LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING … · application is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is listed as a Special Exception use under

Attachments and Plats for land use items can be accessed using the following link: http://va-loudouncounty.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/10535

LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

6:00 p.m.

Board Room, First Floor, Government Center

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Kennel Permit - Patrick Hagerty

Election District: Catoctin Staff Contacts: Kim Miller & Thomas J. Koenig, Department of Animal Services

2. Proposed Conveyance of County Property Election District: Ashburn Staff Contacts: Thomas Flynn & Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

Lewis Rauch, Office of Construction and Waste Management

3. DOAM 2012-0001, Proposed Amendments to the Facilities Standards Manual (Phase 1) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Gary Clare & Terry Wharton, Department of Building and Development

4. CMPT 2011-0010 & SPEX 2011-0032, AT&T Harry Byrd Highway Election District: Sterling Staff Contacts: Evan Harlow & Julie Pastor, Department of Planning

5. ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park

Election District: Ashburn Staff Contacts: Ginny Rowen & Julie Pastor, Department of Planning

http://va-loudouncounty.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/10535

LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

6:00 p.m.

Board Room, First Floor, Government Center

AGENDA SUMMARY

I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Kennel Permit - Patrick Hagerty Election District: Catoctin Staff Contacts: Kim Miller & Thomas J. Koenig, Department of Animal Services Patrick Hagerty, of Leesburg, Virginia, has submitted an application, pursuant to Section 808.04 of the Codified Ordinances of Loudoun County, for a kennel permit to allow a boarding kennel with a capacity of up to sixteen (16) dogs. The subject property is zoned AR-1 (Agricultural Rural-1), contains approximately 2.05 acres, and is located east of Granite Falls Lane, on the north side of Harmony Church Road (Route 704), and west of Woodburn Road (Route 769), at 18904 and 18908 Harmony Church Road, Leesburg, Virginia, in the Catoctin Election District. The property is more particularly described as Tax Map /46////////57A (PIN # 350-47-3920).

At the June 19, 2012 Business Meeting, the Board voted 8-0-1 (Chairman York absent for the vote) to approve a Special Exception (SPEX 2010-0035) and a Minor Special Exception (SPMI 2011-0001) to allow Mr. Hagerty to house up to sixteen (16) dogs for boarding purposes with conditions related to land use, setbacks and buffers. Staff recommends approval of this permit application.

2. Proposed Conveyance of County Property

Election District: Ashburn Staff Contacts: Thomas Flynn & Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

Lewis Rauch, Office of Construction and Waste Managment The County has received an unsolicited written offer to purchase approximately 75.4 acres of County property located on the south side of Farmwell Road (Route 625), on the west side of Waxpool Road (Route 640), and on the east side of Ashburn Village Boulevard (Route 2020), at 43950 and 44020 Grace Bridge Drive, Ashburn, Virginia, in the Ashburn Election District. The property is more particularly described as Tax Map Number /79//25////35B (PIN # 088-40-3678). The company is offering to purchase the property for $20 million ($265,261 per acre) to build a 750,000 square foot data center in phases. The County Tax Assessment rolls show a value of $18.785 million ($249,137 per acre). The County Capital Improvement Program currently includes $17 million from the proceeds of the sale of this land as a revenue source for the capital program in FY16. The purchase offer includes multiple provisions.

BOS Public Hearing Agenda Summary September 11, 2012 Page 2

At the July 17, 2012 Business Meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted 8-0-1 (Supervisor Higgins absent for the vote) to direct staff to enter into negotiations for a contract of sale of County land based on the offer letter, and to place the consideration of this offer on the September Public Hearing Agenda.

3. DOAM 2012-0001, Proposed Amendments to the Facilities Standards Manual (Phase 1) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Gary Clare & Terry Wharton, Department of Building and Development Staff and the FSM Public Review Committee (PRC) are recommending text edits to the Facility Standards Manual for certain administrative procedures within Chapter 8 (wetland submission requirements, tree conservation plan requirements, preliminary soils review requirements (PSR), and Phase I archaeology survey and reporting requirements) for approval by the Board of Supervisors at the September 11, 2012 public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these edits at the July 25, 2012 Worksession. Adoption of these edits would complete Phase 1 of the FSM Intent to Amend that the Board of Supervisors adopted on February 1, 2012. Staff and the PRC will also provide a quarterly update regarding Phase 2 to the Board of Supervisors.

4. CMPT 2011-0010 & SPEX 2011-0032, AT&T Harry Byrd Highway Election District: Sterling Staff Contacts: Evan Harlow & Julie Pastor, Department of Planning

AT&T Mobility, of Hanover, Maryland, has submitted an application for a Special Exception to permit an increase to the maximum height of an existing “stealth” design telecommunications monopole, designed to resemble a flag pole, from approximately 104 feet to 115 feet, and the installation of 3 additional panel antennas (to be located within the flag pole), in the PD-CC-SC (Planned Development-Commercial Center-Small Regional Center) zoning district. The existing telecommunications monopole facility was permitted by the approval of SPEX 1997-0006, Nextel Communications-Herndon Junction, which application will be superseded and replaced by the approval of this application. This application is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is listed as a Special Exception use under Section 5-618(B)(2) and Section 4-204(C)(1) by reference to Section 4-204(B)(5), pursuant to Section 5-618(B)(2), and requires a Commission Permit in accordance with Sections 5-618(B)(3) and 6-1101. The subject property is approximately 0.61 acre in size and is located on the north side of Harry Byrd Highway (Route 7), east of Lakeland Drive (Route 821), and approximately 0.1 mile west of the boundary with Fairfax County, at 47020 Harry Byrd Highway, Sterling, Virginia, in the Sterling Election District. The subject parcel is more particularly described as Tax Map Number /82/////////8D (PIN# 014-49-2028). The area is governed by the policies of the Revised General Plan (Suburban Policy Area (Sterling Community)), the 2010 Revised Countywide Transportation Plan, and the Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities, which designate this area for Residential uses. At their July 25, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve CMPT 2011-0010 and recommended approval of SPEX 2011-0032. Staff recommends approval with Conditions.

BOS Public Hearing Agenda Summary September 11, 2012 Page 3

5. ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park Election District: Ashburn Staff Contacts: Ginny Rowen & Julie Pastor, Department of Planning

Buckeye N, LLLP of Frederick, Maryland, Washington Real Estate Investment Trust ("WRIT") of Rockville, Maryland, Loudoun Healthcare, Inc. Sub-Trustee of Leesburg, Virginia, and Inova Health Care Services of Falls Church, Virginia, have submitted an application to amend the Concept Plan and Proffers approved with ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003, and SPEX 2003-0011- Lansdowne Village Greens in order to: 1) Decrease the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for office development within Land Bay N-3 from 0.79 to 0.46; 2) Eliminate the FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 and P1; and 3) Revise the approved Concept Development Plan to delete development phasing requirements and the depiction of a parking garage, with no resulting change in density in the PD-OP (Planned Development-Office Park) zoning district. The application was heard by the Planning Commission at the March 28, 2012 public hearing. No one from the public spoke regarding the request. The applicant added some additional pedestrian connections and landscaping to the proposal at the request of several Planning Commissioners. The Commission unanimously forwarded the application to the Board with a recommendation of approval. The applicant requested to be deferred until the September Board public hearing. The Proffers have been reviewed, approved to form, and signed.

Date of Hearing: September 11, 2012

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: Kennel Permit - Patrick Hagerty Howl of a Good Time Kennel ELECTION DISTRICT: Catoctin District CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the Pleasure of the Board

STAFF CONTACTS: Kim Miller, Animal Control Administrator

Thomas J. Koenig, Director, Department of Animal Services

RECOMMENDATION: Staff: Staff recommends approval of the kennel permit application submitted by Patrick Hagerty. BACKGROUND: An application for a kennel permit, as required by Chapter 808 of the Codified Ordinances, has been made by Patrick Hagerty. The proposed kennel is to be located at 18908 Harmony Church Road, Leesburg Virginia, more particularly described as Tax Map Number /46////////57A (PIN# 350-47-3920). A copy of the application is provided as Attachment 1. In 2008 the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) approved a kennel permit for Mr. Hagerty to house up to five (5) dogs for boarding purposes. He is now requesting to increase the number of dogs that he is permitted to house from five (5) to sixteen (16). Attached to the kennel application is a plat identifying the kennel site and adjoining property owners (Attachment 2), and proposed kennel plans (Attachments 3). At its June 19, 2012 Business Meeting, the Board voted 8-0-1 (Chairman York absent for the vote) to approve a Special Exception (SPEX 2010-0035) and a Minor Special Exception (SPMI 2011-0001) to allow Mr. Hagerty to house up to sixteen (16) dogs for boarding purposes with conditions related to land use, setbacks and buffers.

# 1

Kennel Permit - Patrick Hagerty Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing

September 11, 2012 Page 2

The Department of Animal Services has reviewed the kennel permit application for compliance with Chapter 808 and concludes that the plans submitted meet the minimum standards for the operation of a kennel as set forth in Chapter 808, Section 808.07, of the Codified Ordinances of Loudoun County. Pursuant to Section 808.04 (d), the Board may designate the permit as transferable or nontransferable to new property owners. In keeping with the practice of the Board in recent years, Animal Services staff recommends that this permit be nontransferable. ISSUES: Staff is not aware of any issues with the application for a kennel permit. FISCAL IMPACT: A kennel license fee of $40.00 per year will be imposed.

Kennel Permit - Patrick Hagerty Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing


DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Board of Supervisors forward the Kennel Permit – Patrick Hagerty

application to the October 3, 2012 Board Business Meeting for action. OR 2a. I move that the Board of Supervisors suspend the rules. AND 2b. I move that the Board of Supervisors approve the Kennel Permit – Patrick Hagerty

application to operate a boarding kennel on the property located at 18908 Harmony Church Road, Leesburg Virginia, more particularly described as Tax Map Number /46////////57A (PIN# 350-47-3920) with the following conditions:

1. The kennel meet the Board of Supervisors’ conditions of approval for Special

Exception (SPEX 2010-0035) and Minor Special Exception (SPMI 2011-0001) contained in the June 19, 2012 Board Action Item.

2. The applicant may board, train or handle at the facility no more than sixteen dogs over the age of 6 months.

3. The proposed kennel shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plat of the kennel site (Attachments 2 and 3).

4. The permit shall be non-transferable. OR

3. I move an alternative motion. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application for kennel permit 2. Plat of the kennel site and adjoining property owners 3. Proposed kennel plans 4. Site map of proposed kennel 5. SPEX 2010-0035 and SPMI 2011-0003, Howl of a Good Time, June 19, 2012 Board of

Supervisors’ Copy Teste and Final Conditions of Approval 6. Table Comparing Codified Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Requirements for Kennel

Directions: From Leesburg,

travel south on Route 15.

Turn right on Harmony Church

Road and travel west for

approximately 2 miles. Howl

of a Good Time is on the right

(north) side of the road at

18904 and 18908 Harmony

church Road, just east of the

intersection with Granite Falls

Lane.

Vicinity Map

Howl of a Good Time

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5

SPEX-2010-0035 & SPMI-2011-0003 Howl of a Good Time

Special Exception Application

Conditions of Approval

June 15, 2012

1

At the June 12, 2012, Board of Supervisors Public Hearing, the Board voted (8-0-1, York absent) to forward SPEX-2010-0035 & SPMI-2011-0003, Howl of a Good Time, to the June 19, 2012, Business Meeting. The Board directed Staff to revise the Conditions of Approval in a manner that eliminates the setback requirement for the northern and western lot lines and certain buffer and screening requirements for the northern, western, and eastern lot lines. In accordance with the Board’s direction, Staff has revised the Conditions of Approval for SPEX-2010-0035 & SPMI-2011-0003 as follows: SPEX-2010-0035 - Conditions of Approval:

1) Substantial Conformance – The development of the Special Exception use, Kennel in the AR-1 (Agricultural Rural-1) zoning district, shall be in substantial conformance with the plat labeled “Special Exception Plat, Land of Patricia Hagerty”, dated January 3, 2008, revised through June 14, 2012, bearing the name and address of Horton & Taylor, Inc., (the “Special Exception Plat”). Development of the Special Exception use shall also be in substantial conformance with the Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”). Approval of this application for Tax Map Number /46////////57A (PIN# 350-47-3920) (the “Property”) shall not relieve the Applicant or the owners of the Property from the obligation to comply with and conform to any other Zoning Ordinance, Codified Ordinance, or applicable regulatory requirement.

2) Land Use – The Kennel use shall be limited to the boarding, handling, or training for a fee of no more than sixteen (16) dogs on the premises at any one time. Prior to approval of a Zoning Permit for the Special Exception Use, the Applicant shall obtain a Kennel Permit for the maximum number of dogs allowed under this Special Exception as granted by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Chapter 808 of the Codified Ordinances of Loudoun County, and issued by the Loudoun County Department of Animal Control.

3) Setbacks and Buffers – This Special Exception approval is contingent upon either (a) the approval of the Minor Special Exception (SPMI-2011-0003) subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth below under Conditions of Approval for SPMI-2011-0003; or (b) compliance with the Additional Regulations of Section 5-606 as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Should SPMI-2011-0003 be denied, then the buffer required by the Additional Regulations of Section 5-606 shall consist of either a five-foot (5’) tall solid fence with landscaping or a five-foot (5’) tall post and rail board fence augmented with wire mesh livestock fencing and a year round equivalent to Type 3 Buffer, which may consist of Leyland Cypress, Thuja ‘Green Giant’ Arborvitae, or a similar evergreen a minimum of four (4) feet in height at the time of installation, planted in two staggered rows on eight (8) foot centers.

4) Outdoor Noise – No more than eight (8) dogs shall be allowed outside at any one time between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. All dogs outside between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. shall be supervised.




June 15, 2012

2

5) Fence – The fence along the southern limit of the outdoor kennel area shown on the Special Exception Plat shall be a post and rail board fence with a minimum of four horizontal boards and augmented with wire mesh livestock fencing and a minimum height of five (5) feet. This fence shall be installed prior to approval of the Occupancy Permit for the Special Exception use.

6) Water Quality – Water quality shall be protected in the following manner: a) The existing onsite sewage disposal system shall serve only the existing 2-

Story Frame & Stucco House shown on the Special Exception Plat and its occupants.

b) All animal waste shall be properly bagged for acceptance, and disposed of, at a landfill approved to operate in Virginia as often as necessary.

c) No animal run wash down water, animal bathing water, or animal waste shall be permitted to discharge into the existing onsite sewage disposal system or into any open channel or stream that may convey such water off of the Property.

d) There shall be no public restrooms on the site unless first reviewed and approved by the Division of Environmental Health (“DEH”) prior to Zoning Permit approval in order to determine whether necessary alterations are required.

e) If any employees are hired that are not residents of the existing dwelling, such additional information as required by DEH shall be provided to DEH to enable DEH to evaluate and address impacts and specify necessary alterations required to the existing onsite sewage disposal system.

7) Exterior Lighting – Exterior lighting shall be limited to the existing lighting on the Kennel Building shown on the Special Exception Plat. This lighting includes three motion detector lights installed along the roofline and residential lights flanking the door on the south elevation of the Kennel Building and one motion detector light installed on the west elevation.

8) Fire Safety – Prior to approval of a Zoning Permit for the Special Exception Use, the Applicant shall install and maintain in good repair a smoke detector in the building labeled as “Kennel Building” on the Special Exception Plat and allow the Loudoun County Department of Fire, Rescue & Emergency Management (“FREM”) to test the yard hydrant on the Property to ensure that it would provide necessary fire flows and have the correct connections so that emergency vehicles shall be able to draft water. Should FREM find the yard hydrant inadequate, then FREM shall determine whether an adequate water source for fire suppression is in the vicinity of the Property. If FREM determines that the yard hydrant is inadequate and that there is no adequate water source for fire suppression in the vicinity, fire suppression equipment as recommended by FREM shall be installed in the Kennel Building prior to approval of a Zoning Permit for the Special Exception Use.




June 15, 2012

3

SPMI-2011-0003 - Conditions of Approval: 1) Substantial Conformance – All development pursuant to the approved Minor

Special Exception (modifications of the 100-foot setback and the 50-foot buffer for kennel use in the AR-1) shall be in substantial conformance with the plat labeled “Special Exception Plat, Land of Patricia Hagerty”, dated January 3, 2008, revised through June 14, 2012, bearing the name and address of Horton & Taylor, Inc., (the “Special Exception Plat”). Development pursuant to the approved Minor Special Exception shall also be in substantial conformance with the Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”). Approval of this application for Tax Map Number /46////////57A (PIN# 350-47-3920) (the “Property”) shall not relieve the Applicant or the owners of the Property from the obligation to comply with and conform to any other Zoning Ordinance, Codified Ordinance, or applicable regulatory requirement.

2) Setbacks – –No setbacks for the outdoor kennel area shall be required along the northern and western property lines. The eastern and southern setbacks of the outdoor kennel area shall be at least 100 feet from the eastern and southern property lines.

3) Buffer and Screening – The outdoor kennel area screening shall consist of a post and rail board fence with a minimum of four horizontal boards and augmented with wire mesh livestock fencing and a minimum height of five (5) feet. The fence shall be installed along the northern property line and along the western and eastern perimeters of the outdoor kennel area described under Condition 2 of this SPMI-2011-0003 and depicted on the Special Exception Plat. The fence shall be maintained in good repair. No landscaping or buffer area shall be required along the northern, western, and eastern property lines.

4) Occupancy Permit (Timing for Installation of Fencing) – The fencing described in Condition 3 of this SPMI-2011-0003 shall be installed along the western and eastern perimeters of the outdoor kennel area prior to approval of the Occupancy Permit for the Special Exception use, and shall be installed along the northern property line within fifteen (15) years of issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the Special Exception use. Until such time as the fence described in Condition 3 of this SPMI-2011-0003 is installed along the northern property line, the existing post and rail board fence with three horizontal boards and augmented with wire mesh livestock fencing and a height of four (4) feet shall be maintained in good repair.

Definition of Kennel Comparison Chapter 808 and Zoning Ordinance

Chapter 808 – Dog Kennels 808.02 Definitions

Zoning Ordinance Section 5-606 (A) Kennels

Kennel means:

(2) Ay establishment where in any

owner engages in boarding,

breeding, buying, grooming, letting

for hire, training for a fee or selling

four or more dogs six months of

age or older.

(1) General. Kennel shall mean any place in

or at which, for a fee,

six or more dogs, cats, or other household

pets over the age of six

months are trained, boarded or handled:

* Note: This chart is a definition comparison based on Mr. Hagerty’s application for a kennel permit.

ATTACHMENT 6

Date of Hearing: September 11, 2012

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: Proposed Conveyance of County Property ELECTION DISTRICT: Ashburn CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the pleasure of the Board STAFF CONTACTS: Thomas Flynn, Economic Development Director

Buddy Rizer, Economic Development Assistant Director Lewis Rauch, Office of Construction and Waste Management

BACKGROUND: The County has received an unsolicited written offer to purchase approximately 75.4 acres that is a portion of a larger parcel of approximately 101.3 acres of County property. It is located on the west side of Waxpool Road and Farmwell Road, and on the east side of Ashburn Village Boulevard in the Ashburn Election District. The property is more particularly described as Tax Map Number /79//25////35B (PIN # 088-40-3678). The company is offering to purchase the property for $20 million ($265,261 per acre) to build a 750,000 square foot data center in phases. The land is currently zoned PDIP (Planned Development-Industrial Park) and is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance, which allows data centers with performance standards. If these performance standards are not met, the proposed data center development would require a special exception. The County purchased this land in 2004 for $13.5 million for 101.3 acres ($133,267 per acre). Approximately 18.6 acres of the site has been leased to the Loudoun County School Board for an elementary school, and 7.3 acres is used for existing ball fields. An April 2012 outside appraisal values the remaining 75.4 acres at $24.3 million ($322,281 per acre). The County Tax Assessment rolls show a value of $18.785 million ($249,137 per acre). The County Capital Improvement Program includes $17 million from the proceeds of the sale of this land as a revenue source for the capital program in FY16. The purchase offer includes the following provisions:

• A deposit of five percent of the purchase price payable within five days of the full execution and delivery of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

• A 90-day Study Period and a separate, subsequent 90-day Approvals Contingency Period. Seller may extend the study period as necessary; the buyer may extend the study period for an additional 90 days for a non-refundable amount of $50,000 that would be applied toward the purchase price at closing.

# 2

Proposed Conveyance of County Property Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing


• Mutually agreed upon architectural controls, consistent with keynote employment

uses, for the visible corridor of Waxpool Road. • A repurchase agreement allowing the County to buy back the property at 100 percent

of sale price if certain development timelines are not met (including a requirement to submit plans for development approvals for phase one within 24 months of closing, and a requirement to commence construction on phase one within 60 months of closing).

At its July 17, 2012 business meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted 8-0 (Supervisor Higgins absent for the vote) to:

1. Direct staff to enter into negotiations for a contract of sale of County land based on the offer letter received July 10, 2012 from TRW #12 LLC; and

2. Place the consideration of this offer on the September Public Hearing Agenda. Advertising for the September Public Hearing ran in the August 17th and August 24th editions of the Leesburg Today. OUTSTANDING ISSUES: There are no outstanding issues. FISCAL IMPACT: Sale of this land parcel would provide several positive fiscal benefits to the County. First, the Adopted Capital Improvement Program calls for the use of proceeds from the sale of the land, with which this would comply. Second, sale of this land returns the property to a tax-paying status which, even undeveloped would yield more than $200,000 per year in revenue. Finally, the proposed development of this property could easily yield between $6 and $16 million in additional tax revenue per year, with the higher ranges occurring as additional stages of development take place.

Proposed Conveyance of County Property Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing


DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Board of Supervisors forward the Proposed Conveyance of County Property

Item to the September 18, 2012 Board business meeting for action.

OR 2a. I move that the Board of Supervisors suspend the rules.

AND 2b. I move that the Board of Supervisors approve the Proposed Conveyance of County Property

Item subject to the attached Purchase and Sale Agreement and authorize the Chairman or the County Administrator or his designee to execute the deed conveying the property to the Purchaser and further authorize the County Attorney or his designee to execute any collateral documents required to consummate this transaction.

OR 3. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

ATTACHMENT 1

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Date of Hearing September 11, 2012 STAFF REPORT

#4


SUBJECT: CMPT 2011-0010 & SPEX 2011-0032 AT&T Harry Byrd Highway ELECTION DISTRICT: Sterling

CRITICAL ACTION DATE: September 27, 2012

STAFF CONTACTS: Evan Harlow, Project Manager, Department of Planning Julie Pastor, AICP, Director, Department of Planning PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to permit an eleven (11) foot high extension of an existing 104 foot high telecommunications monopole, designed to resemble a flagpole, for the installation of three (3) LTE panel antennas. The antennas will be concealed within the extended flagpole cylinder; built to a maximum height of 115 feet. The proposed antennas are intended to increase the capacity and speed of AT&T’s wireless data network in the surrounding area.

The Board of Supervisors previously found the 105 foot high telecommunications facility, designed to resemble a flagpole, to be in conformance with the Revised General Plan with the approval of CMPT 1997-0003 and SPEX 1997-0006. As this proposal increases the height of the flagpole, a new Commission Permit and Special Exception are required to determine if the character and extent of the proposal is still in conformance with the Revised General Plan. The previous approval permitted a maximum height of 105 feet; the telecommunications flagpole is constructed at a height of 104 feet.

RECOMMENDATION:

At the July 25, 2012 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve CMPT 2011-0010 and to forward SPEX 2011-0032 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval dated August 29, 2012 and based on the Findings listed on page 4 of this Staff Report. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission and the County Attorney’s Office has approved the Conditions to final form.

CONTENTS OF THIS STAFF REPORT Section Page Section Page Section Page

Motions 2 Outstanding Issues 7 Economic Development 10

Application Information 3 Land Use 7 Utilities/Public Safety 11

Planning Commission 3 Compatibility 8 Zoning 11

Context 5 Environmental 10 Conditions 11

Proposal 6 Transportation 10 Attachments 13

CMPT 2011-0010 & SPEX 2011-0032 AT&T Harry Byrd Highway Board of Supervisors Public Hearing


SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

1. I move that the Board of Supervisors forward CMPT 2011-0010 and SPEX 2011-0032, AT&T Harry Byrd Highway to the October 3, 2012 Business Meeting for action. (a timeline extension is required) OR

2. I move the Board of Supervisors suspend the rules. AND

2a. I move that the Board of Supervisors ratify the Planning Commission approval of CMPT 2011-0010, AT&T Harry Byrd Highway based on the Findings included in the September 11, 2012 staff report and subject to the Special Exception and Commission Permit Plat dated 01/11/12 and revised through 08/29/12.

AND

2b. I move that the Board of Supervisors approve SPEX 20110032 subject to the Conditions of Approval dated August 29, 2012 and based on the Findings contained in the September 11, 2012 staff report.

OR

3. I move an alternate motion.



I. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT AT&T Mobility Jennifer Van Riper 7150 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076 410-818-6459

REPRESENTATIVES Site Line Wireless, LLC Phil Stetler, Senior Zoning Specialist 10015 Old Columbia Road, Ste. F-100 Columbia, MD 21046 443-977-7561

REQUESTS AT&T Mobility, of Hanover, Maryland, has submitted an application for a Special Exception to permit an increase to the maximum height of an existing “stealth” design telecommunications monopole, designed to resemble a flag pole, from approximately 104 feet to 115 feet, and the installation of 3 additional panel antennas (to be located within the flag pole), in the PD-CC-SC (Planned Development-Commercial Center-Small Regional Center) zoning district. The existing telecommunications monopole facility was permitted by the approval of SPEX 1997-0006, Nextel Communications-Herndon Junction, which application will be superseded and replaced by the approval of this application. This application is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is listed as a Special Exception use under Section 5-618(B)(2) and Section 4-204(C)(1) by reference to Section 4-204(B)(5), pursuant to Section 5-618(B)(2), and requires a Commission Permit in accordance with Sections 5-618(B)(3) and 6-1101.

PARCELS

PIN # Tax Map # Address Application Acres

014-49-2028 /82/////////8D 47020 Harry Byrd Highway, Sterling, VA

20164

CMPT 2011-0010 SPEX 2011-0032

.61 acres

ACCEPTANCE DATE May 2, 2012

LOCATION North of Route 7, east of Lakeland Drive, 600 feet west of Fairfax County/Loudoun County line

ZONING ORDINANCE Revised 1993

EXISTING ZONING PD-CC-SC (Planned Development-Commercial Center-Small Regional Center)

POLICY AREA Suburban (Sterling)

PLANNED LAND USE Residential

II. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND FINDINGS

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on July 25, 2012. No members of the public spoke at the hearing. At the Planning Commission’s briefing preceding the public hearing, the Planning Commission posed several questions about the functions of the flagpole antennas and whether a taller conventional monopole would better serve the area. At the hearing, AT&T noted that the proposed LTE antennas will increase and provide a more seamless wireless data network in the Route 7 corridor. AT&T also explained that while a conventional monopole is the preferred design option, the existence of the flagpole and their ability to increase their network coverage with this pole is the reason a taller conventional monopole was not considered. The question that many Commissioners came back to was will the County continue to see cell phone providers requesting incremental increases to the height of this flagpole? Staff



acknowledged that cell phone providers could request an increase in the flagpole’s height in the future but noted that the request would require additional County approvals. Further, since the four main cell phone providers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile) are located on this pole and on other facilities proximate to this site, this reduces the chance that future facility modifications would be requested. AT&T also explained that the flagpole is designed to hold a certain amount of antennas and associated cables. The additional antenna installation proposed with this request would meet the facilities structural capacity and reduces the likelihood that this facility will extend higher than the requested 115 feet. After the Commission’s discussion, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve the Commission Permit and forward the Special Exception to the Board with a recommendation of approval based on the below Findings and the recommended conditions of approval on page 11 and 12 of this report:

1. The application is in conformance with the general location and policies outlined in the Revised General Plan and the Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities, which identifies the use of an existing tall structure as a preferred location.

2. The proposed project is in substantial accordance with the character and extent policies of the Revised General Plan and the Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities and will not create an unnecessary visual impact on nearby properties provided that the telecommunication facility is constructed and maintained as proposed.

3. The proposed project will not impact any elements of the Green Infrastructure as outlined in the Revised General Plan.

4. The proposed project will have a negligible impact upon the surrounding transportation network.

5. The project, as conditioned, is in conformance with the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance.



III. CONTEXT Location/Site Access – The subject property is approximately .61 acres and is located north of Harry Byrd Highway (Route 7), east of Lakeland Drive and ½ mile from the Loudoun County/Fairfax County line. This segment of Route 7, from the Fairfax County line west to Augusta Drive, is a major gateway to Loudoun County and is built with a number of shopping centers and other commercial and retail establishments. The property is zoned PD-CC-SC (Planned Development-Commercial Center-Small Regional Center) under the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance. Access to the property is via a single entrance onto Route 7.

Existing Conditions – The subject property operates as a Mattress Discounters and a used car dealership within a single 6,100 square foot retail building. A Commission Permit and Special Exception application were previously approved in 1998 for the construction of a 105-foot monopole, designed to resemble a flagpole, with collocation space for up to three (3) carriers. (CMPT 1997-0003, SPEX 1997-0006). The existing flagpole and associated ground mounted equipment are constructed directly behind the retail building which serve to screen portions of these facilities from the traveling public on Route 7. The pole is designed to function as a traditional flagpole but does not fly a flag. A majority of the site is built with the existing retail building and associated parking spaces. Landscaped areas exist along the frontage of Route 7 and along the site’s perimeter. A six-foot high board on board fence encloses the property on the north, east, and west sides. Surrounding Properties – One and two story commercial buildings and shopping centers surround the subject property. The majority of the properties fronting Route 7 are built and/or zoned for shopping center type uses. A large lot residential development lies north of the site; the closest home is approximately 650-feet from the existing flagpole. A second 108-foot high monopole, also designed to resemble a flagpole, is located 240 feet to the northeast of the subject flagpole on an adjacent parcel that operates as a mini-storage warehouse. The two flagpoles are designed to match. The adjacent monopole provides space for up to three (3) carriers; Verizon being the only known carrier operating at this site. Numerous free standing signs, conventional flagpoles, light standards, utility poles, and traffic signals are present along Route 7, as are a number of architectural building elements at various surrounding retail centers. Collectively, these serve to distract from and minimize the visual impact of the monopoles.

Graphic 1-Existing Flagpole



Directions: From Leesburg, take East Market Street/Harry Byrd Highway (Route 7) east to Dranesville Road (Route 228) at the Fairfax County line. At the traffic signal, make a U-turn onto westbound Route 7. Travel Route 7 westbound for approximately 650 feet, making a right hand turn into the Mattress Warehouse. The flagpole is located to the rear of the parcel, behind the Mattress Warehouse.

IV. PROPOSAL

AT&T Mobility is seeking to increase the height of an existing telecommunications flagpole from 104 feet to a maximum height of 115 feet to install three (3) additional LTE (Long Term Evolution) panel antennas. The proposed antennas will be mounted within the extension on the top of the existing flag pole that will be constructed to match the appearance of the existing structure. The associated ground mounted equipment will be installed inside the existing equipment room that is located within the adjacent commercial retail building. This proposal does not require an expansion of the existing ground mounted equipment compound beyond its current footprint. The facility currently provides space for up to three (3) carriers and with this proposal would provide one additional collocation slot. AT&T currently occupies one slot while Sprint-Nextel occupies the other two slots. Use of the existing flagpole would allow AT&T the ability to provide additional capacity to serve the area while avoiding construction of a new monopole or tower.

In their Statement of Justification, AT&T notes that the installation of the additional three panel antennas will increase the capacity and speed of wireless data networks and will

Graphic 2-Vicinity Map



provide for a seamless telecommunications service to their subscribers. AT&T submitted coverage maps illustrating wireless coverage before and after the installation of the proposed antennas (Attachment #3). The coverage maps illustrate an expansion in the wireless data coverage in the surrounding Route 7 corridor, stretching from Sterling Boulevard to the west and into Fairfax County to the east. The coverage map also illustrates enhanced data service for those residential areas situated to the north of the site. AT&T further notes that the proposed extension allows the placement of antennas at a height to compensate for topography, tree cover, and structures that may affect the network coverage capabilities.

V. OUTSTANDING ISSUES There are no outstanding issues, and the Applicant is in agreement with the Special Exception Conditions of Approval. Staff’s principle focus dealt with the project’s mitigation of potential visual impacts to surrounding properties and the traveling public along Route 7. The Applicant’s proposal to nominally increase the height of the flagpole and the Applicant’s commitment to providing a cohesive design between the extension and existing flagpole blends the structure with the built environment.

VI. POLICY ANALYSIS Criteria for Approval - Zoning Ordinance Section 6-1310 of the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance states that when considering a special exception application, the Planning Commission shall give reasonable consideration to twenty factors. These criteria for approval are organized below by category, followed by Staff’s analysis. When considering a Commission Permit, Section 6-1101(A) states, “No street or connection to an existing street, park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation facility other than a railroad facility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.” A. LAND USE ZO §6-1310 (A) Whether the proposed special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (I) Whether the proposed special exception at the specified location will contribute to or promote the welfare or convenience of the public.

Analysis – There are no outstanding land use issues. The location policies of the Telecommunications Plan establish a hierarchy of preferred locations for new commercial public telecommunication facilities. The County’s first preference is to have new antennas collocate on “existing buildings, towers, monopoles, water tanks, overhead utility transmission line structures and other tall structures wherever possible” (Telecommunications Plan, policy A-1, p. 3) to minimize the need to construct new towers or monopoles. The proposed height extension to the existing telecommunications flagpole to accommodate three (3) additional panel antennas is a preferred location. The site



provides for collocation opportunities and effectively uses the existing structure’s height to provide enhanced wireless data coverage to the area without requiring the construction of a new tower or monopole. Staff finds the use of an existing tall structure, within a commercial highway corridor is in conformance with the location policies of the Telecommunication’s Plan.

B. COMPATIBILITY ZO §6-1310 (C) Whether the level and impact of any noise emanating from the site, including that generated by the proposed use, negatively impacts the uses in the immediate area. (D) Whether the glare or light that may be generated by the proposed use negatively impacts uses in the immediate area. (E) Whether the proposed use is compatible with other existing or proposed uses in the neighborhood, and adjacent parcels. (F) Whether sufficient existing or proposed landscaping, screening and buffering on the site and in the neighborhood to adequately screen surrounding uses. (S) Any anticipated odors which may be generated by the uses on site, and which may negatively impact adjacent uses. Analysis – There are no outstanding compatibility issues identified by Staff. The Telecommunications Plan calls for design standards to mitigate the visual impacts of commercial public telecommunications facilities so as to “blend with the natural and built environment of the surrounding area”. The Plan directs that specific attention be paid to issues pertaining to the setting, color, lighting, topography, materials, and architecture. Antennas and other telecommunication devices should be neutral in color to blend with the background, unless specifically required by the FAA to be painted or lighted otherwise (Telecommunications Plan, policy B-2, p. 6). Accessory structures and equipment buildings should also blend with the surrounding environment through the use of appropriate color, texture of materials, scale, landscaping and visual screening (Telecommunications Plan, policy B-3, p. 7). The existing 104 foot high flagpole is visible from different vantage points from surrounding properties and the traveling public along Route 7; however, given the nominal height increase and the design of the extension to match the existing flagpole (color and width) views should be negligible. Below Graphic 3 illustrates the constructed flagpole at 104 feet while Graphic 4 illustrates the proposed flagpole extension at a maximum height of 115 feet. Both pictures illustrate the adjacent existing 108-foot high telecommunications flagpole to the north east of this site.

Table 1. Land Use - Resolved Issues/Non-Issues Condition

Substantial Conformance-The Applicant agrees to conform to the plat. 1

Preferred Location-The use of an existing tall structure meets Plan policy and countywide goals to minimize the need to construct new telecommunications towers and/or monopoles.

No Issue

Existing Coverage The Applicant submitted propagation maps that illustrate that the proposed telecommunication facility would provide wireless data coverage where gaps in service currently exist.

Attachment 3 Propagation

Maps



The Mattress Discounters store blocks views of the ground mounted equipment from Route 7 and surrounding properties. The existing 6-foot high board on board fence erected along the western, eastern and northern property boundaries will remain to screen the ground equipment. All ground mounted equipment required with the additional LTE antennas will be located within the existing 8-foot high metal chain link fenced compound and/or inside the adjacent retail building’s electrical control room. Based on the adjacent uses, the Zoning Ordinance does not require additional landscaping for the use beyond what exists. The continued use of a flagpole design fits not only with the existing telecommunication’s flagpole north of the site but also the numerous other conventional flagpoles at various businesses in the area in addition to other elements of the built environment (utility poles, light standards, signs, and traffic signals) along this corridor. The overall design of the flagpole is in keeping with the suburban character of the area and provides an alternative design solution to providing telecommunication service to the area. Table 2 below describes how the Applicant has specifically addressed potential visual impacts of the telecommunications facility upon surrounding properties.

Table 2. Compatibility Resolved Issues/Non-Issues

Condition

Character/Design- The Applicant agrees to paint and/or construct the flagpole extension with a color that is similar to the existing flagpole. This is consistent with design standards calling for telecommunications facilities to blend with the natural and built environment of the surrounding area.

3

Visibility from surrounding properties/roadways- The Applicant’s photo simulations depict how the proposed flagpole extension may appear on the surrounding landscape. The photo simulations were taken from various vantage points from surrounding the site. The nominal height increase does not significantly alter the view shed.

Attachment #4

Photo Simulation

Extent-The incremental height increase provides space for one additional 3

Graphic 3-Existing

Flagpole

Graphic 4-Proposed

Flagpole



C. ENVIRONMENTAL ZO §6-1310 (G) Whether the proposed special exception will result in the preservation of any topographic or physical, natural, scenic, archaeological or historic feature of significant importance. (H) Whether the proposed special exception will damage existing animal habitat, vegetation, water quality (including groundwater) or air quality. (M) The effect of the proposed special exception on groundwater supply. (N) Whether the proposed use will affect the structural capacity of the soils.

Analysis – There are no environmental issues identified by staff. The new antenna installation within the existing flagpole, the location of the associated equipment compound at the base of the pole, and access via the existing driveway from Route 7 will have no effect on animal habitat, vegetation, water quality or air quality.

D. TRANSPORTATION ZO §6-1310 (J) Whether the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed use will be adequately and safely served by roads, pedestrian connections and other transportation services. (O) Whether the proposed use will negatively impact orderly and safe road development and transportation. (T) Whether the proposed special exception uses sufficient measure to mitigate the impact of construction traffic on existing neighborhoods and school areas.

Analysis – The site gains access by means of an existing entrance onto Route 7. The telecommunications use has minimal impact to the surrounding road network since it is an unmanned facility and only requires periodic maintenance and inspections. One employee parking space is provided on the west side of the facility. E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZO §6-1310 (P) Whether the proposed special exception use will provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base by encouraging economic development activities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Q) Whether the proposed special exception considers the needs of agriculture, industry, and businesses in future growth.

Analysis –The proposed facility will increase wireless data coverage service to the immediate residential and commercial areas in addition to the traveling public along

telecommunication’s provider. The Applicant agrees to cap the height at 115 feet.

Equipment – The Applicant agrees to place all ground mounted equipment within the existing fenced area and/or within the adjacent retail building’s electrical room.

3

Lighting-The Applicant agrees to only install outdoor lighting that may be necessary for security purposes. The proposal shall meet the light and glare standards of Section 5-1504 of the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance.

7

Fencing-The Applicant agrees to maintain and keep in good repair the existing 6-foot high board on board fencing along the northern, eastern, and western property boundaries to aid in screening the ground mounted equipment. The Applicant also agrees to replace the existing 8-foot high chain link compound fence with a 8-foot high board on board fence.

4&5



Route 7. The facility provides telecommunication infrastructure for the delivery of wireless data that supports continued growth and economic development in the County. F. UTILITIES ZO §6-1310 (R) Whether adequate on and off-site infrastructure is available.

Analysis – There are no utility issues. As the telecommunications facility is an unmanned facility, the use does not require water and sewer service. G. PUBLIC SAFETY ZO §6-1310 (B) Whether the proposed special exception will adequately provide for safety from fire hazards and have effective measures of fire control. (K) Whether, in the case of existing structures proposed to be converted to uses requiring a special exception, the structures meet all code requirements of Loudoun County.

Analysis – There are no safety and health policy issues. Consistent with the Telecommunication Plan’s Safety and Health Policies, the plat contains a note stating that the applicant will remove all unused equipment from the site within 90 days of cessation of the use and will restore the site as closely as possible to its original condition (see sheet Z02, note 8).

VII. ZONING ANALYSIS Analysis – There are no outstanding zoning issues identified by Staff. This application is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is listed as a Special Exception use under Section 4-204(C)(1) by reference to Section 4-204(B)(5) and is subject to the Additional Regulations set forth in Section 5-618(B)(2). The Applicant has revised the plat to address all outstanding zoning comments.

VIII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL dated August 29, 2012 Staff recommends the following Conditions of Approval. The Applicant has agreed to the content of the Conditions.

1. Substantial Conformance-Development of the special exception use, telecommunications monopole pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 5-618(B)(2) in the PD-CC-SC (Planned Development Commercial Center-Small Regional Center) zoning district as further described below in this Condition 1, shall be in substantial conformance with Drawing Numbers TL-VA-2999-Z01, -Z02, -Z03 and -Z04 of the plans set entitled “AT&T Mobility, Site Name: Harry Byrd Highway, Site ID NO.: 2999,” further identified as “SPEX 2011-0032 & CMPT 2011-0010”, prepared by Bechtel Communications, Inc., dated 01/11/12, as revised through 08/29/12, (the “SPEX Plat”), and the Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”). Approval of this application for (Tax Map /82/////////8D (PIN # 014-49-2028)) (the “Property”) shall not relieve the Applicant or the owners of the Property from the obligation to comply with and conform to any



other Zoning Ordinance, Codified Ordinance, or applicable regulatory requirement. This Special Exception approves the extension of an existing, previously approved, flagpole design monopole from its current 103-foot 11-inch height up to a maximum height of 115.

2. Previous Special Exception-These Conditions of Approval shall supersede all

previous Conditions of Approval associated with Special Exception, SPEX 1997-0006, Nextel Herndon Junction.

3. Design-In order to blend with the flagpole design of the existing monopole, the

flagpole extension approved pursuant to this Special Exception shall be designed and installed to match the existing flagpole in color (neutral white-gray) and in width. All antennas and cables shall be placed entirely within the flagpole cylinder. No external mounting of any antenna equipment shall be permitted. All ground mounted equipment shall be located within the footprint of the existing metal chain link fence compound (which fence shall be replaced with an 8-foot high board-on- board fence as required by Condition 4 below) and/or within the first floor equipment room of the existing on-site commercial building. The monopole shall possess the capability to function as a flagpole and shall not exceed 115 feet in height. A flag is not required to be flown on the pole.

4. Compound Fence-The Applicant shall replace the existing 8-foot high chain link fence that encloses the ground mounted equipment at the base of the telecommunications monopole with an 8-foot high board-on-board fence. The fence shall be installed along the northern, eastern, and western compound limits. The fencing shall be shown on the first site plan for the telecommunications use pursuant to this Special Exception.

5. Fencing-The Applicant or its successors shall maintain and keep in good repair the existing 6-foot high board-on-board fencing along the northern, western and southern Property boundaries and the required 8-foot high board-on-board fence that will enclose the base of the monopole pursuant to Condition 4 above. The fencing shall be shown on the first site plan for the telecommunications use pursuant to this Special Exception.

6. Driveway Access-The Applicant or successors shall not disturb or block the existing driveway in any manner that would restrict or hinder ingress and egress to Harry Byrd Highway (Route 7). At no time shall the handicap access ramp (shown as “ADA Access” on Drawing #-ZO3 of the SPEX Plat) be blocked such as to restrict or hinder ingress/egress to the businesses operating on the Property. The driveway entrance and handicap ramp access shall be shown on the site plan prior to first site plan approval pursuant to this Special Exception.

7. Lighting-There shall be no signals or illumination on the monopole unless required by Federal, State, or County authorities. Site lighting shall be restricted to security lighting to illuminate the base of the monopole and shall not be directed towards



adjacent properties or travelways. All site lighting shall be shown on the site plan prior to first site plan approval pursuant to the Special Exception.

8. Signage-There shall be no commercial advertising or signs on the monopole. Signage on the site shall be limited to “no trespassing signs” to be positioned on the board-on-board fence surrounding the monopole. Any proposed signage and/or existing signage shall be shown on the site plan prior to first site plan approval pursuant to this Special Exception.

IX. ATTACHMENTS Attachment Page

1 Referral Comments

1a Planning, Comprehensive Planning A-1

1b Building and Development, Zoning Administration A-6

1c Office of Transportation Services A-9

1d Fairfax County, Virginia A-13

2 Reaffirmation of Affidavit dated August 9, 2012 A-14

3 Propagation Maps A-15

4 Photo Simulations A-17

5 Applicant’s Statement of Justification (not dated) A-22

6 SPEX & CMPT Plat dated 01/11/12 revised through 08/29/12 Follows A-29

*This Staff Report with attachments (file name BOSPH STAFF REPORT 09-11-12.PDF) can be viewed online on the Loudoun Online Land Applications System (LOLA) at www.loudoun.gov. Paper copies are also available in the Department of Planning.

http://www.loudoun.gov/

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Date of Hearing: September 11, 2012 STAFF REPORT


SUBJECT: ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park ELECTION DISTRICT: Ashburn

CRITICAL ACTION DATE: extended to September 28, 2012

STAFF CONTACTS: Ginny Rowen, Project Manager, Department of Planning Julie Pastor, AICP, Director, Department of Planning PURPOSE: The purpose of this application is to consider a Zoning Concept Plan Amendment (ZCPA) to amend the Concept Plan and Proffers approved with Lansdowne Village Greens (ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003, and SPEX 2003-0011) to make Land Bay N-3 more marketable for future Class A office use and to differentiate Land Bay N-3 from Land Bay P-1. The request will: 1) Decrease the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for office development within Land Bay N-3 from 0.79 to 0.46; 2) Eliminate the FAR averaging between Land Bays N-3 and P-1; and 3) Revise the approved Concept Development Plan to delete development phasing requirements and the depiction of a parking garage, with no resulting change in density in the PD-OP (Planned Development-Office Park) zoning district.

RECOMMENDATIONS: At the March 28, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to forward the application to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval including the attached Proffers, and the revised pedestrian plan as discussed at the public hearing, based on the Findings in the Staff Report.

Staff supports the application with the Proffers dated August 1, 2012, based on the Findings in the Staff Report. The Proffers have been reviewed, are approved to form, and are signed.

CONTENTS OF THIS STAFF REPORT Section Page Section Page Section Page

Motions 2 Analysis 7 Utilities 11 Application Information 3 Land Use 7 Zoning 12 PC Review & Findings 4 Compatibility 10 Attachments 12 Context 4 Environmental 10 Proposal 6 Transportation 10 Outstanding Issues 7 Economic Development 11

# 5

ZCPA-2008-0009 Riverside Office Park

Board of Supervisors Public Hearing September 11, 2012

Page 2

MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Board of Supervisors forward ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office

Park, to the September 18, 2012 Board Business Meeting for action.

OR

2a. I move that the Board of Supervisors suspend the rules. AND

2b. I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park, subject to the Proffer Statement dated August 1, 2012 and including the Findings of Approval contained in the Staff Report.

OR

3. I move an alternate motion.



Page 3

I. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANTS Buckeye N LLLP Ed Smariga 125 S. Carroll Street, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21701 Washington Real Estate Investment Trust 6110 Executive Boulevard, Suite 800 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Loudoun Healthcare, Inc. 44045 Riverside Parkway Leesburg, Virginia 20176 Inova Health Care Services 8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 200 Falls Church, Virginia 22042

REPRESENTATIVE Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC Bill Keefe One East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20176 703-737-3633

REQUEST Buckeye N, LLLP, of Frederick, Maryland; Washington Real Estate Investment Trust of Rockville, Maryland; Loudoun Healthcare, Inc. Sub-Trustee of Leesburg, Virginia; and Inova Health Care Services of Falls Church, Virginia, have submitted an application to amend the concept plan and proffers (with Exhibit 24) approved with ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003, and SPEX 2003-0011, Lansdowne Village Greens, in order to: 1) Decrease the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for office development within Land Bay N-3 from 0.79 to 0.46; 2) Eliminate the FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 and P1; 3) Revise the approved Concept Development Plan to delete development phasing requirements and the depiction of a parking garage, with no resulting change in density in the PD-OP (Planned Development-Office Park) zoning district. PARCELS Tax Map /62//64///PH4 (PIN #082-18-2260) – 4.18 acres

Tax Map /62//64///PH5 (PIN#082-18-3427) – 2.51 acres Tax Map /62//64///PH6 (PIN#082-18-0919) – 5.70 acres Tax Map /62//64///PH7 (PIN#082-27-9685) – 1.49 acres Tax Map /62//64//SWCE/ (PIN#082-17-7969) – 1.23 acres Tax Map /62//64//PHCE/ (PIN#082-28-3383) – 1.47 acres Tax Map /62///2////2/ (PIN# 082-19-1967) – 48.53 acres Tax Map /62///2/////2A (PIN# 082-19-1967-001) – 1.47 acres

ACCEPTANCE DATE 2/2/2009

LOCATION - Southwest & southeast corner – Lansdowne Blvd. & Riverside Pkwy

ZONING ORDINANCE Revised 1993 ZO

EXISTING ZONING PD-OP (Planned Development - Office Park)

POLICY AREA – Suburban Policy Area PLANNED LAND USE - Keynote Employment



Page 4

II. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on March 28, 2012. No one from the public spoke regarding the proposal. The applicant noted that they tried to market the site at the approved, higher density with structured parking, but were unsuccessful. The applicant noted that additional pedestrian connections and landscaping has been added to the proposed development plan based on conversations with several members of the Commission. The Commission praised the revisions and voted unanimously to forward the application to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, including the following Findings: FINDINGS 1. Keynote Employment policies support the development of office uses at this location. 2. The proposal is consistent with land use and development policies contained in the

Revised General Plan. 3. The application is consistent with the requirements of the Revised 1993 Zoning

Ordinance. 4. Approval of the application will generate fewer vehicular trips.

Staff notes that the applicant requested to defer the Board public hearing until September.

III. CONTEXT Location/Site Access – The subject site is located on the southwest and southeast corners of Lansdowne Boulevard and Riverside Parkway. The only changes proposed to the approved Concept Plan relate to Land Bay N3, which is on the southwest corner of Lansdowne Boulevard and Riverside Parkway. Site access to Land Bay N3 is currently provided and will continue to be provided by an existing two-lane private drive known as Sandridge Way. Existing Conditions – Land Bay N3 is currently developed with a single, five-story office building with one level of parking beneath the building and surface parking. The remaining area is undeveloped. Land Bay P1 is developed with the Loudoun Hospital, associated medical offices, and surface parking. Surrounding Properties – The properties to the north of the subject site are zoned PD-OP (Office) and are developed with a bank and office uses. The area to the east is zoned PD-OP (Office Park) and is undeveloped. The area to the south of N3 is zoned PD-H3 (Housing) and is developed with multifamily units. The area to the west of N3 is also zoned PD-H3 (Housing) and is developed with a fire and rescue station and multifamily units.



Page 5

Directions: Proceed east on Route 7 to the Lansdowne Boulevard / Claiborne Parkway interchange. Proceed north on Lansdowne Boulevard to Riverside Parkway. Make a left on Riverside Parkway to the first traffic signal at Sandridge Way. Make a left on Sandridge Way to the property on the left. On February 15, 2005, the Lansdowne Village Greens rezoning was approved for the development of a mixed-use town center (Land Bay E) comprised of 390 residential units, 374,000 square feet of office and retail uses and a stand-alone residential component comprised of 155 townhouse units. Land Bay N3 was approved for the development of up to 578,000 square feet (.79 FAR) of office uses. The approved Proffers specified that a portion of the office uses (up to 378,000 square feet) could be transferred to Land Bay P1 (hospital site). Land Bay P1 was approved for the development of office / hospital uses at a FAR of .5 to accommodate all or a portion of the 378,000 square feet of office uses that could potentially be transferred from Land Bay N3. Staff notes that the PD-OP (Office Park) component within the Lansdowne community has already established FAR averaging, allowing higher and lower densities within specific land bays as long as the overall density within the entire PD-OP district does not exceed a FAR of 0.4. Approval of this ZCPA application would:

reduce the amount of office development within Land Bay N3;



Page 6

eliminate the FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 and P1; revise the approved Concept Plan for Land Bay N3 (by removing most of the

structured parking); remove office phasing notes from the approved Concept Plan for Land Bay N3.

This application was accepted for review in February 2009. There was a delay in the applicant’s initial response to the referral comments and the application had to be amended in order to include references to the P1 land bay since both land bays N3 and P1 were tied together during the Lansdowne Village Greens rezoning.

LAND BAY E – TOWN CENTER / RESIDENTIAL (no changes) LAND BAY N3 – OFFICE

LAND BAY P1 – HOSPITAL / MEDICAL OFFICE

IV. PROPOSAL

The applicant is requesting to amend a portion of the Proffers and Concept Development Plan approved with Lansdowne Village Greens (ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003, and SPEX 2003-0011) in order to: 1.) decrease the amount of office development in Land Bay N3 from 571,245 sf (FAR of

0.79) to 328,352 sf (FAR of 0.46);

E

N3 P1



Page 7

2.) eliminate FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 (office - west side of Lansdowne

Boulevard) and P1 (hospital / medical office – east side of Lansdowne Boulevard); 3.) revise the approved Concept Development Plan for Land Bay N3 by removing most of

the structured parking; and 4.) delete references to office phasing in Land Bay N3. (The approved Concept Plan for

Land Bay N3 depicts phase one as the currently developed office building and the proposed building adjacent to Riverside Parkway. Phase two consists of the two remaining office buildings and a separate parking garage.)

V. OUTSTANDING ISSUES Although the currently approved density and site layout for Land Bay N3 meet the Keynote policies better than the proposal, the applicant continues to request the development of office uses in buildings that are the predominant feature on the site. A limited amount of structured parking is developed and proposed on the garage level of the office buildings. The Proffers dated August 1, 2012 have been reviewed and approved to form. VI. POLICY ANALYSIS Criteria for Approval - Zoning Ordinance Section 6-1211(E) of the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance states that when considering a rezoning application, the Planning Commission shall give reasonable consideration to sixteen factors or criteria for approval. A. LAND USE ZO §6-1211(E)(1) Whether the proposed zoning district classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Whether there are any changed or changing conditions in the area affected that make the proposed rezoning appropriate. (12) Whether the proposed rezoning considers the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies. (15) The effect of the proposed rezoning to provide moderate housing by enhancing opportunities for all qualified residents of Loudoun County.

Analysis – The subject site is guided by the land use policies of the Revised General Plan (Plan). The property is located within the Suburban Policy Area and is designated for Keynote Employment uses. The policies of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Loudoun County Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Master Plan, also apply to the property. Parcel N-3 is subject to the Proffers and Concept Development Plan (CDP) approved in conjunction with the Lansdowne Village Greens applications (ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003 and SPEX 2003-0011). Four office buildings and a separate parking garage



Page 8

were approved in the original rezoning (see graphic below). Currently, the parcel is developed with one, five-story office building (including a single level parking garage on the ground floor) in the eastern portion of the site (office building 2). No changes are proposed to the zoning designation. The site is currently zoned PD-OP (Planned Development – Office Park) and will remain PD-OP. No residential units are proposed in the application; therefore, no Affordable Dwelling Units are required or proposed.

APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN

Areas designated as Keynote Employment are intended to be premier office or research-and-development centers supported by ancillary retail and personal services for employees. Keynote Employment is described as areas that “have high visibility along major corridors, their structures accented with heavily landscaped greens and tree-lined boulevards. Keynote Employment developments normally will maintain larger front and side yards to permit extensive landscaping and design features to accentuate the larger-scale buildings. Buildings should remain the prominent feature on the site. Keynote Employment areas are intended to be developed as corporate headquarters and premiere office up to 1.0 FAR. The removal of the separate parking garage has created the need for a Concept Plan amendment. Surrounding office densities to the north of the subject site are in a FAR range of 0.2 and 0.3. The applicant has responded that the approved site configuration, particularly the parking garage, is not workable and is cost prohibitive based on current market conditions. The



Page 9

applicant notes that the proposed site layout (see below) could accommodate the development of a parking garage in the central portion of the site, if needed, in the future. In order to reduce impacts of the proposed surface parking area and to improve pedestrian circulation on the site, the applicant recently revised the Landscape Plan (Sheet 6A) of the Concept Plan to depict:

additional five-foot wide sidewalks along the atrium entrance (in the southern portion of the site);

additional sidewalk through the central portion of the parking area; and

six-foot wide landscape islands in the northern and southern portion of the surface

parking lot.

The applicant has also depicted an outdoor plaza in front of the atrium to accommodate outdoor seating and additional bicycle racks on the south side of proposed building six and existing building four.

PROPOSED LAYOUT

Although Plan policies support higher densities in Keynote Employment areas, the proposed 0.46 FAR is a higher development density than the office uses in the surrounding areas. The elimination of the FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 and P1

proposed office

existing office



Page 10

will not adversely affect the development of either land bay since FAR averaging has already been established for the PD-OP component in Lansdowne. With the removal of the separate parking garage (in the second phase of development), the sequence of office construction within Land Bay N3 is not an important factor.

B. COMPATIBILITY ZO §6-1211(E) (3) Whether the range of uses in the proposed zoning district classification is compatible with the uses permitted on other Property in the immediate vicinity. (13) Whether the proposed rezoning encourages the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County. Analysis – The range of uses are unchanged. The 2005 rezoning anticipated the development of office uses in Land Bay N3. The applicant is continuing to propose office uses in this land bay. The proposal would allow the development of 328,352 square feet of office uses at a .46 FAR. The uses to the east and north of Land Bay N3 consist of a hospital, medical and professional offices, and a bank. Densities of the surrounding office development range between 0.2 FAR and 0.3 FAR. The multifamily units to the west of Land Bay N3 are developed at 24 units to the acre. The fire and rescue station to the west of the site is developed at a 0.4 FAR. The hospital and medical offices in Land Bay P1 are currently developed at a FAR of 0.38. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding multifamily, fire and rescue station, hospital, and office uses in the surrounding area.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL ZO §6-1211(E) (5) The effect of the proposed rezoning on the County's ground water supply. (6) The effect of the uses allowed by the proposed rezoning on the structural capacity of the soils. (9) The effect of the proposed rezoning on the environment or natural features, wildlife habitat, vegetation, water quality and air quality. (16) The effect of the rezoning on natural, scenic, archaeological, or historic features of significant importance.

Analysis – Land Bay N3 was graded during the construction of the initial office building. The site contains no major or minor floodplains and only a limited amount of wetlands in the central portion of the site, which were permitted by the US Army Corp of Engineers on September 2, 2008. An archeological survey was conducted as part of the Village Greens rezoning in 2005. No artifacts were identified on the property. Land Bay N3 is currently served, and will continue to be served by public water and sanitary sewer. The proposal will have no effect on the County’s ground water supply or the structural capacity of the soils. The site is generally level with little vegetation. The property does not lie within the Airport Overlay District.

D. TRANSPORTATION ZO §6-1211(E) (7) The impact that the uses permitted if the Property were rezoned will have upon the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety in the vicinity and whether the proposed rezoning uses sufficient measures to mitigate the impact of through construction traffic on existing neighborhoods and school areas.



Page 11

Analysis – The site currently has and will continue to have median break access to Riverside Parkway via Sandridge Way. There is an existing traffic signal at the intersection of Sandridge Way and Riverside Parkway. Riverside Parkway is a four lane median divided road with separate right and left turn lanes at Sandridge Way. Based on recent traffic studies in the vicinity, this road segment carries between 10,000-11,000 daily vehicle trips which is within the capacity of a four lane divided road. This portion of Riverside Parkway is included in the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) as a major collector and is ultimately planned to be widened to six lanes. A six foot wide asphalt trail exists along the Riverside Parkway frontage. Sandridge Way is a private drive approximately 40 feet in width. The amount of traffic is limited based on the amount of existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. The main access point for the multifamily units is located to the west of Sandridge Way. Staff has confirmed that sufficient right-of-way exists to construct the ultimate planned section of Riverside Parkway. All necessary easements and dedications related to the traffic signal at Riverside Parkway and Sandridge Way have already been provided. Based on current ITE trip rates, the currently approved office development would generate 4,102 daily, 602 a.m. peak hour and 560 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. The proposed reduction in office development would generate 491 a.m. peak hour, 451 p.m. peak hour and 3,366 daily vehicle trips. This represents a reduction of 111 a.m. peak hour, 109 p.m. peak hour and 736 daily vehicle trips. The proposed use will generate significantly less traffic than the previously approved plan. The traffic study indicates that the adjacent intersections operate at acceptable levels-of-service and will continue to do so in the future.

E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZO §6-1211(E) (10) Whether the proposed rezoning encourages economic development activities in areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and provides desirable employment and enlarges the tax base. (11) Whether the proposed rezoning considers the needs of agriculture, industry, and businesses in future growth. (14) Whether the proposed rezoning considers trends of growth or changes, employment, and economic factors, the need for housing, probable future economic and population growth of the County and the capacity of existing and/or planned public facilities and infrastructure.

Analysis – The application proposes to develop office uses within a Keynote Employment area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The application proposes to reduce the overall development potential based on market conditions. F. UTILITIES ZO §6-1211(E) (4) Whether adequate utility, sewer and water, transportation, school and other facilities exist or can be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the Property if it were rezoned.



Page 12

Analysis – There are no proposed changes to the provision of utilities to the site. Approval of the Zoning Concept Plan Amendment would allow a reduction in the amount of office development constructed in Land Bay N3, would remove provisions for FAR averaging between Land Bays N3 and P1, and would remove most of the structured parking in Land Bay N3. Public water and sewer are currently serving the site and will continue to serve the site. VII. ZONING ANALYSIS Analysis – Staff did not identify any critical issues with the application. With the removal of the approved parking garage, Zoning Administration determined that the site layout would not substantially conform to the approved Concept Plan; therefore, review of this Zoning Concept Plan Amendment is necessary. The applicant has made numerous changes to the Proffers and Concept Plan based on staff comments. All of the recommended changes have been incorporated into the revised documents.

VIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment Page 1a. Community Planning comments A-1 b. Zoning Administration comments A-3 c. Office of Transportation Services comments A-4 d. VDOT comments A-7 2 Reaffirmation and Disclosure of Real Parties in Interest dated A-8 3 Statement of Justification A-24 4 Applicant responses A-33 5 Proffer Statement A-81

*This Staff Report with attachments (file name BOSPH STAFF REPORT 9-11-12.PDF) can be viewed online on the Loudoun Online Land Applications System (LOLA) at www.loudoun.gov. Paper copies are also available in the Department of Planning.

http://www.loudoun.gov/

Documents

LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING … · application is subject to the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is listed as a Special Exception use under