Fairfax Forward - 2012 and 2013 Public Comment
A public comment period was scheduled for Fairfax Forward between December 14, 2012 and January 18, 2013. The public was asked to comment on:
- New studies listed on the December 12, 2012 draft three-year Comprehensive Plan amendment Work Program and their preliminary scope of work and,
- The proposed changes to the review of planning studies.
Additional ideas submitted to be listed on work program needed to provide a written justification about how the idea met the Work Program Criteria.
Staff submitted all comments to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as part of the final staff report.
Comments on Draft 12/12/2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and Staff Analysis and Recommendation
As duplicated from the staff report, the following table describes comments which would have a significant impact to the draft work program, published December 12, 2012. Changes to the work program to reflect the status of ongoing, previously authorized, studies are not included on this table.
|Proposal Number||Subject Area||Plan Reference||Proposed Change||Staff Comment|
6699 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA (Tax Map parcel
Springfield Planning District, Springfield East Community Planning
Sector and Franconia-Springfield Area, Land Unit P
From: Light industrial use at an intensity up to 0.35 floor area
ratio (FAR) with option for biotech/research and development
(R&D) use at an intensity up to 0.50 FAR to complement Northern
Virginia Community College (NVCC)/INOVA medical center.
Plan recommendations for residential uses on the subject property
and in the general area south of the existing GSA Parr warehouse
were previously planned; but the recommendations were removed with
Area Plans Review item 02-IV-2S. Consolidation issues, roadway and
transit access constraints, lack of school capacity, and the amount
of residential development in the area were cited as limitations to
residential development in the area and the current Plan
recommendations for biotech/ R&D were preferred to complement
the NVCC/INOVA medical center.
Westfields Plaza West (Tax Map #:44-3 ((1))15; Westfields Proposed
Dulles Suburban Center Land Unit J and Bull Run Planning District, BR2 Upper Cu b Run Community Planning Sector
From: Planned as part of land unit for office, conference
center/hotel, industrial/flex, and industrial uses at an average of
0.50 FAR with option for office, retail, and hotel uses up to an
intensity of 1.0 FAR or 1.5 FAR; or residential mixed-use up to
2.25 FAR, with conditions including transit station.
The Dulles Suburban Center is scheduled as one of the initial
activity center studies on the pilot work program. The subject
property is a part of the Westfields area, and development on the
subject property may be limited due to transportation-related issues,
such as access and traffic impact, and school capacity. The current
countywide transit study, which is evaluating potential transit
options and transit station locations along the Route 28 corridor
also may have implications on the subject property and the current
Staff recommends that, as part of the Dulles Suburban Center activity center study, Land Unit J be reviewed to reflect implementation in the area, as scheduled, and the planned mix of uses for the land unit, including the subject property, be evaluated using, among other considerations, the results of the countywide transit study. These items should be added to pilot work program as part of the Dulles Suburban Center study.
|2013-FF03||Tax Map Parcels 68-2((1))23, 68-2((1))24 and 68-2((1))25||Area II, Fairfax Planning District, F-1 Braddock Community Planning Sector||
From: Suburban neighborhood, Residential use at 1-2 du/ac with
conditions; or community-serving institutional uses or
university-related uses with conditions
To: Amending the Comprehensive Plan to zone these parcels from R-1 to R-8 and allow a Category 3 Special Exception use for the purpose of constructing a private assisted living facility in the Braddock Community Planning Sector.
Tax Map parcels 68-2((1))23, 68-2((1))24 and 68-2((1))25 were subject
to Plan amendments 97-II-10F and S98-II-F1 that resulted in current
Plan guidance for residential use at 1-2 du/ac with conditions when
developing at the higher end of the density range. The amendments
also removed an option for residential use at a density of 2-3 du/ac.
Traffic and access issues along Roberts Road were cited as problems
with the development at the planned density of 2-3 du/ac.
The planned development for the subject area serves to buffer the higher density development to the west on the George Mason University campus and the lower density residential development to the east. The proposed Plan change of a residential density up to or at 8 du/ac would effectively triple the 3 du/ac recommendation previously removed from the Plan and would increase the current density recommendation of 1-2 du/ac anywhere from four- to eight-fold.
While the assisted living facility at the proposed density would be different in design and impact from a typical residential development, the proposed density remains out of character with the existing densities of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods to the north and east and townhouses to the south and inconsistent with the Concept for Future Development goals for suburban neighborhoods. This increase would work against the goal of buffering the low density from the higher density development and may be considered an encroachment of higher density into the low density area. While the goal of providing housing for the retiring population is valid and coordinating access with adjacent development is preferred in the Plan, there are other opportunities within the county better suited to meet the need as proposed. Further, the current Plan recommendations, which are consistent with the Concept for Future Development, remain viable.
There appears to be no change in circumstance to warrant consideration of the proposed Plan change at this time. Staff does not recommend this item to be added to the work program.
|2013-FF04||Green Building Recommendations||Policy Plan, Environment section||Update current Plan guidance to reflect experiences with implementing the current policy, as well changes in technologies, and available rating systems.||
Staff concurs with justification and recognizes that work is
currently underway in preparation for the amendment. In December
2012, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of
Supervisors authorize the advertisement of Plan amendment. Staff
recognizes that the review of this amendment would affect other
proposed planning studies on the work program, related to
environmental recommendations. The formal review of the “Airport
Allowable Building Height Boundary” and “Private Open Space”
countywide planning studies most likely will not begin until the
completion of the green building amendment.
Staff recommends that this planning study be added to the work program. Staff also recommends that the “Airport Allowable Building Height Boundary” and “Private Open Space” countywide planning studies be removed from the current work program and delayed on the estimated long-term schedule for review. The timing of these studies should be reconsidered during the next review and revision of the work program, when more information is known about the completion date of the green building study.
|2013-FF05||Tidal shoreline erosion control||Policy Plan, Environment section||To be determined.||Staff is investigating the extent to which (if any) the Environment section of the Policy Plan will need to be amended to satisfy this mandate. Staff recommends that this item be added to the work program in anticipation of a finding of a need for an amendment.|