North County Governmental Center Community Room
Call to order at 7:35 p.m.
Summary of meeting:
CSP-C-696 - Dulles Station sign plan - Committee recommended approval.
97-III-9UP & 97-II-47UP - Lincoln/Peterson (Dulles Tech LC) properties - Committee recommended deferral.
RZ/FDP 2002-HM-2002 - Bradford White - Committee recommended approval subject to staff approval of outstanding issues.
Attendees: Edythe Frankel-Kelleher, Art Hill, Bob Poppe, Thom Arnsperger, Steve Cerny, Chris Jaeschke, Sarah Newman, Craig Kennedy, Bruce Wright
Other Attendees: Goldie Harrison - Hunter Mill District, Frank de la Fe - Hunter Mill District Planning Commissioner, Fran Burnszynski - Dept. of Planning and Zoning, Residents from the Oak Hill community (Wendy Sun, Vince and Elaine Giachette, John and Claire Gazlay, Carolyn Almer, Sitarama Kalipatnapu, Carissa Erickson, Gail and Gabe Paul, and Robert Core), Elizabeth Baker of Walsh Colucci, Greg Hamm of Crimson Partners, Jane Kelsey, Matthew White, Lori Greenlief.
Call to order at 7:35 p.m. by Ms. Kelleher. Overview of the purpose of the committee. Introductions.
CSP-C-696 - Dulles Station sign plan
Ms. Baker of Walsh Colucci gave an overview of previous presentation. There were comments about the major entrance sign at the previous meeting. The retail establishments are not visible from major public roads. The square footage of the individual retail signs was reduced from 160 sq. ft to 45 sq. ft. Planning commission meeting is Dec. 11.
Questions and comments from committee
Are there any unresolved staff issues? Developer tried to integrate the signs into the tower instead of being spread out. Instead they have reduced the length of the sign area. Also wanted to bring Sign B4 lower to the second level, from the fifth level.
Will the retail signs at the entrance be various colors? Each tenant will have some identity. There will only be 4 signs allowed now, down from the initial proposed 8 signs.
With signs on Sunrise Valley, who are you trying to attract? Signs will be visible from the Toll Road, but primarily the people who drive on Fox Mill Rd will be able to see them.
Jaschke moved that sign plan be approved. Arnsberger seconded, approved unanimously.
97-III-9UP & 97-II-47UP - Lincoln/Peterson (Dulles Tech LC) properties
Ms. Baker introduced others present: Jeff Sax, Jim Todd, Michael Labert, Richard Rose. The development is bordered by Coppermine Road to the south, and Centerville Road is nearby, in Land Unit A. In 1997 plan amendments were proposed during that Area Plan Review cycle, for 8-12 units/ac residential. Current Plan is mixed use at .51 FAR. That earlier application were deferred indefinitely due to a lack of public facilities, primarily schools. Also the Lincoln property was rezoned from R-1 to PDC recently for 780,000 sq. ft. of commercial, 4 office buildings and 2 parking garages, with an Environmental Quality Corridor along northern portion. Residential development is now proposed instead.
The Peterson Companies property on River Birch Dr. was earlier rezoned to C-3. One building was started but abandoned. Both the Lincoln and Peterson parcel owners came together with a desire to build residential properties. 14.9 acres will be dedicated for a school site. There will be much active recreation on the site with the two story school building.
Mary Brook Run stream valley property will be dedicated to the County for parkland. (14 acres).
348 garden apartments, four stories, are planned on the site to west (Coppermine). The entrance is similar to the earlier commercial plan. On the site to the east, back to back condominiums are planned that resemble townhouses (304 units). Current zoning is I, C-3, at .5 - 1.0 units per acre.
The Plan Amendment application to is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on Dec. 5, and to the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 6, 2003. The rezoning is scheduled on March 6, 2003 before the Planning Commission.
Was a traffic analysis conducted? When you compare the approved commercial use to proposed residential, there is a reduction of average daily trips of 64%. Peak hour trips were reduced even further. Ms. Newman noted that weekend trips will be greater than Mon.-Fri.
Do we have copies of the language for the staff report? Report will be out this week (Nov. 18-22).
Is this an out of turn amendment? Technically it is still a 1997 update of the plan (APR). As such, if the PC denies, it will not go to the Board.
650 homes will have an impact on schools. Has staff determined the impact? The applicant has run numbers. There will be 120 ES students. Capacity of the proferred school will be 900 ES. Also looked at 8 closest schools in 3 Supv. Districts. In 2006 there will be overcapacity of 400 children, and this school will be able to take them on.
What happens when they become MS and HS students? Additional capacity may be needed.
Public sewer and public water exists.
Why not 6.25% instead of 5% for ADU calculation? Of the 650 units, 33 will be ADU. The current assumptions are based on the high and low end of the housing range. The scale is a sliding scale.
What is the bedroom size mix? Planning a condo product with 1650 SF for the front units, 2150 SF for rear unit. ADU will all be on the west side.
What is responsibility of applicants to address transportation issues? Will widen Coppermine road along frontage.
Coordination with Fairfax Connector, Metro station is critical.
Concerned that this area is not being planned in an integrated fashion.
Access to school? Along sidewalks, but no plans for crossing Centreville Rd or Coppermine Rd.
Has there been an origin and destination study done as part of the transportation analysis? Reston Town Center traffic studies done, and 50% less than predicted occurred. Need to work toward the goal of reducing the traffic and congestion. Need to keep people within the land bay.
Motion not defer until committee is presented with an overall plan for the land unit. Mr. Hill seconded the motion.
Discussion: Need to get more residents involved. There was a meeting with McNair Farms and very little turnout. Mr. Arnsperger who lives in the area only saw the Planning Commission yellow signs, didn't hear about meetings. With PC hearing on Dec. 5, Frank would defer that meeting if we recommend deferral.
School proposal at this late date does not negate the need for proper planning.
Motion approved 8-1.
RZ/FDP 2002-HM-2002 - Bradford White
Revised application from previous meeting. Applicant included adjacent lot 6 in the rezoning application. Netherleigh Place will be connected through. Site is 7.7 acres, 13 lots, 1.69 FAR. For the road improvements, 56 feet of land will be dedicated from the centerline along the frontage.
Drainage pattern is generally toward West Ox. It will be directed into a culvert under West Ox to a stormwater pond to the south. There will also be onsite stormwater management. Pools of water are now collecting. Applicant is proposing a catchment area to divert drainage to the culvert under West Ox. Drainage grates will be placed on north edge where there is a potential for ponding. A proffer is proposed to save trees along the north edge of property. There will be wording in the lot covenants regarding the tree save area. There will be a contribution to the Horsepen Creek project. A $2,000 contribution will be put in escrow for a portion of trail in the pipeline easement. A berm will be built on the frontage of West Ox.
Fran Burnszynski - The staff report was published on Oct. 2. Recommended approval of the original plan. The case was deferred, and an addendum is now being written. The density increase from 1.58 to 1.69 is in high end of range. Staff looks at eight residential criteria which include design, transportation, schools, and environmental impacts. Staff is working with the applicant to meet these criteria requirements.
The staff report will be published next Wednesday. The applicant will get credit for parcel consolidation, trail escrow, and replacement of the drainage culvert. The recommended contribution to ADU is 1% vs. the proposed contribution of .5%, which is of concern to staff. If a development is less than 50 units, developer provides a contribution. The ADU contribution is lower in order to hold down the cost of houses which have increased due to other concerns. Since the consolidation credit was added, the ADU credit was reduced.
Questions from Committee
- What is anticipated sale price? 650 now $670 or $675,000.
- How much is the trail contribution? - $2,000 to be used toward a minor paved trail along the gas easement.
- What is the soil type? Calverton loam. Main concern is high water table.
- Is the distance of the tree line buffer specified? Restriction will be in covenants of around 15 feet.
- How will high water table be accommodated? The ponding water will be captured at the NE entrance to the property.
- Concern was expressed about the encumbrance of a tree save covenant on the new property owners. Similar covenants were not required of the existing property owners. The covenants will be enforced by the new Homeowners Association. Adjacent owners did not want to merge with the new development.
- Who owns the detention pond across West Ox Road? It is a regional pond maintained by the County. It may be located on private property.
- Will there be a $5,000 contribution for tree preservation and a $1,000 per lot conservation escrow contribution? Yes. The urban forester will soon visit the site and give recommendations.
Comments from residents
Mr. Paul lives on an adjacent parcel (lot 14). He was appointed by his HOA to represent the community on the redevelopment. He feels that there has not been adequate time for the HOA to provide input on the addition of the adjacent property. His group does not want to stop development. The would like to have County staff address several problems.
The main issue is the proximity of houses on the north of the proposed development to existing houses. If the land along the West Ox frontage could be used as a residential lot, fewer lots would be located on the north edge and they could be set further back from the adjacent houses. County staff do not recommend lots that close to the road located on a long pipestem.
The HOA is also concerned about the intermittent stream located on the proposed development. There was some discussion regarding the nature of this stream and possible future problems related to relocation of the stream. There are also drainage problems beyond the north edge of this development that were left by the previous developer, Toll Brothers. They also want to ensure that Netherleigh Place is not used for construction traffic, which will be limited to the existing onsite entrances.
Mr. de la Fe noted that new development criteria are effective on January 9, 2003.
Mr. Giachetti is an adjacent property owner. Produced a USGS topographic quadrangle that shows an intermittent stream on the property. There is considerable ponding despite the contention that there are no wetlands on the site wetlands. Mr. White stated that the intermittent streambed was created by the previous owner to facilitate drainage.
Ms. Sun, adjacent property owner, expressed concerns about the additional traffic.
Mr. Jaeschke moved that the committee recommended approval subject to staff approval of outstanding issues. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The residents were encouraged to continue to work together to resolve the outstanding issues.
The October meeting minutes were approved with changes.
The committee adjourned at 9:40.
