APR Nominations Heard
0
Votes

APR Nominations Heard

Second phase of APR process completed

Public hearings were held Thursday to discuss three proposed area plan review nominations in the Dranesville District.

The first nomination, submitted by Scott A. Stupay, was for a building on the southeast corner of the intersection of Fleetwood and Elm Streets in McLean, considered part of the McLean Community Business Center.

In 1999, the property was subject to an out-of-turn Plan Amendment following a special study to determine whether the property was suitable for a mixed-use office space and elderly housing complex. At that time, the property’s foot area ratio (FAR) was increased to a maximum of 1.0 FAR, meaning that for every gross square foot of lot space, one square foot of building could be used.

THE PROPOSED planning changed in this nomination would have allowed for the incorporation of living space for elderly tenants, which had been requested to the zoning board and deferred indefinitely. Through this APR process, a task force assigned to research the nomination found the area would be suitable for the mixed-use option for up to 1.0 FAR, so long as 60 percent of the property was used for office space and 40 percent of the property was used for residential homes with a density of between 30 and 40 units per acre, and limited to no more than 50 dwelling units.

The task force also recommended the building not exceed 75 feet in height in order to better suit the visual character of the neighborhood.

“The task force essentially supports the staff proposal,” said John Ulfelder, the Dranesville representative to the task force. “The only issue we had was with the proposed building height. There was a motion to limit it to six stories, but that was denied.”

David Brown, a representative of McLean Plaza speaking on behalf of Stupay, said the nomination also removed the language making the building an assisted-living facility.

“We support the staff alternative to our nomination and we agree to the limits of no more than 50 units and a 75-feet height restriction,” he said, adding that the design will include an outdoor swimming pool and special landscaping on the side of the building facing Fleetwood Road.

As a co-owner of a property on an opposite corner of the intersection of Fleetwood Road and Elm Street, Stephen Pournaras said he was concerned about the traffic additional dwelling units would create.

“Beverly Road has been opened for a while but with McLean Crest (a housing development) coming in and putting in fifty units it will create hazardous traffic situation,” he said. “I don’t’ know how we’ll handle parking with one hundred extra cars in the area.”

The second nomination was for a property located in the middle of Fleetwood Road, Old Chain Bridge Road and Beverly Road just north of Old McLean Village.

The nomination requested the construction of self-storage units with a mixed-use FAR of 1.25 FAR. The storage units would be for both office and personal use.

“THE TASK force is opposed to personal storage use on this site,” Ulfelder said, adding that the task force did support the staff’s modification to the nomination, which would call for a modification from ‘personal storage’ to ‘self-storage,’ a new service to be provided in the McLean business area.

The nominator of the project, Keith Martin from Sack, Harris & Martin PC, said he and his staff “supported the staff recommendation. The McLean Citizens Association and the task force also support the nomination.”

The third and final nomination from the Dranesville District came from John Ulfelder on behalf of the Great Falls Citizens Association, which sought to increase requirements on cluster developments in Great Falls.

A cluster development is one in which several houses are built on a block of land and the houses are placed in an enclosed area, with the surrounding property remaining undeveloped. The density of the developed area remains the same but is more centralized.

Currently Great Falls is planned for low-density residential dwelling, and any cluster subdivisions would have to follow strict criteria established in the county’s comprehensive plan in 2000, which requires open space around the houses, structures to have a minimal impact on storm water drainage, landscaping complimentary to the current setting and no variances that would allow for smaller lot sizes within the development.

Ulfelder, switching back and forth between his roles of task force member and nominator, said he received some help from the planning commission’s staff in clarifying the language of the nomination.

“I had a good task force and we had lengthy discussions about cluster developments. Under the new cluster development layout, there probably won’t be many clusters in Great Falls,” he said. “What we wanted to do was make sure we’d be prepared if someone were to come in plan a cluster development.”

THE TASK force modified the working of Ulfelder’s nomination to include an extra stipulation, which would limit the amount of space used for housing to as little as possible in excess of the footprint of a house. Any extra space not developed for housing would be considered a “density bonus.”

“The proposal does not change the planned use of those spaces,” said Sterling Wheeler, chief of the Policy and Plan Development Branch of the department of planning and zoning. “We are not changing the density of the area at all. In fact, the nomination goes above and beyond what would normally be required.”

“This is strictly guidance for the future,” said Janet R. Hall, Mason District representative to the planning commission. “Nothing changes.”

In one cluster development in an area planned to be a mixed residential and commercial use area, “the county got hundreds of acres of parks and trails for free,” said James R. Hart, member at large. “I think you folks will be happy with this.”