the Village at Leesburg should be developed as Regional Office.

As a further option, parcels 149-46-0836 and 149-45-7383 may develop with greater than 20% retail uses as long as office uses comprise at least 10% of the gross floor area upon ultimate build out. The site should be designed as an integrated unit that promotes connectivity among uses and maximizes visibility along Route 7.

Alternatively, existing industrial, auto dealership, auto service, and light industrial uses may be appropriate . . .