Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. The 04/28/2026 Loudoun County Planning Commission public hearing will now come to order. And as is our custom, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission at the end of the dais to my left. If you are participating electronically, please call the number at the bottom of the screen. If you sign up to speak after 12:30PM, please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes after twelve noon. Indicate your name and the agenda item you wish to address.

Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual, will have three minutes. Written comments may be submitted to the assistant deputy clerk who will make copies for each Planning Commission member. The Commission may vote on applications tonight and send its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors or may forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking a final vote. Our procedure for tonight's public hearing is as follows. Ten minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff.

Commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions. Ten minute applicant presentation and commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions of the applicant. Hearing is then open for public comment, three minutes for each speaker. After everyone has had a chance to speak, the hearing is closed. The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to the public comment. Finally, there will be a motion, deliberation and vote by the commission. The maker of the motion will have three minutes for opening and closing remarks. Commissioners will be given three minutes to speak on the motion. Before we get started, I do want to mention that we had three items on the agenda for tonight. We'll be moving forward with two of them.

One item, the North Springs Behavioral Healthcare Legi twenty twenty five dash 31 Special accept exception application has been deferred. Is there anybody here that was planning to comment on that application? Good. So the word was out. Alright. And the first thing we need to take care of is we have the minutes for, I believe, the March. So if the commissioners have had a chance to review the minutes, I'll accept the motion.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from March. Second.

Second. Alright. A motion to approve made by vice chair of moderator, seconded by commissioner Miller. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry eight zero one with commissioner Banks absent for the vote.

That would be eight zero two because commissioner Frank is

Oh, she's here but not here. 702. 702. Thank you. And the next item, we'll do disclosures, and I will start from my right. And if you have any disclosures, please just turn on your light. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, mister On April 27, I had a video conference with the applicant team for the South Riding Intergenerational Community application before us tonight.

Vice chair moderator.

On April 15, I met with Amanda Williams and the applicant team for digital Dallas special application. On April 27, I met with John McGram, Packy Crown and the applicant team for the South Riding Intergenerational Community. And also, I did speak to a couple of residents of Riding At Blue Spring on April 27.

You. Mister Okay. Myers.

On April 24, I met with I guess you call it the applicant even though it was the county in regards to the Dallas South Community Park. Then also on that same date on April 24, I met with Packet Crown and the applicants in regards to the second application we have before us tonight. And then I also met down there with three community members, Mary and John Dwyer and then Hannah Witzel Witzgull in regards to that also that application. And then today, I had a phone conversation with Bill Junda in regards to the county's building General Systems building down in the Tuscarora.

Alright. Thank you. Double check. Alright. For myself, on April 9, I had a phone conversation with Amanda Williams about an upcoming natural gas turbine power source for data centers.

April 16, I attended a community meeting for the Tuscarora Land Bay 4 application. April 20, attended the W And OD And Sterling Boulevard overcast groundbreaking as well as the, Ravana groundbreaking. April 21, I had a meeting, with staff regarding the Dulles South Community Park application tonight. April 22, had a phone conversation with John McGranahan regarding the South Riding Intergenerational Community application. And April, they attended the American Planning Association National Planning Conference.

Alright. Our first item tonight is the South Riding Intergenerational Community, ZMAP twenty twenty three-twelve, special exception twenty twenty three-thirty nine, special exception twenty twenty four-eighty four and special exception twenty twenty five-one hundred thirteen. And we're ready when you are.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Wardell with the department of planning and zoning here to present South Riding Intergenerational Community. The property is located South of East Gateview Drive, East of Tar Cedar's Parkway in the Dolores Election District. The 14 the 19.4 acre property is on commercial light industrial. It is located within the suburban policy area and the suburban neighborhood place type.

This proposal consists of four requests. A zoning map amendment to rezone the property from CLI to SCN 16 zoning district to allow for development of up to two fifty multifamily units with modification to increase the maximum allowed percentage of multifamily from 75% to 100%. Requests also include three special exceptions. In order to permit a two seventy five square feet continuing care facility consisting of to 200 independent living units and 80 assisted living units. A second specs for a community center up to 1,200 square feet, and a third specs to increase the maximum height of the multifamily and the continued care facility building from 50 feet to 55 feet.

The subject property received a spec approval back in 2015 for a continued care facility for up to two thirty three units. This proposal consists of a total of four fifty units. On screen is the proposed site layout. In blue is the multifamily dwellings and in brown is the community care facility. Access to the site is proposed via full access on Eastgate View Drive and a right in and right out access along Torres Cedar Parkway.

Staff identified outstanding issues related to land use, scale and density, transportation, environmental, and proper administration. Staff will go over each in more details in the following slides. The 2019 general plan allows certain SN place type designated sites to be developed under the SCN place type guidelines that offer a higher density when certain when meeting certain criteria. Staff find the proposal fall short of meeting the criteria to be developed under the SCN place type in regard to building height, density, and unmet housing. Staff will go over the building height and density in more detail in the following slides.

The proposal does not provide unmet housing units that exceed the applicable regulatory requirement. The applicant committed 10% toward ADUs, while the policy recommended a minimum of 13.75%. Staff recommends revising the application to meet the SEM place type development criteria. The proposed buildings vary from two to four stories. Staff note that the residential development above these properties are two stories tall and the subject property has an elevation level that is higher than the surrounding area.

Therefore, our staff recommend reducing the four story multifamily building and noted in the red circle to three story and reducing the three story multifamily building to two story to achieve in order to achieve a more cohesive transition with the surrounding area. The SEN place type support infill development taking into account the site context and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed two fifty residential units would result in a density of 17.74 unit per acre, above the 12 dwelling unit per acre recommended for the place type. The 275,000 square feet continued care facility results in an FAR of 1.19, above the FAR of one point zero recommended for the place type. Staff recommends reducing the scale and intensity of development to align with the place type recommendation.

On screen is a table summarizing staff previous comments. The table showed the prescribed versus the proposed requirements. Staff note that prior to the adoption of CPAM earlier this year, the proposal did meet the criteria for density and unmet housing. The general plan anticipates the SEM place type to be developed with compact residential development and providing opportunity for a variety of unit sizes. While the proposal does provide a variety of unit sizes from studio to two bedroom units, the applicant only specified the unit sizes for 200 out of the proposed two fifty multifamily units.

The staff recommends providing unit sizes for the remaining 50 multifamily units for consideration. The county transportation plan call for our suburban area to maximize pedestrian, bicycle, and other multimodal connectivity. The proposal include commitment to provide bus shelter along Eastview Drive. However, the proposed location of the bus shelter raises safety conflict with the proposed turn lane as driver may expect the bus to turn into the entrance instead of merging back into traffic. Staff recommends relocating the bus shelter to eliminate potential traffic conflicts.

Staff also recommend providing the minimum number of bicycle racks and a cash in lieu provision in case the design of the shared use path cannot avoid impact to the slope and nearby trees. The general plan excuse me. The general plan encourages the protection of natural resources and provide mitigation to offset any potential impacts. The proposal lacks the required reforestation area for riskier medication as it exclude the landscape islands from the calculation. In addition, the applicant proffered to provide two infiltration type LID while volume reduction LID are preferred for best practices.

STEP recommends revising the proposal to address riskier impacts and to commit to utilizing infiltration type LID. There are inconsistencies between the CDP and proffers, including proffering restaurant use that is not permitted in the proposed zoning district. Staff recommends technical revision for clarity and to ensure the proper statement can be administered by the county upon approval. The PC had questions regarding trip generation comparison between the for what was approved and what is proposed. This table show that calculation in blue is what being proposed for the multi family and the continued care facility.

In orange is what was approved in 2015 for the two thirty three units, and in green is the differences. Based on the outstanding issue outline, staff recommends that the planning commission forward the applications to a future work session for discussion and resolution of outstanding issues. Staff did receive comments from five individual noting concerns related to inadequate landscaping, lighting, and excessive density and building height. Staff is available for questions.

All right. Thank you. Questions for staff? Mister Myers?

I have two quick questions. When you were looking at the difference in the traffic calculations and generations, did you also take into account not just the increase in the density, but also the increase in the difference? And what I mean what I mean by differences, originally, from the old one, it was all I don't mean by old one. By the by the existing application, it was all age restricted, shall we say, senior housing type, which I think would have a much lower generation of traffic than to now also when you have this mix of pure just residential and senior. Did you look at both the increase of density and the increase of different types of use?

We have staff from DTCI that's available online. I'm gonna refer to Laurie, are you available?

Yes. Good evening. Yes. So the ITE, which is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they use what's called an ITE code that looks at the different uses and assigns trips to that use. In the original specs, the ITE code, the continuing care facility looked at two thirty three dwelling units, where this one also looked at the continuing care facility ITE code 200 dwelling units, then also had multi family ITE code of two fifty dwelling units.

And then also the sit down restaurant or high turnover sit down restaurant of 2,000 square feet. So it did the traffic impact study looked at those additional uses being added to the site.

Okay. Thank you. And then one other quick question in regards to the risk guard and mitigation, were you saying that didn't quite understand your comment. Were you saying that they were using calculations of land base or something or parkings? Or what was it you were

They were they were excluding the landscape island from their their calculation for risk or mitigation. Staff is asking that they include those landscape and island for a more accurate calculation.

So you wanna give them more credit?

Oh, it'll

be said it, it sounds like you wanted to give them more credit for landscaping because of the islands. Is that

It will be it will be the, reverse. It will be less. They have to provide additional reforestation area.

So you wanna take a you want them so that right now, they're count right now, they're counting like the islands as in and you're saying they shouldn't be?

Right now, they are not counting the island.

I'm they're not counting them as open space? They're not counting them as briskott? What are they not counting them as? I'm confused about

They are so part of their part part of their parking area is encroaching into the risker. And they have so the square footage percent has to be equate whatever the percent the square foot that they're encroaching to the risker have to be mitigated for the same amount of square footage outside of that.

Okay. And what does that have to do with the islands?

The so when they are total on that, the square footage of that encroachment, they didn't include a square footage for the landscaping island that is

into Okay. Now I'm with you. Okay. I was it sound like it was almost like a double negative, I'm like, I'm trying to figure out are we trying to give them credit or what are we trying to do? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

You. Other commissioners? Vice chair moderating?

Yeah. Have a couple of questions. The first one is in terms of the scale and density. How much as per your calculation they are exceeding what the SEN place types allows you to right now?

So the place type recommend a maximum density of 12 units per acre, and they are proposing per stock calculation 17.7 dwelling unit per acre.

Okay. So okay. In terms of the transportation, I see all the numbers kind of what it's going to generate. Do you guys also consider the inner circulation? How what what entrance this particular how many vehicles are going to take, like a Tall Cedar entrance versus a East Gate. Do you guys consider those things in calculating the numbers whether this building is compatible? Laurie?

Yes. Good evening. Yes, we do. That's considered site distribution. And so when they look at where the traffic is coming from, it'll show like how many what percentage of traffic is traveling on East Gateview Drive versus Tall Cedars and who's entering the entrance from each of those. It is the percentage of the traffic is shown being distributed along the roadways. So yes, it doesn't just, you know, calculate it from the Tall Cedar's entrance. If that answers your question, I'm not sure.

It it is, Marie. But do you go into details like, if the people who are going to use the East Gate entrance, how many people might be making left turns versus a right turns? Do you guys go into that kind of a detail at this stage or is it is it safe for later?

Yes. So within the traffic impact study, there's a breakdown of the percentages, the distribution of the traffic coming from each of those areas. And I think on East Gateview Drive, about 15% was on East Gateview Drive coming to the site, and the majority is coming from, 50 down Tall Cedars Parkway, and then a portion is also coming from the West on East Gateview Drive. So the breakdown let me just I can give it to you if you'd like. Let me just So the way that it's distributed is, 10% is coming up Tall Cedars Parkway to make that right in right out Entrance 15 Percent like I said, is coming from the east on Escape View Drive to turn to make a left into the site.

5% would be coming from the West on Escape View Drive to make the entrance, a right hand entrance into the site. 20% is coming from Route 50 down Tall Cedars Parkway to go to the site and 45% heading west and turning down Tall Cedars Parkway.

Okay.

So it's they do look at the way the traffic is distributed on the roadways. So it gives a a, you know, a a breakdown in regards to, you know, how they're entering the site.

Okay. Thank you, Marie. That's it for now. Alright. Mister Jasper.

Thank you. I'm wondering, what you, the policy to be served by not allowing restaurants in a development like this and the SCN generally. And do you think that policy applies in this particular case to the size of restaurant being proposed?

So the regulation is the regulation that doesn't permit the restaurant use in this zoning district, not a policy.

Okay. Yeah. So this is in the zoning ordinance. It's not permitted. So they would need another They can't get that by exception?

No. The the zoning district doesn't is not a condition or permitted use.

They would have to request a zoning district that would allow it. You have to rezone the property to a district that would allow that use.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you.

Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, mister chair. So, back to the density issue. We've got policy that says density should not exceed eight to 12 dwelling units per acre when adjacent to suburban neighborhood place type.

That's correct.

And then I think we're mostly accustomed to seeing in SCN place type densities up to 24, 24 dwelling units per acre. But there's been a policy change recently. Right? And that's where this new policy can you just kinda can you refresh us all on this policy change and when it was enacted and and then how, I guess,

how the analysis would have applied prior to the inaction of that new policy? So prior to the complaint amendment that was adopted in January 21, I was saying the development did meet the density recommendation which is eight to 24 unit per acre, and the unmet housing units, which is to 10%. The policy change in January that makes those two items fell short. Now, deposit reduced the density for that displaced type from 18 to 24 down to a maximum of 12 units per acre. So cutting it by half.

And so how do we address I mean, a policy change at a late stage in an application, how do, you know, how do we address that? Right. So staff,

I think that staff wanna raise that for the, PC for consideration. Staff only noting that unit is inconsistency with the policy that was recently adopted.

Mister chair, can I just add on to that, please? This policy change is a result of the 2024 review CPAM. And the reason why this change was enacted was because of the planning commission because you would review applications like this next to suburban neighborhood place types, and you would find that the 24 units per acre was too high. So that's why it changed. And so as part of your review of these applications, you would be going through the same type of conversation.

Okay. That's helpful background. How have we addressed policy changes midstream in an application previously?

It's been precarious. If it's to the applicant's benefit, they would want to be evaluated under the one policy.

If it's not to

the benefit, it would be to the other. I think we simply bring it to your attention as context. The applicant, the way their application was processed, they happened to fall at this time. Brian just explained the intent of what that CPAN was meant to do. Does the commission feel in some capacity meets the intent of that policy?

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Can I just ask one question?

Just for background, and I won't mention particular applications that I recall that were in that context. Part of what happened in that instance was the 2019 plan as we were living with it before the zoning ordinance got there and then the zoning ordinance. We said, look, there's times when they conflict with each other. You have something on a map, but then you have this policy that says you need to be compatible. You need to be all these other things.

And we're like, but 24 next to r one with no buffer just wasn't compatible. So this was part of how we, I think, addressed that. We tried to mitigate the conflict. And we'd wrestled with it on several applications over the last half dozen years where we were like, wait, the plan and the map conflict with the policy. And so that was part of why that policy change happened.

So anyway, my question was if you look at your slide number five, the originally the approved ten years ago plus kind of plan. A couple of quick questions about that. The setback, I'm going to say on the side that is up against the single family residence that exists. Setback that's approved now, what is that?

The approved setback for this plan?

For the one that was our the plan the specs that was approved in 2014.

I would have to

Okay.

I would need time to look that up. It is greater than what is currently proposed.

I'd be curious what that is. I'd also be curious what the setback is to the building because in that plan you have a drive aisle and access before you get to the building. And then what is the height of that building as it was approved then?

The height for this building was approved from four to two stories. Four stories toward the south and two story toward the north.

And just so that I know I'm looking at this right, then oh.

The four story

The north is the east gate side. Yeah. Okay. So the four stories is on the left side of that picture?

Yeah. So the two story is toward East Gate and the four story is, opposite end.

Okay. So it was if you're looking at the I guess it's the east side, the side that abuts the single family residence and a little bit of the east gaze condos. All is so there's some that's four story approved now and some it's two story. So it's not a consistent height. And the closer ones are actually taller it looks like. I'd be curious what those distance were for the setback for the building envelope which includes the drive aisle and then to the actual building if we could get that. Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I address excuse me, Commissioner Combs, not suggesting. To go back to your earlier question, I'm sorry. So in the zoning ordinance, when we adopt a new zoning ordinance, there's usually a grandfathering statute, correct? Comprehensive plan amendments at times the board will make some sort of a similar sort of assessment. In this case, they did not make any concession to applications that were already in the door. The day that they adopted the policy was the day that it was in effect. So if that was part of your question earlier, how we handle that, this policy can be handled in the same way but there was no specific direction about applications that were already in process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Meyer, you said you had a quick follow-up.

My question because I know from previous previous time setting up here that usually when there was a CPM adopted or a zoning ordinance change, there would be a ratification time that says, and going forward this amount of time, this goes this way, this goes that way. So I was seeing this also asking if was there any kind of direction given in this particular case, you answered the question. Thank you.

Actually, was Allison that was I'm ing me telling me the answer. Okay.

Any no? Alright. For myself, could you what's the difference between volume reducing LID and infiltration using LID reducing LIDs? And is it policy that you must use one over the other or is it just a recommendation?

Is there is there a recommendation? So infiltration type focus on allowing water to percolate to the ground while the volume reduction include method that capture or use of water making them more suitable in area with the lower soil permeability.

Okay. And so I know the change was January for the new place type, but how when was this application filed? Not the original one, this but this new one with the change. How long has it been going on before it finally got to us?

The application was submitted in November the November 2023, And it has this will be the fourth round of referrals with the first two round referral time period in between as about a year.

Okay. Okay. That's I think all of my other questions were already answered. So that's it for me. Alright, we'll go to the applicant for a presentation.

You, mister chairman and members of the planning commission.

For the

record, my name is John McGranahan. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Very quickly with me here this evening, have Avi Grewald and Todd Rankin from Singh Development. They're sitting right behind me in the back row. Paki Crown from Bowman and Tushar Awar from Grove Slade. So that's the team that we bring to you here this evening. I want to first off thank Mr. Dow for really covering the application very well, summarizing it nicely, and he's been a pleasure to work with over the last several months. We started this thing many years ago, but he's fairly recent to the application and he's done a great job. Oh, wait.

And I'm gonna blow through this slide because he already located the property and I think you all know where it is. So with respect to this slide, and this goes to some of commissioner Frank's questions. This is the current approved senior continuing care facility. It was approved in April 2015. There are 233 units in this approval as it sits today.

The building in yellow is the four story building, which, you know, that's the south side of the property, the left side of your screen. And then in the middle, that's kind of a connection between that, which is the independent living units and then the assisted living and nursing home units are in the brown. And that's two story and it transitions in between two to four stories. There was parking along that eastern boundary or to the bottom of those boxes that you see those buildings. And some of that parking was actually covered with the covered structures, if you will.

And the actual distance, the buffer that was provided was only 45 feet. We've moved the buffering with the current proposal up to 50 and I'll get into that a little bit later. But it was actually a little bit less than than this one. But this is what is approved today. And I think you all jumped right into the details and I certainly appreciate that and we need to work through those.

But I think it's important to step back and understand why we're here. We have an approved plan. And the reason we're here really goes back to COVID. The applicant had a site plan approved when COVID hit for the building that you just saw. And but COVID revealed a number of changes, in the wants and needs of of the aging population.

And people what what Singh realized is that people wanted to be geographically closer to their family and friends, and they wanted to interact regularly with other generations, people living in senior communities. And so the demand, if you will, has been for living in a community that provides an environment for multiple generations, also including smaller buildings with fewer residents. These, what was revealed from COVID, as you see on the screen, is just not met by the current plan. So Singh has adapted. They don't want to build something that doesn't meet the market.

They don't want to build something that's a disservice to the senior community. And they've spent several years researching and modifying their business model so that they can get this intergenerational community right. They wanna remain at the forefront of innovation and continue to deliver care options that the market wants and and the people are demanding. So the new development plan, which is why we're here. We're amending the special exception.

We're changing the zoning to create an intergenerational community. We want and and these are important objectives because we're gonna get into a discussion about density, and and density is very relevant to creating the kind of environment that and community that Singh is trying to do. You want daily interaction and immersion among the multiple generations. Proximity and multimodal transit, proximity to public parks, and commercial uses, which checks all those boxes, and also a community that allows for families with different needs to more affordably live close to one another. This is a a kind of a busy slide and and maybe I'll come back to this if there are questions.

But it essentially shows what is approved on the left and what is proposed on the right. I will note that the, the senior living community that's that's, approved is 233 total units. So they're dropping the number of senior units down to 200. And then as was said, they're going they're adding the two fifty multifamily units. Benefits of intergenerational communities.

A lot of words on this slide. I'm not gonna read them all, but I'm gonna focus on the middle part. An increased sense of purpose, reduced isolation and depression, and improved mental health and physical health. That is the objective here, and there are some very nice quotes there about those those topics. And I like the one on the right there that, you know, young people want to learn from older ones, and older people want to share what they know.

Singh is doing this. Currently, they're building this type of a community intergenerational in Cary, North Carolina with the Griffin Weston. Same kind of concept that that you'll hear about this evening, and it's going very well. These are what some of the residents are saying. Such a wonderful and peaceful community to live in. This is one of the nicest communities in Cary. So I really want to go through this quickly, but it's important. The evolution of our concept, we have been working at this for a long time and the plan has evolved based on input from staff and from the community. The if you look at this plan, it's very important. There there were 360 total units.

And working from right to left on your screen, the bigger complex is the multifamily that was 285 units. The middle building was the senior living component, and the building on the far left, the numbered c, was a lie tech building of 75 units. So this was the original plan, and the community did not like it. They raised a number of of concerns, height. They did not like the affordable housing building.

They didn't like the heights up against their property line, vehicle lights from the parking lots, dumpsters that were in proximity to the property line in their homes. So the applicant made substantial changes. They deleted the LITEK building. The density was pushed to the intersection of Tall Cedars Parkway and East Gateview Drive. The three they reduced the height of the buildings that were closer to the property line down to three stories.

They put them along the property line with landscaping and got rid of the asphalt and the parking and the parking lots, and they dropped the number of units from a total of three sixty down to 250. A 100 in that multifamily building and a 150 in the carriage homes. Went back to the community, there were still concerns. The comment was that we were reducing the transition from what was approved on the current plan. Infill development should be compatible and we should address the missing middle densities.

So, this is the current proposed plan. Those three story buildings along the property line, from the middle of the site to the south or to the left, have been reduced down to two story. We've improved the screening. We've actually enhanced it somewhat since we met with the community back in March, and we also proffered to a number of bedroom mixes to try to address the, missing middle comment. Buffering, we can spend a good bit of time on this, but we did update this since the community meeting we had in March.

We're now providing a 50 foot enhanced type c buffer with a 60 foot building restrict restriction line, and we've added evergreen plantings to densify what had been previously shown and filed. Let me click through some precedent images. This is looking from Tall Cedars Parkway down into the community, and it's important again to go back to why we're doing this. You can see that with that, enhanced crosswalk area, you have the multifamily building on the right, you have the Senior building on the left, And it really is to try try to connect them and create an environment where there's synergy and interaction between between the generations. This is that same perspective, but looking out toward tall cedars, same points.

This is looking from East Gate View Drive into the community. And as I'm running through these, this is the looking back toward East Gate View Drive with the carriage homes. I'll wrap up on this slide. There's a lot here as well, but you've already started hearing it. First off, let me say we agree with the staff recommendation to go to a work session. This is way too complicated, I think, to try to solve from the podium here this evening. But there are some important points. Let's start with scale and density. We have reduced the density, as I mentioned, from 360 units, multifamily units to 250 units. But you really need a critical mass of the multifamily units to create that synergy.

You if if you lower the multifamily too much, then it's just an appendage and it's a senior community with some apartments in it and you don't get the interaction between the seniors and the and the residents of the multifamily building. So and and vice versa is true. If we increase the multifamily units, shrink the senior living, you don't have enough critical mass in the senior building to pay for all the services that seniors need. So it's a balance and it's tricky. And it's not as you may typically hear with proposed projects where you can just reduce some density and lose some return on your investment, that's really not it.

We need to be careful if we're talking about density to make sure that the community works as an intergenerational community and it achieves those objectives. And the same thing with the balance is the affordability. As you reduce density, you lose affordable units. And I know I'm out of time, mister chairman. So, I will stop and and be happy to answer any questions you have, but I I look forward we look forward as a team to working with you all, hopefully, in a work session on these issues. And last point is a lot of the other issues that you don't see in the screen, we think are very easily resolved, with staff, things like the cafe and the restaurant and that sort of thing. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Questions for the applicants? Commissioner Myers.

Just real quick on and actually, think it's your slide five. When you you show this the difference between the existing and the proposed. In the current one, you have it very broken out as independent living, assisted living, memory care, and accessory units. In the new projection, you just have it called senior living units. You don't specify what percentage of them could be for a memory care, assisted living, or independent living. Is there a reason why we don't have that connotation anymore?

No. There's not a reason other than that was just how yours truly prepared the slide. The 200 units great question. The 200 units, would consist of a 120 independent units, 60 assisted living units, and 20 memory care. It was in my notes, but I didn't break it out that way.

That's okay. I I wanted to make sure because I read it, but then I saw this and I'm like, well, are we just going to a blank some are you changing to just a blank? Because while we can have all kinds of disagreements or whatever time on different things, I mean, the one thing I will say from the heart that I know we need more of are are some memory care units that in this area. So I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just this kinda, like, 55 community with not without with the other components. You know, as as I shared with his crown, it's kinda like you you grow and you live and then you go to the heavens

Mhmm.

In this type of concept, not just if you're 55 or older, it you lock the key and go to Florida. Right.

Thank you. No.

Thank you for your question.

This, commissioner Jasper.

Thank you.

I have a a question about definition of intergenerational community and how it will operate. So I won't pretend to be an expert at all, but it looks to me like intergenerational communities are not just mixed housing. They are intentional kind of programmatic and operational opportunities for people, you know, that include partnerships with universities and schools and tutoring programs. And I'm wondering, you know, kind of how you're going to manage the non senior living multi family and other units to achieve that kind of programmatic objective that is the core of intergenerational living?

And thank you for that question. It's excellent and I'm not the best qualified So person to answer I'm going to let Avi answer that question. Introduce yourself.

Thanks, John. Avi Graywall with Sing Development. Thanks, Commissioner, for the great question. Singh Development, we're a 53 old business, family owned business, owned and operated business. I've talked to some of the commissioners about that. We own and build things for the long term. We manage these properties for in kind of in perpetuity. And so both the multifamily component of this intergenerational community and the senior living component of this intergenerational community will be managed by us. And so all the programming will be handled by us. And so if you're living in the multifamily building, you will be invited to go to the senior Living Building for events, vice versa.

And with the universities we have, I'm not the best to speak to that. Our senior housing folks would be the best to speak to that. But we have partnerships with the University of Michigan in Michigan, Wayne State University in Detroit, some of the universities in North Carolina. So we do the same here.

Okay. Thank you.

Vice chair of Audrowdy. Thank you, mister chair. Just for the record, John, would you be do you have a slide that explains which buildings are the four story versus three story versus two story and number of units that have? I do.

Now I know why Marshawn told me to be careful with the clicker. Oops. Okay. So let's start at the bottom of the page if you will. And if you look at the lower left side along the property line, those are the two story carriage homes. And I don't know that there's a way to point

The one in the lighter yellow, you mean?

Yeah. The lighter yellow. Yes. And and there are two on the other side of the entrance road, if you will, across from those. So those are two story buildings. There are eight units in each building. Correct? And and they're multifamily. Everything is rental here, by way. I wanted to make sure that we made that point for the record. But the yellow units in that lower part to the left are Please

be very careful.

Oh, thank you. Marshawn's gonna hurt me. Oh, yes. So I I you all can't see it from where you are, but so these units are all the two story carriage homes. Commissioner Maserati, those.

These units are three story carriage homes. And so they are one story higher and and they were purposely put in that location because they are abutting the townhome community as opposed to the writings at Blue Spring single family detached homes. This building is the multifamily building and it is four stories. This is the continuing care community building, all of it in this location. And that portion that's beige is three stories and the rest of it is four stories.

Again, with the feedback from the community in particular, we wanted to push the height and the density toward that intersection of East Gateview Drive and Tall Cedars Parkway. So height and density went this way away from their homes. But that's it. And in terms of the number of units, I I would have to do some math on that. But but the bulk of the units

are give us the numbers. I think you have 56.

So all of the seniors are in that brown square. That's it?

And and the beige. This is all the senior living on this side.

So all of the carriage and everything that's proposed is the normal almost is the unrestricted age limit group. Correct.

That's correct.

Okay. Yes. Okay. So

the the special exception you are asking for the building height, what buildings are those?

It it will only apply to the brown buildings because those are the four story buildings. And the building height, those buildings could meet the 50 foot height if, they had flat roofs, which is a solution to the problem, if you will. However, we really wanna maintain the residential character and so the roofs are pitched. And when you go to the middle part of the roof, the additional five feet in height would only apply to the brown buildings, the brown footprints, and it would only be to accommodate that pitched roof and not the flat roof. So that's why we need the extra five feet.

Okay. And one last question related to the transportation. Does your traffic study does it give us a number like how many people are going to make a left turn on Eastgate Drive on a daily basis?

Are you talking about the left turn traffic into the entrance?

Yeah. Exact yeah. Right there. This way and in here? Make a left there.

Oh, wait. Wait. This way.

Yeah. So the the traffic we anticipate turning left. No. No. Coming out of

the neighborhood, making a left on the East Gate.

Okay. Exiting out. Exiting out. Yeah. It's about 20 trips in the morning and about about 20 trips in the afternoon as well. So 20 trips.

Just 20 trips? 20

car trips.

400 units. We're just thinking 20 people are going to make left there.

Yes. So there we have a right in, right out entrance as well on Tall Cedars Parkway that will have some traffic that will be distributed that way. But as far as traffic turning left out, there will be that number is lower because it's easier for traffic to make a right out and go north than to come out and make a left turn on Eastgate View. So the traffic turning right has it's easier to do that. So there's a little bit more traffic doing that rather than doing that left turn. Okay.

Thank you. Yep.

Commissioner Miller. So Tushar on that point then, what's the traffic count going making it right out on Tall Tall Cedars?

It's about 65 to 70 p car trips.

So in total, we're talking about 90 to 95 exits from the property in the morning and then returning in the evening?

Yes. About so it's about yeah, it's about 100 outbound traffic it's about 100. You're right. It's about in that 100 range.

So that gets us to the question of why it's only 20 there. Okay.

If you do the math that adds up to the

next question. And along those lines as commissioner was asking, the total number of units is a little bit different here. Are you calculating for the fact that memory care units probably don't have as many daily vehicle trips?

Correct.

Yeah. It's about so if you look at the continuing care facility or the that's about six fifty daily trips whereas the the market rate units would be about eleven fifty. So about

So you are discounting for the fact that the continuing care and the memory care are not going to have as many trips?

Yeah. And as Lori explained, there are IT codes that study these type of units to come up with the average trip gen. So it's not something we have come up with. It's based

on On IT codes. Okay. You.

Atushar, one follow-up question So on the Edgewater right now, it's already a challenging intersection. How many trips you are expecting the people to come south on the Tall Searles, make a U-turn to get into the neighborhood here?

Yeah. So based on the feedback that the county had given us, they had asked us change that assumption let me see about nine trips in the morning and about 15 trips in the afternoon making that U-turn moment.

For for some reason, I feel like these numbers are so low for a I I don't know scientific reasons behind it. But on a 400 unit development here, we are thinking, like, nine people are going to make a u-turn here, only 20 people are going to get out. For some reason, numbers are it just just seems impractical to me for some reason.

So when we look at trip generation, you look at the total number. So for this is excluding the high turnover restaurant, you're talking about 145 total trips. But when you split that up into ins and outs, then you start seeing that number starts becoming smaller. So when you're asking a question about how many inbound trips, you're looking at those 70 odd trips and then you're taking a percentage of that that's making that movement. So in reality if you look at the hierarchy of users like residential typically generates the least amount of trips then it's office and then it's retail.

I know the perception sometimes is that residential generates a lot of trips but if you look at that that's how the hierarchy works in terms of the trip generation.

Thank you. Thanks for

now. Okay. So the concept behind the intergenerational community and then what you point out the wants and needs section. But is there any control over that? And what I mean is, could you have 450 units with 450 people that never met each other before? Or is there some kind of height because you're keeping it and it's under family control and it's rental. Is there gonna be some controls over that? Or will these just be rental units for first come first served?

Well, no. I I mean, I think the control is that that they're all rental first off. And secondly, that that it would be operated by Singh development. I mean, in in other words, are are you asking if people

What I'm asking is, okay, let's say my my father's in in the memory care unit and I wanna come find a place to rent. That's the concept behind this. And you have a place available. Hey, your father great. There's one unit left and somebody comes along just as I wanna rent it. Now I don't know anybody else here, but I just wanna rent the unit.

Right. Well, I mean, the concept I think is a little broader than what you're you're asking because certainly the situation you described would be perfect if you had a unit right across the street from where your father is. But I think the concept is broader and there's not a limitation on who can rent the multifamily. I mean, anybody could. But the idea is that there would be programming so that even if your father's not if you're in the apartment, your father's not in the senior living, there would be opportunities for you to interact with the senior living and vice versa. So so it is broader. It's to create a broader community than just families.

Okay. So it's not just family. Right. I get that. So just to clarify, the restaurant, is it intended to be open to the public or is it just for the use for the people in the buildings?

Boy, thank you for that question. It it is not going to be open to the public. We wanted that and it's not a restaurant. That we called it a restaurant for traffic purposes because we were concerned about impacting traffic. It was

because my unheard heard from DTI is part of their traffic trip generation was based on that being a rest a restaurant. So if it's not, then there might be some adjustment to those numbers. So okay. And then I just wanna make a last comment is when you were discussing the iterations and you can well, we reduced the density of the multi families from three thirty five to two fifty. But just to be clear, the end result of this application is you're increasing density from two thirty three to four fifty.

Well, yes. I mean, we're adding the multi family component. What we have been shrinking since we started this is the multi family component. Yeah. But it is an add on to the current approved plan.

Alright. Thank you. I'm

sorry. Commissioner Barnes.

Yeah. I have a quick one here for traffic. Yeah. We have 400 some units there. And you said about 140 will be transportation coming out in and out every day. Is it that's

what you said. Right? Total trips. Yes.

Yeah. And so out of those 400, that's what's gonna happen. You did not take in your deal. What about the people, those who are coming to visit their families? And there's if you go down to some places where the people are here, more cars come from the visitors than the people living there. And you didn't count those cars.

So the the analysis focuses on the AM peak hour, the peak hour in the morning and the peak hour in the afternoon because we look at the worst case scenario in terms of that is overlaid on the commuter peak hour in the morning and the commuter peak hour in the afternoon. There will be trips from visitors, but those may will be outside those hours and not necessarily represent the worst

case many trips do you expect from the visitors? There are a lot of people come to see their relatives, their loved ones to visit them. And you got two units where the memory thing and another one and you you got the people do elderly people living out. Kids come down to take care of them. So I know sometimes most least we're gonna have units like this And parents their children come down to help them feed and all that, bring up their food, visit them, sit around, talk to them almost every day. And so you did not count. How many people do

you think will be coming? Yeah, don't have the exact number. But the IT code that we used for the continuing care facility, those are based on actual surveys done at these facilities. So the trip rate that we come up with accounts for all of these factors that you're talking about. So it's not just staff and vehicles coming in, but also visitors. So that rate that they come up with is calculated based on surveys done at similar facilities. And that's what we have used in the traffic study. So it's kind of blended in to that number.

That's what you say, I don't know. I don't believe that.

Mr. Jasper, did you have a quick follow-up?

Yes. Thanks. I just wanted I'm trying to understand seeing development, the intergenerational community, the management. So I was poking around on your website while we've been talking. Is this gonna be managed through the Waltonwood program? Is that what you're so I mean, I think that might need to be clear in the proffers, but we can talk about it later.

But it will be Waltonwood, right? We'll we'll manage and operate the senior living component, but Singh development will own and operate the entire community. I I want to make sure we get this clear.

Yes. Waltonwood is is the kind of the brand for our senior living community. So we call it Waltonwood Management Management and Singh Management, but it's owned and operated by the same Singh Development umbrella. It's Alright.

We'll go ahead and open up the the public hearing for this. And, the folks will go about this. I will call out the first three names. And if you could when you hear your name called, if you could, move right up to either podium. We have two so you don't have to wait behind one all the time. So if you could just get, ready to speak. And then every time we go through speaker, I will update the list of three names. And you have three minutes to speak, and you will have a timer that you can see that counts down. And I will ask you to please relinquish the podium when your time is up. So the first speakers we have are Walter Kobos, followed by Shannon Matthews, followed by Hannah Witzgall.

Step right up. Take it Walter is not here. Alright. Shannon. I mean,

she would be good. She's she's our HOA president.

Okay. She has That's fine. So Shannon will be followed by Hannah who will be followed by William Ogle.

Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Shannon Matthews and I am speaking on behalf of the writings of Blue Springs Homeowners Association. I'm a board member. I'm the secretary, not the president. And I am a resident of the community for the past nine years.

We encourage those that were concerned about this issue to survey our community because there was a loud outcry from some of the residents who backed up to this property. And we did have a significant number of respondents to this survey, most of whom oppose the current changes and, oppose the current application. In my eight years on this board, this is the single most respondents that we've had on any one issue. Based on this feedback, we respectfully request that you defer this application until the density is reduced to a level compatible with neighboring communities and until traffic and safety issues have been adequately addressed. The Loudoun County comprehensive plan requires that new developments be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing community character.

Ridings Of Blue Springs is currently a CR one zoned community with three eleven single family homes on two fifty seven acres. In contrast, the currently proposed plan would place roughly one and a half times that number of units on a partial representing only 7% of our land area. This is an incompatible and abrupt increase in density. This level of density would also worsen congestion on already strained roadways contradicting the comprehensive plans requirement, the infrastructure keep pace with development. The proposed right in only entrance on Tall Cedars Parkway would force U turns at an un signaled intersection creating serious safety risks for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Additionally, the traffic study excludes key impacted roadways including East Gateview Drive and its intersections with Pleasant Valley Road and Route 50. These corridors are already heavily congested and serve our residents daily. Adding approximately 450 units will increase delays, encourage cut throughs, which I can tell you we already deal with on a daily basis, and further compromise our safety. For these reasons, we ask that you defer this application and require a meaningful reduction in density and scale, such as rezoning to an SCN eight or equivalent lower density category, a comprehensive traffic study that fully includes all impacted roadways intersections. My family alone has six drivers and I fully believe that the current numbers are strongly underestimated.

Stronger transitions and buffers including significantly greater setbacks, enhanced tree conservation areas and an opaque buffer to protect the single family residential homes. In closing, we ask that any development at this location be truly compatible with our community, prioritize safety, and respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yep. Thank you. Next speaker will be Hannah Witzkall followed by William Ogle followed by James Burton.

Sir, with your permission, would it be okay if Hannah and I swapped, sequence? So you're William? Yes. That's fine.

Okay. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is William Ogle, and I'm a resident of the Ridings Of Blue Springs, the neighborhood directly, to the east of what we're calling the Waltonwood site. I would like to state that our community strongly supports the original 200 unit senior living center that was approved back in 2015. It meets a genuine and growing need in South Riding and it has the overwhelming support of our neighborhood and most importantly, it is already the right plan for this property. The staff report shows that under the SCN place type the county is using, the recommended density is only eight to 12 dwelling units per acre.

The 200 unit senior living center already comes very close to that target. Staff excludes the 80 assisted or memory care units from density calculations leaving approximately 120 counted units, almost exactly the 160 unit maximum that would be allowed under the more compatible SCN8 zoning. SCN8 is clearly the better fit next to our low density CR1 neighborhood, yet the applicant is specifically seeking SCN 16 so they can place many stacked multifamily attached rentals directly adjacent to our single family home neighborhood. These MFA rentals are not recommended in SCN eight zoning, which is the more appropriate adjacent to existing CR1 zoning. Beyond just density, the senior only plan has three other major advantages.

It would generate far less traffic than two fifty MFA apartments, a huge concern for East Gateview Drive and the surrounding roads. It would leave plenty of room for a meaningful 150 foot planted transition zone with three rows of evergreen trees, a landscaped berm, and opaque screening fence. And the third advantage is it would preserve walkable open space and other green space so the senior residents would not be overcrowded and our suburban neighborhood would not be overwhelmed by multi story apartment buildings right in our backyards. We asked the commission to approve the senior living center at 200 units with no additional multi family housing and to require the strengthened 150 foot planted transition zone. This is the balanced compatible solution that mitigates both the staff and our community's concern over high density and traffic impacts while providing this desired senior living facilities and transition separation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up, Hannah Witzgall followed by James Burton followed by Catherine Burton.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Hannah Witzgall, and I am also a resident of the writings at Blue Springs, the neighborhood that's, you know, directly abuts the proposed site there. And again, I also want to give my support fully for the 200 unit senior living center. It really meets a need in our community and it fits the scale of the property.

So that part has my full backing. However, I must point out that the additional two fifty multifamily apartment units is a serious concern. A zoning of SCN8 should be the maximum targeted density for an infill next to our CR1 community. If you it's a 20 acre site. If I round up 20 acres times eight, that's a 160.

160, and then the senior living is already 200. If you subtract off the 80 for memory units, you get one twenty. So you have you know, at the end, that leaves at max a target of 40 MFAs remaining. So I'm let me just foot stomp that for a second. 40 units, not 250.

40 units would be the targeted goal of an SCN eight, which is clearly what this site deserves next to the suburban neighborhood that it's around. And again, I will note that the reason the developers are insisting on SCN 16 besides just for density packing and profit is because they can't run their model of multi like apartment rental buildings of SCN 16 next to in a in an SCN eight zone. Your compatibility table say there are no allowed, you know, multifamily, you know, attached housing units, basically the rentals allowed in an SCN eight zone. And as we've heard, it causes problems when the when you put an apartment building in the back of of single family homes. And these aren't small carriage houses.

I mean, that's a euphemism. These these houses are extending along our entire backyard. So we will have basically a data center back of these things, a back to back of these carriage houses, two stories on top of a hill with zero screening, 30 feet of tree conservation of you know? And they say if you recommend a tree should be about 25 feet in spaces. You get maybe one tree.

These aren't planted. There's no evergreens. So what I'm saying again is that, you know, if we do if you guys do elect to, you know, add, like, the multifamily houses and zone at SCN so that they can do their rental plan, the plan should be to allow them you know, grant the special exemption for the senior living, but impose a hard cap of no more than 40 of these apartment units there. 40 is still enough so that they could put that 40 where they have their four story building in that footprint away from our community, and that would be two stories much more in line with the entire suburban neighborhood that's around us.

Miss Westcall, your time is up if you could

wrap up.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is James Burton followed by Catherine Burton followed by Jerry Long.

Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. I'm JB Burton, a resident of the writings of Blue Springs, and I stand firmly with my neighbors in opposition to, this ledge given the extreme density proposed in the South Riding intergenerational community, placing 450 units on this small parcel directly beside our establishing single family neighborhood is fundamentally incompatible with the character, safety, and infrastructure of our community. I respectfully ask that this commission to oppose this application or at minimum defer it until the applicant returns with a plan that reflects the originally approved senior living facility, which is the same facility on billboards on Tall Cedars and Eastgate along with a little yellow sign that says, hey. Come. Let's talk about this tonight.

The sheer intensity of what is being forced onto this land is alarming. 450 units on only 11 buildable acres and effective density of 41 units per acre beside homes built on one unit per acre. That's the equivalent of trying to fit one and a half of the writings at Blue Springs, our entire 311 home community onto a parcel that represents just 6% of our land area, and the consequences of that movement are real and serious. Traffic on Tall Cedars Parkway is already at a breaking point. Loudoun County's North Collector Road analysis identifies the Tall Cedars Route 50 intersection as one of the most congested in the corridor requiring dual westbound turn left lanes and multiple signal phases just to manage the existing volumes.

Adding hundreds of new high density units, residents, staff, visitors, service vehicles, and emergency transports pushes this corridor beyond its functional limits. This is not speculation. It's arithmetic. More units mean more cars, more turning movements, more signal cycles, and more gridlock for every family in South Riding. Safety will decline.

Tall Cedars already struggles with congestion related conflicts, long queues, and aggressive merging near Route 50. This increased density means more peak traffic hours, more U turns, and more traffic cutting through our neighborhood, increasing risk to our families, our children, and our quality of life. So quality of life will decline. South Riding is one of already one of the most densely populated areas in the county. Adding even more units will strain that part of everyday daily life, longer commutes, slower emergency response times, more school traffic, and increased pressure on our parks, sidewakes, and the amenities we pay for.

And our home values will suffer. People don't seek out neighborhoods overwhelmed by traffic, noise, and high density rental blocks. They don't invest in those types of areas. So let's be honest about the so called assisted living component. A simple look at the diagrams makes it clear. The space allocate is minimal, almost symbolic, and toke this is a token sliver solely to unlock zoning that would otherwise never allow this level of density. I implore you to oppose this petition and return us back to the approved senior family living. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Burton. Next speaker is Catherine Burton followed by Jerry Long followed by John Dreyer.

Good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Kathy Burton and I am a resident of writings at Blue Springs. I too am concerned about the high density proposed in the international intergenerational community. Placing four fifty units on that small 12 acres next our single family neighborhood is not compatible in density scale and in transition with our community. I agree with all of the concerns expressed by my neighbors thus far and therefore respectfully ask this commission to oppose the application and urge you to keep the original senior living facility that provides a much needed continuum of care for our aging population.

We support and understand the need for both affordable housing and senior housing, but I'm here to advocate that 12 parcel remain dedicated to senior living, a senior living campus that serves Loudoun's aging population. Since 2010, Loudoun County's 65 and older age group has grown from 18,700 to over 52,000. That's a 181% increase. This increase is by far the largest increase in population of all the age groups in Loudoun County. Loudoun County is an aging county.

It is rapidly aging and these numbers will rise. At the very same time, there's a clear service gap in servicing the Southern part of Loudoun County. South Riding, Aldi, and Chantilly Corridor have fewer nearby communities that provide this continuum of care for our seniors, especially when you compare to Ashburn, Leesburg, and Sterling communities. This type of development that we support allows our residents, our seniors, to move into independent living, to assisted, to memory care as their needs change without leaving their doctors, their family, their faith communities, or their family support systems. It also provides awesome opportunity for permanent local jobs in healthcare, dining, maintenance, transportation, administration, and it also frees up housing as seniors transition downsize from their houses to these type of housing accommodations.

By contrast, two fifty multifamily units, which is merely just an apartment complex, a site that's already planned on a site that's already planned for two twenty seniors, fundamentally changes the scale and the purpose and the impact of the project on our community. Loudoun County has many places for multi family housing it can consider. It has far fewer sites that are ideally suited for a full continuum of care for our seniors on one single campus. This property, this 12 acres is near major roadways, retail services, medical services, and provides a quiet, stable family neighborhood perfect for seniors as they age in place close to families. So in summary, the density that's proposed is too high and I believe that property is best suited for its original advertised purpose, a senior living community.

So I urge you, the commission, to oppose this application and I urge you to keep this property as originally proposed. And I'm sorry for going long and thank you for your time, consideration, and patience. I'm just passionate, I'm not angry.

Speaker is Jerry Long followed by John Dreyer followed by Mary Dreyer.

Jerry's still. He can't make it.

Okay. So Jerry's not here. Then we'll have John Dreyer, followed by Mary Dreyer, followed by Min Nguyen. Good

evening chair and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. First, I agree with what the previous residents have said to this point. I also agree and support the staff findings that the proposed density and scale of the application should be reduced along with improved transition. The lower density better reflects compatibility with the surrounding CR one zone single families homes and we already heard a lot about that.

And it refers to the county plan, new development should be compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, intensity, and character. I also want to make sure we have the appropriate setback, opaque buffering, etcetera in order to meet the concerns that were previously brought up. This also is in line with zoning ordinance which emphasize transitions between different land uses and density should be managed to minimize the adverse impacts. In closing, I would request that the commission support the staff's recommendation to reduce density to reduce the density and to maximize the transition, which I believe will respect our existing neighborhood. And I also, again, I agree with what the previous statements were said too, on the recommendations that you heard tonight.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

All right. Thank you. Next speaker is Mary Dreyer followed by Min Nguyen followed by Kevin Lawrence.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I also support the existing CPEX 20140017 Waltonwood. I think our community supported that. I supported that. It's great a great project.

I also support the staff's recommendation to reduce the zoning density and strongly believe SCN eight or even lower is the appropriate level given the proposed 100% MFA use and the special exception to add 200 independent assisted living memory care units, all next to our CR 1 zoned suburban district. SCN better SCN 8 better aligns with our community. General plan states, I'll repeat it again, new development should be compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, intensity, and character. A lower density designation such as SCN8 is more consistent with our CR1 zone single family homes. I also strongly urge that setbacks and buffering be maximized to the fullest extent possible to safeguard the privacy of adjacent single family homes and to uphold the established character of our community.

The zoning ordinance is clear. Transitions between differing land uses and densities should be carefully managed to minimize adverse impacts. This standard should be applied rigorously here to ensure responsible and respectful development. No one's yet mentioned the storm water runoff, but we have a serious concern for those of us who live next to this site. Many of our properties experience water runoff issues, and several homes rely on sump pumps to manage drainage and prevent flooding.

The general plan emphasizes that new development should minimize stormwater runoff and protect downstream properties. Lower density development typically results in more open space, less impervious surface area, and more manageable drainage, which is especially important given the existing conditions in this area. I could also talk about traffic. I'll just piggyback on what everyone else said and state that the to the best of my knowledge, the intersection of East Gate View Drive and Pleasant Valley Road by the Wawa were not studied nor was the intersection at Route 50 and Pleasant Valley Road where where a lot of these folks will egress from in the morning. And, you know, I was actually hit there on my bicycle, so I can tell you it's a bad place.

In closing, I respectfully urge that you support staff's recommendation, adopt SCN eight or lower, maximize setbacks, transitions, and buffering to ensure this development is compatible with our community. Thank you for considering these inputs.

Thank you. Next speaker is Min Nguyen followed by Kevin Lawrence followed by Tim Myers.

Good evening, chair, member, and planning commissions. My name is Min Nguyen. I am the resident upriding at Blue Blue Springs. I'm here tonight because of this proposal. We placed nearly 450 units on our very small pass on a very small parcel right next to our single family home.

The density, the 55 foot building high, and the lack of meaningful buffering are simply overwhelming for a neighborhood like ours. The applicant is relying on the 30 foot tree conservation strip as the only buffer. There's no privacy fence and the existing trees are in poor conditions. For family who live directly beside this site, that thin line of aging vegetations is not protection. It doesn't it does not sew us from the noise, the high, or the loss of privacy that this project would bring.

I also want to say that I fully agree with the concern raised by my neighbor and by our HOA. We are united because we are genuinely worried about what this mean what this will mean to our home, our peace of mind, and our daily lives. I ask the applicants and the commissions to please put yourself in our shoes. Many of us have invest our life saving into our homes. The stress, the uncertainty, and the psychological impact of living beside this project of this scale are very real for our family.

One is approved, we cannot undo it. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to oppose the applications or at minimum defer action until the applicant return with a plan of original existing living facility. Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin Lawrence followed by Tim Myers followed by Siyoko Myers.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Lawrence. I serve as the president of writings at Blue Springs HOA. First, I'd like to thank the same group. They've met with us several times over the years to and thank you guys for listening to us tonight. I'm here representing myself and the residents of HOA. We come to you with one simple message, to get this right. Our community has witnessed significant growth over the years, and we're not opposed to development. We just want you to listen to the concerns of the residents and take the time to get this right to benefit all the surrounding communities. We're simply asking you to listen to the people who live in the community and to ensure the project is done right.

Thank you for what you are doing And let's, for Loudoun County, now let's get this right. That's my message. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Next speaker is Tim Myers followed by Siyoko Myers.

Yes. Good evening. I'm Tim Myers. I am a homeowner and resident of the Ridings Of Blue Springs community. I've been there since the community started over twenty years ago.

I certainly appreciate the commission's time. I wanna speak to three specific concerns about this application, all three of which are already supported by the county's own record. First, the county's natural resources team has already flagged encroachment onto Steam Stream resources and insufficient mitigation on this site. Those tributaries flow into Horse Pen Run, ultimately into Cub Run, which is in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act watershed. If the staff's own natural resource reviewers have open concerns, we respectfully ask that those be fully resolved on the record before any recommendation of approval moves forward.

Second, the parcel has a serious soil and drainage problem. After normal rainfall, the ground is visibly saturated. A mature tree recently toppled on the site with a root ball of over 16 feet. The kind of shallow root system you see in hydric poorly drained soils. The proposed the proposal adds a 450 unit building underground garage, a swimming pool on top of that.

Facility standards manual chapter five requires that development not increase downstream flood heights or velocities. We would like to see on the record that current standard geotechnical and storm water studies fully support this site under today's standards. Third, portions of the site are within or adjacent to the hundred year flood plain, Subsurface construction and under ground garage inside saturated soils next to a floodplain raises real long term questions about dewatering, hydrostatic pressure, and sediment loading to Cub Run. These are not objections to development in principle. They are questions that deserve a written answer before this application advances.

So my ask tonight is narrow and specific. I respectfully urge the commission to defer any recommendation of approval until number one, the natural resources team's concerns are fully resolved on the record. The staff has confirmed FSM chapter five compliance with this specific parcel under current standards. And three, the flood plain Chesapeake Bay preservation act questions have been publicly addressed. My neighbors and I are not here to stop growth.

We love our community, the peacefulness, the the quiet, the beauty of it all. We are here because this particular parcel at this scale with this much subsurface construction in this environmental setting deserves a very careful look. Thank you for that careful look and thank you for your time. And finally, whatever you can do to not raise your taxes will be appreciated.

Thank you. Remember that comment when you speak before the board. Our last speaker signed up tonight in person is Sayoko Myers.

Good evening commissioners. I just wanted to change what the talking point is. I just wanna talk about this issue where there's a map problems. The builders tell us that there's 12 acres of buildable area. But when I did a lot of the research, there was a problem because miss Lizo designated 8.56 acres as a conservation act.

So if you do that, then you only have excuse me, sorry. You only have 0.56 and when you do that, you go over that and it becomes encroachment. And when that happens is the Virginia has a code that is 15.2 dash two two zero four, the puffer reform act. So they're encroaching in that space that's supposed to be a conservation act. Right?

So there's no such thing as they have 11.5 acres to build all these buildings that they're trying to do. And then also I have the documents, the D, that if you need to see them, it specifically it says there. It does say there. And the other thing was that notification violation in 02/2004, the property was transferred to the board of supervisor and we were were there, an original owner of 2003, and we never had any kind of notification whatsoever. And so I was very surprised when I did this research at 2004 that they actually sold that open space act behind our backyard, the addition to that property that they're trying to build.

So now my husband has said that, you know, the soil is not conducive to building something like this because I'm just a little scared and frightened and more for safety because when you have something concrete which is very heavy that when we have this heavy rain, it can move the soil. You know, soil is soil. It doesn't change if there's things that are wrong with it. So my concern is people are living there, they're sleeping, and all of sudden, you know, because the soil is so saturated and it's like a sponge, absorbs the water and it releases, you know, eventually, and that's when you have these issues. So I really focused on the safety of this.

So anyways, that's that. And I do have documents to prove that 8.56 was designated for conservation. So I could give it to you, and I do have pictures of this huge tree that fell and when we had a little bit of the rain that we had. And we also have a little river behind our backyard when we have a lot of rain that drains into the holding pond. So there's a lot of issues with the soil.

So that's why I'm a little concerned. If you're building all these things, who knows? Just like what happened in Florida. Right? So I just wanted to to have you review it and just to make sure it is safe to build something large like that in back of our backyard.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. And if you do have something you want copies made for the commissioners, you can leave that with the clerk. Yeah.

I already made it, so I'll hand it to them. Yeah. They'll review it

for you. Get copies of it.

And then, you know, please review it to make sure that it's safe for them to build something like that in

our bank. Thank

you. Thank you.

Alright. Our next speaker is participating remotely and that is Ritesh Reddy Chinta. No?

I'll get back.

Okay. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this application? Nope. And there was nobody else online, correct? Alright. The public hearing then is closed. I'll go to the applicant. Do you have any wish to address any of the comments that you heard?

Thank you, mister chairman. And, again, we're, in agreement with staff, to to send this to a work session, and I think you heard that from some of the members of the community. So I won't take your time tonight to to go through everything. I I will acknowledge that that, you know, we respect the neighbors. We we have met with them three or four times since I've been involved.

And it's, you know, I understand their passion and respect that. A couple of points I will make before we leave here this evening. First off, this is kind of a transition parcel. We do have a very important border, if you will, with the writings at Blue Spring. But if you look, I mean, this is at the major intersection there of Tall Cedars and East Gate View Drive.

So it's an infill parcel, which is why the suburban compact neighborhood place type makes sense. We were originally requesting SCN 24 when we reduced the density initially, we reduced that down to SCN 16. And the space that's allocated for the senior living, this isn't a bait and switch, if you will. I mean, the senior living is not a token. It is 200 units and I broke them down for commissioner Myers.

It's a critical component of this site. It's approved today. We've reduced the number of those units, senior units from what's approved today. But it's this multifamily component that really achieves the intergenerational community that they're trying to build. And and and that's why we're here and that's what deserves your your very careful look.

And and you need density in that multifamily component to to create the energy and and, you know, the vibrancy, workforce diversity. I think it boils down to neighborhood activation really. And and you you want on this site to have the senior living and a an active neighborhood, and you can't have an active neighborhood if you don't have enough units. You just don't get the energy that we're looking for and that ultimately the people who live here are going to look for. We have increased the buffer 50 feet.

We have added a fence. I mean, I heard some of those comments and they're well taken. I think we we do owe you and the community, something in writing on the stormwater and the environmental issues. We feel that they're easily resolved. We think this is a conversation about density, perhaps heights, but but the other issues we'll make sure are clean when we get to you, at committee so we can focus on, I think, the main things you heard this evening. With that, mister chairman, I'll yield my time. Happy to answer any questions if you have them and hope that we can work with you in committee.

Okay. Alright. Staff, did you have any comments? Did you want to address any?

Yeah. To answer commissioner Frank, question regarding the setback, 72,000 specs approval, that setback was approximately 110 feet to the property line, to home day continued care facility, and the current proposal shows about 50 feet.

So that's the building, not necessarily the building envelope or the parking. There was a drive by Right,

to the building. It would measure to the building to the property line.

Okay, thank you.

Alright. That's that's okay, John. We'll get into more details at it We'll lap

over time.

As soon

we get

to work session. Four story versus a carriage house. Alright. So this application is in the Dulles District. So I will go to vice chair Moderetti for a motion.

Thank you, mister chair. I move that the planning commission forward LEGI 2023 dash zero one six South Riding Intergenerational Community, ZMAP twenty twenty three zero zero one two, specs twenty twenty three zero zero three nine, specs twenty twenty four dash zero zero eight four, and specs twenty twenty five dash zero one one three to a future planning commission work session for further discussion.

Second. Motion to send to work session made by vice chair moderator seconded by commissioner Miller. Vice chair moderator, do you have an opening?

Yes, sir. John, I think you heard enough from the community and from all the commissions. I think we we certainly in general, the concept of having the senior living community there along with the intergenerational community, I do like the concept. I think it's just a matter of fitting the right size in that place. I think you heard loud and clear from the commission as well as the staff report that something needs to be done in terms of the density.

Addressing the density is going to resolve the other issues that are kind of a consequences of having this density in that place. So, again, I think staff is here to work with you guys, and you can reach out to our commissioners to get their feedback. But in the next round, we expect a a lesser dense. Still, I think the concept can stay, but as as as long as it comes to density something needs to be done on this front. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioners, any other comments? Commissioner Miller? No comments?

Commissioner Barnes? Yes. First, the density and second, the traffic. Traffic is very important to me because that area is very congested and it's not that easy to make a u-turn. And I can't I can't believe nine cars will be making a u-turn at one time, you know. So that that that that doesn't fly with me. So you gotta straighten all that out before when you come to the work after the work session.

Thank you.

Right. Thank you. Commissioner Myers?

Yeah. I'm very concerned. I just think it's way too dense, and I've I've already expressed that, when I met with folks. I'm also concerned about I I get the having people be around other people that aren't, you know, age restricted, you know, their family members and stuff, but I don't agree with the concept that they just wanna rent. I mean, god willing, if my parents were still alive and something happened to them and I wanted to be by them, I wouldn't want my only choice to be that I have to I have to sell my house and rent a house in order to be by them.

I mean, there'd be if we're really trying to make this, intergenerational and all, it seems like there would be flexibility in ownership and rental. I mean, to say that somebody unless you're gonna rent, to me, you're getting market rate apartments with no really proven record that you're gonna really have that be an attachment at all to the seniors. And the senior housing, which was the primary use on this property, has now become an accessory use with all due respect because it's lower than the amount of of what I'm gonna call market rate that can be in there. And that that really concerns me because I think it changes the entire flavor of what's going on here. Because, really, what we're doing is we're just approving one type of housing.

That's it. That's all we're doing. We're giving a little bit of a label, but it's way too heavy, I think. And I don't know that all of our workforce wants to just be in rental units. I mean, because that's the other thing we're saying that this is for workforce housing.

I mean, most people that I know of that are getting started would like to be in a place where they're not just renting, but they're also looking for an opportunity to purchase. So, again, if something in this with the multi concept or the carriages or whatever had some ownership to it, that might be more appealing to me. I went and visited your components in Ashburn, and they're beautiful, the Walton, that you do there. But that's that's already in a community that's got other houses and stuff around it just like this senior facility does. So it's not out in the woods where nobody can see it, nobody can get to it, and there's no family that can move close to it. So I'm really concerned about the density that we're looking here. I'm concerned about the one type of housing and that we've really turned what was the primary use of this property into an accessory use.

Thank you. Commissioner Frank?

Thank you. I'm gonna support the motion to go to work session. As I may have indicated earlier, I am very cautious and have a history of being very cautious about compatibility with existing neighborhoods and the transition with that particular policy and have advocated frequently that we go on the lower end of the SCN range versus the higher end when it makes sense around what's already there. So consistent with that, I do appreciate that one of the things that seems to have shaken out in this plan is that the four story buildings are actually a little farther from the single family homes for the most part. I would be open to more than eight units per acre given the high value in need of the care facility in particular.

Defense enhanced planning of more of a buffer to offset the impact. I think all of that is necessary if you're gonna look at anything on a higher density. I would actually go a step farther than commissioner Myers, and this is a model that exists and exists locally. So perhaps it doesn't work. I just know from my day job the immense demand for it.

That this is the entire development rather than maybe multifamily attached these larger buildings that are not as complimentary to what the residential already there. Would you guys be willing to consider something that looks more like there's Potomac Green, where you have a smaller single family 55 plus or attached three in a row kind of units. The demand for that product is off the charts. And what that allows people to do is go from that product then into the multilayered product that you already have here and that and eventually to memory care if needed or or something with more hands on nursing care, so that folks can kind of age across a property. You know, there seems to be a lot of need for that.

I so if if we're just looking to try to it doesn't do the intergenerational thing as well, but I think it naturally fits a little better than just putting it next to each other and hoping it works. It sounds like it does some places, but I I I'm a little hesitant to to jump on board with that. But I think these are all good discussions that we can have between now and the work session, and and I think we can get somewhere that makes sense for everybody.

Thank you. Commissioner Jesper.

I am also gonna support the motion to go to work session. I'd like to associate myself with comments about density made by both commissioner Frank and commissioner Myers. I also want to echo commissioner Myers' concern. I mean, we call this an intergenerational community, but it appears that there's you know, there that this is an accidental intergenerational community that people will be able to rent units and if they care to interact, you know, at maybe social functions, sponsored by the senior living facility, then they can, but that it really isn't kind of an intentional, connection either from a programmatic employment or financial perspective. And so under you know, understanding that there are a ton of apparently models out there that are in what are going to be the requirements so that this is not just a bunch of regular multifamily housing next to senior housing?

So I think that's meaningful in terms of asking for kind of special dispensation for density or whatever.

Thank you. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to support the motion to go to work session. I think there is a lot to work with here. Clearly we have an applicant who's trying to listen to the community and I think we've seen that in the iterations of your plan.

Building the twenty fifteen or twenty seventeen specs, I think there's a reason that's not happening. So you're trying to pivot to something that, perhaps works in the market. And I do like what's going on with those cottage type two story buildings which are adjacent to two story single family detached. I see you're trying to transition. Density is something we're gonna have to address, needless to say because of the policy and I think because of the community.

But when we're talking about density, I think we also have to keep in mind affordability. And one of the ways we're achieving, I think, affordability here in this for rental product is through density. So I want us to be mindful of that as we take it up. But I do want us to pay attention close attention to the storm water. I recall we had an application just a little bit west of here off of Poland Road where there was existing storm water runoff issues in some other old CR one parcels in that area.

And I would surmise that a lot of those same issues are gonna be present here. And so I know the storm water calculations that's a math problem. I know that's how the answers come together. But I would encourage all of us and encourage you to take a closer look at it so it's not just checking a box. The math works and the math works.

I think it's a greater issue than that. So I want us to be mindful of that too as we move forward. If we could also get from staff, I know we've got CR1 at the writings at Blue Spring, but what is our density at Eastgate? Foxgate isn't fully developed, but just get some of the adjacent and nearby densities just so that we're looking at this a little more comprehensively. Thank you.

Okay. For myself, I would if it's possible because you can't look at the traffic at the intersections that we've talked about without looking at the ones that are right next to it. And by that, I mean, Tall Cedars and Route 50. How does this application impact that? And the other way that people will get in and out is Pleasant Valley and East Gate View and then Pleasant Valley and Route 50.

So to me, it's really important to know the impacts on those intersections as well as the immediate, you know, in and out of the the project. I I think this concept of intergenerational and is a good one. But I just if you need 450 units to make it work, I don't think this is the right site. I don't know what number you think you need to get that to work as you conceptualize it, but that number may still be larger than what I think you may get approved out of this application from the Planning Commission and the board. So I just think it's worth looking at pivoting to some other uses, residential in there.

I think commissioner Frank made a great one with some of the plus 55 community units. Some of those maybe you have a two story, a little more close smaller multifamily as well. That might serve better on this site than what you're trying to propose with the whole intergenerational community. So with that and I will also obviously be supporting the motion to go to work session. Vice chair Mazready, you have a closing.

Mister chair, I do have

a question after he makes closing. Okay.

No. I guess my fellow commissioners actually mentioned what what exactly what we are looking for. If you combine with what the community has to say, certainly, we think we provided you enough guidance for the things that need to be worked on for the work session. So unless you have any questions, John and Paki, I think we we gave you guys a direction to proceed.

Alright. Marcian?

If I do my quick audit. So we have the the comments about storm water management, looking at the densities of adjacent developments, looking and revisiting the intersections of 50 in Pleasant Valley and Eastgate in Pleasant Valley, then we've talked about the density. I do want to ask if Mr.

Chair And Tall Cedars in Route 50

as well. Tall Cedars in Route 50. I'm sorry.

Those three.

Three other things I wrote down was buffering and screening, building heights, and unit size. Was there any interest in additional screening or separation along the adjacent boundaries or any recommendations for that?

My comment would be until we see the revised application. I think we'd be looking for that but until we see the revised application and what it's proposing, it's hard to say but I think that is a concern that we heard and some commissioners heard as well. And that would be the same

thing for heights and unit size then as Okay. Thank you.

And also given that they've said that there will be no restaurants, so whatever the traffic was associated with the restaurant that can be removed as well.

And also the traffic study on the corners because that traffic is pretty busy on 50 and on both and the nine cars u-turn doesn't work. So you gotta figure out what really works up there.

Thank you. Mr. Barnes, we will have DTCI's analysis of that and feedback on that. Yes, sir.

Okay. Was there any other issues from the commissioners that need to do that weren't captured to go to work session? No. Alright. So we have a motion to send it to work session. That motion made by vice chair, Amadoretti, seconded by commissioner Miller. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? That motion will pass eight zero one with commissioner Banks absent for the vote. Thank you very much. Commissioners, you want to take ten? That's what I thought.

Yeah. So why don't we start at 08:10? Alright? Sixteen. Hey, folks.

Let's go ahead and get started with our second and last application. It's a Ledgy 2024 Dash 8 Dulles South Community Park. Special exception 2024 Dash 17. And I'll go to Opa Christian for a staff report. Good

evening. My name is Christian Maldonado with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to present the application for Dulles South Community Park. Since the application was accepted in March 2024, staff has received 12 public comments in support in opposition of the proposal, citing potential light pollution, traffic impacts, and access restrictions. Staff acknowledge an additional public process that preceded this application and defer to the applicant regarding that public engagement process. The subject property is co located with Light Ridge High School, Henrietta Lacks Elementary School, and Hovater Elementary School in the transition policy area, Upper Folly sub area, and the Little River Election District.

The application proposes a special exception to permit a regional park in the transitional residential three Upper Broad Run and Upper Folly zoning district. The proposed recreational amenities include two rectangular athletic fields that could be converted into a cricket field central to the site shown in dark green. A separate cricket field will be located to the south shown in purple with the street hockey rink directly east in red. A playground is proposed between the athletic fields and cricket fields shown in gold and a shared use path in blue combined with the natural service and asphalt trail system in red and light green, connecting entire site together. Two picnic pavilions are also proposed shown in turquoise.

One picnic pavilion east of the athletic fields and another outfitted with concessions and restroom located next to the playground. The athletic fields, cricket field, and street hockey rink will contain field lighting shown as yellow circles. The subject site contains two commission permits approved in 2017 and 2022 which allowed the development of the existing schools on The 34.43 acre portion of the original 151.5 acre parcel highlighted in yellow was designated for park related use with active recreational amenities including lighted athletic fields. The 2019 general plan envisions development in the transition large lot neighborhood place type to contain expansive open space and publicly accessible recreational opportunities. The 2019 general plan also supports the co location of public facilities including schools with parks to serve communities more effectively and encourages the siting of public facilities that can accommodate future expansions, specifically for recreational use.

Staff recommends conditions pertaining to storm water management and environmental mitigation, including the conservation of trees and treatment of invasive species. Additionally, staff has recommended conditions for field lighting to be limited in height and to be powered off when the lighted recreational amenities are not in use. The applicant has committed to providing bicycle racks in the vicinity of on-site amenities including the service parking lot and trails. Further, the applicant has committed to the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure to accommodate two future EV charging stations serving up to four EVs once the subject proposal has been identified on the county's EV charging stations for county facilities phasing plan. The commission requested additional information with the following listed on the screen.

Staff notes there are several nearby parks in the vicinity, including those shown in green on the left side of the screen. Other parks are also located nearby within the Willisford community. However, they are considered private. Further, the locations of site connectivity are shown in light green, red, and light blue on the right side of the screen. As identified with the approved commission permit in 2017, the 34.43 acre portion of the original 151.5 acre parcel was identified for county public use and intended for additional athletic fields.

Pertaining to traffic, the site will be accessed by existing entrances along Lightridge Farm Road at Collaboration Drive and Hobbitter Drive, which currently provides access to Hobbitter and Henrietta Lacks Elementary Schools and Lightridge High School. A park access road will be built at the end of the existing Hobater Drive. To clarify, the traffic analysis compared the total traffic volume anticipated by the proposal to the traffic volume generated by 11 single family detached dwelling units that could be developed by Wright. Staff notes the park's peak generated times occur at different times than the adjacent school sites peak generating times. Staff finds the proposal would operate at acceptable levels of service with adequate capacity to support additional trips.

Staff supports the planning commission recommendation of approval to the board subject to the conditions as conditioned. Staff finds a proposal to be consistent with the policies of the 2019 general plan and 2019 county wide transportation plan. Staff is happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Commissioners, questions for staff? Commissioner Barnes.

Yeah. I have a quick question. The applicant is a county. Right? That's correct. Okay. Now when we were we designated this place for the high school, we approved it. There's a lot of flood plains up there close to it. Right?

Minor 5 Plain is present on the property to the west of the high school. That's correct.

Yeah. It's a flood plains and all that. So is this big it's gonna be a part of the high school or or they have their own fields like football fields and everything else for the high school?

There is programming associated with fields on-site with the high school. Yes. I believe soccer field, Diamond Fields. They already have that. That's correct.

Okay. This is in addition to that. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions, commissioner Miller. So just to

repeat what you said in a way. This parcel has been in the general plan to be a park, a regional park for many years. I mean, essentially, it's been outlined to be a county recreational facility.

That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Other commissioners? Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Christian, the field, the lighting on field looks like it's going to be lighting towers as high as 105 feet. Do we have examples of where similarly sized lighting exists elsewhere in the county? Planning staff would defer to

the applicant directly, but I believe an example would be Hanson Park.

Hanson, Hanson, okay, where I think we were known to have some

light Noting those. Those lights were originally replaced at that time. Can have the applicant speak further to that.

Okay. Yeah, I'd be curious to know. And then I see in the conditions that lighting the lighting should be illuminated only during periods of use, but we don't have any other time restrictions on them. Would the time restrictions just be a function of the zoning ordinance? That's correct.

And do we know what those limits are? The standard for these type of lights for recreational athletic fields would be at the latest 11PM.

Okay. And if we wanted to impose conditions that were more restrictive, we

If that's a commission's wish,

that's correct. Thank you.

Mr. Mataroni.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Christian, back in 2017 when this area was kind of a designated for the high school, the public park, and all those things, I know there were some things were kind of a noted down on the proposed plan. Was there lighted fields on them before too?

That's correct. I can pull up a probably closer up photo if you indulge my switching of slides for just a moment. Here to the left, you see athletic fields.

Okay. Yep. That that's what I thought. So the the homes behind them from from Villasburg, do you have any idea when these homes were built?

Our estimate is 2019.

2019. At least the homes to the west.

To the west. Directly west of the subject proposal.

Okay. So, when these homes were built in 2019, they have something on the counter records already showing this area is designated for the park with the lighted fields.

As of 04/20/2017 of the approval. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Jasper.

So Christian, thank you for filling in the stuff. Can you go back to the just you went pretty quickly through the slide of other parks. I I was you know, the question was for me how how many how did how did parks and rec determine or, you know, how was it determined that there was a need for and specifically for more soccer fields here and?

Staff will defer to parks.

Thank you.

So thank you for the question. Steve Torpy with Parks Recreation and Community Services. We have in our capital facility standards amenities that go into the various parks. And several years ago, we went through the process of master planning for our entire department. And that took into account not only the capital facility standards on a larger scale, but also down to things such as basketball courts and pickleball courts, rectangle fields, cricket pitches.

And in the master plan that we presented to the board and was approved by the board, it has the areas where those recommendations for those various facilities go. And so this park aligns with that master plan and aligns with the CIP of what was intended to go down here.

And and if I might ask just, what was the vision for the soccer fields in particular here? What kind of play? Was it league play or is it, you know, little kids rec or

So it is designated for league play. It is not specific to soccer. It's for rectangle use. And rectangle use, particularly in the youth league here in Loudoun, is one of the fastest growing that we see. Things such as lacrosse, soccer, even field hockey is is starting to gain a lot more traction than we have in years past.

And so having those dual soccer fields side by side helps to reduce that need that we have in rectangle fields, but also the way that it's designed right now provides the ability to have an overlay of a cricket pitch so that it could be a multiuse field to also be used. The soccer fields could also be used for a secondary, cricket pitch, when available.

Okay. And so in terms of the I'm just I'll I'll wait and you can go because I'm almost out of time. I'll defer to the next person.

Okay. Commissioner Myers.

Mister Torky, while you're up here. It seems like to me with some days, I would not know I wouldn't, in the old days, classify this a regional park. I mean, usually, I'm used to, like, there's more multi uses or other than, this feels like it's two uses really when you think about it because of the rectangle and then the hockey, that's what how have we redefined that how we call these regional parks now?

Yeah. The zoning ordinance designates the use as a regional park. The park's master plan in 2019 general plan would designate this as a community park.

So is it a community park, or is it a regional park?

It's the confusing part. From the zoning ordinance perspective and the legislative application for the use, regional park. But from a policy and the master plan perspective, it's community.

So now you understand my confusion because I'm like, this is not this is not any concept of regional park I would think of, just the massing of it.

Right.

And you think more like Claude Moore and those, and then I'm like

That's correct.

This name is way bigger than what I'm seeing the footprint of. So that's one of my Correct. The other thing is I know that when we've gotten into more of the community, what I think this more is than the regional, you guys have agreed to decreasing up time for lighting during the weekdays and stuff just because of the community community concerns. Is that something that you guys have thought about? And I know I'm crossing lines here, but you're already up here. Or have you is that something that you guys have thought about especially with how close this is to some of those backhomes of looking at at least weekdays decreasing the hours the lights would be on?

So we have looked at times when, we felt that it was going to be an issue, and that was primarily done in the past when the lighting technology was not what it is today. I know, commissioner Myers, you brought up Hanson Park, and and I will acknowledge that we had an issue with the lights out there, and that's why we replaced all of those lights and have gone through the process of ensuring that the must go LED lighting is what we are using moving forward. And if you've ever seen those in action, it's significantly different from back in the day when we were doing tournaments and whatnot at Claude Moore or any of our more recent park facilities. So the technology is significantly better, which is why we try to maximize the amount of time we can use those fields based upon the investment that the county has happened.

And I can appreciate that, but it's not just the I mean, the lights still have somewhat of a glare off if you don't have a lot of tree coverage, but more also is the noise that's associated with the play that's still going on. Sure. It's really a two pronged thing. And then as you all know, once the lights start going off, you still gotta get everybody out of the field, out of the park. So there's kind of this, like, ripple that occurs. If it's eleven, it's really twelve. If it's ten, it's really eleven. So again, I would just ask the question, would you guys have you guys considered reducing at least during the weekdays, you know, the hours that you would be looking to have those fields lit because of the proximity to the community?

We always are willing to look at that. What I would say is based upon the need that we have with the fields, we still would be asking for the maximum amount of usage that we can, but we certainly could look into that.

Okay. And then one last question. Oh, I don't have any time.

Go ahead.

Okay. One last. I call them the swing gates.

Mhmm.

They're the they're the things that close so that the cars can't get through, and I've I brought this up when we had our when we had our briefing too. Yes. Knowing of the that's the right word I'm looking at. You know, the the the amount of traffic that's gonna be for this road coming to it is really supposed to be for this particular use. Yes. And while it would start a if while it would stop a car, it would not stop a a group of kids Mhmm. At all. And I'm not asking that we fence the entire property. Mhmm. But is there some way that we can look at doing more a more meaningful kind of fence that kind of really stretch ups sets up that structure that really makes you have to think about crossing that road and and posting it so that it's not so easy to just bend down and walk through the swing gate?

Yeah. So if you go to our our parks, there are areas that we have we don't have any parks that are completely fenced in.

Right.

But we do have some things along the entryway that we have like a three board fence, and we could look at something like that. What I would say if the concern is of youth or anyone, mind you, going in after hours, We do monitor that fairly closely and work with LCSO, Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. And if there is an ongoing issue, as an example, we have even installed cameras so that we can monitor that. And we have put into play a, facility attendant rover program, so we always have folks that are going around to the unstaffed parks, which for a lighted facility like this, just to clarify, it would not be staffed during the day, but when there is activity where the lights are on, there would be staff present.

Okay. But I would just like to see if we could just look at some kind of like you were talking about, something that makes it just look a little bit more

Robust.

Robust than step through the gate and walk on in. Sure. K. I

can't remember. I think commissioner Barnes, you already

I have a quick one here. The noise hours generally is 10:00. In Leesburg, we have 10:00. Mhmm. That all the noise should be shut off. And county, what is the limit noise that you gotta be you can go? Is it 10:00? Eleven. Eleven. Is it eleven in county?

Mhmm.

For recreation athletic fields, 11PM based on the zoning areas.

Okay. Football team and all that. I know the high school can play, but the noise is a big problem because if if they play till 11:00, by the time they leave, it's gonna be twelve or 01:00, you know, by the time they drive off and hanging around there after the game. So that is a question I worry about because it's close to the neighborhood. The noise, the light is okay. I know the lighting is much better these days. You.

Mr. Jesper, did you have another?

Just one follow-up. Christian, I had asked you just if we could get a summary of the resident comments that had been delivered previously when this was going through the review part process with the Department of Parks and Recreation because, you know, there was this discrepancy about the level of resident input. Were you able to get that for today?

I have a generalized structure, if you will. Allow me to indulge in that. I can give you some numbers.

Okay.

We coordinated with the applicant as the county collectively for the number of public comments received. Post application acceptance, was 03/07/2024, only eight comments were received and three letters including one via email today. Three of those letters were in opposition. The email was more broad. I couldn't really label it other than opposition ish.

In total, three zero six comments were received, 293 were within a formal public comment period which closed on 11/15/2023. Of those, 47 were in support. 33 were opposed, citing lighting, active recreation amenities, traffic, disturbance to wildlife, and overall atmosphere of Willisburg. 210 were requesting additional information regarding cricket fields and lighted fields. Excuse me, cricket fields. 45 were for lighted. Others included the need for hockey rink and pickleball courts.

Okay. Thank you. That's exactly the answer I needed.

I just got a couple questions. One, I don't think there's been anything recently, when was the last time there was an actual community or has there been a community meeting since this plan was finalized? Or is it more all been online and just distribution of information, soliciting feedback?

Planning staff will defer to the applicant more directly. However, we have recorded 09/23/2024.

Okay. And secondly, as I when I met with the applicant, I talked about the parking, the number of spaces 208, which they felt was adequate. If it was becomes an issue, when I look at this plan, when you drive onto the property before you get to the existing parking lot, there is quite a open area there. If parking became a problem, would it be possible to add additional parking in that space?

To clarify, I will use the pointer. Citing not being

Is that better for the applicant than

It would be the applicant knowing the engineering constraints. Staff planning staff would identify that that area has no known environmental features. That would be outside of the minor flood plain and risker. Okay.

I can save it for the applicant or since you're there, Steve. It's kind of hard. It's sort of one and all. Does the applicant have a presentation?

Good evening. We're here tonight to present the Dulles South Community Park application for a special exception on the county owned parcel in the Little River District behind Lightridge High School. I'm Terren Buck, the design manager for this project from the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure. And here with me tonight is Jack Story from Dewberry and Tushar Awar from Grove Slade, the county's design consultants for project. We also have additional staff and subject matter experts available to answer your questions after the conclusion of this presentation.

Tonight we'll cover the existing site location and conditions, discuss the purpose of the application, give an overview of our design process, and highlight the proposed improvements to the property, and also discuss feedback that we've received from the public throughout the design.

So

before we get into the specifics of the project, I do want to go into the typical project development process for DTCI's facilities projects. So our projects start with design initiation, and this is when we receive funding through CIP board member initiatives or operational funds. Those funding allocations are associated with a scoping document. Many of you have seen the CIP scopes. That's really our guiding North Arrow during the design process.

To deviate from these scopes, we need a multi departmental review and approval and sometimes also board approval if the design change is significant enough. Once that design funding is allocated, one of the first steps that we go through is outreach planning. DTCI has a public affairs and communication staff embedded in our department. So we meet with the staff to tailor a project specific plan for each one of our projects. Now projects that include a legislative application are always going to have project pages online.

Those are one of the tools that we use for outreach. It has the scope of the project on them, the project schedules. It's regularly updated with blog posts when we reach our milestones. There's also forms for community input throughout the planning, design, and construction of the project. So we use that as a touch point throughout the process.

From there, we go into our feasibility studies and programming, so things like site surveys, environmental surveys, traffic studies, and then we take a look at the programming for the site, which is identified by the scoping document as well as the needs of the end users. With the feasibility studies, we're just looking to identify the constraints for the site, and between the feasibility study and the programming, we go into the schematic design layout where we're trying to fit all of those pieces on the site. Once we have one or few layouts that the end users are happy with, we go into our formal public engagement process. So, we like to get a lot of the public input at the beginning stages of our planning process to minimize the amount of back and forth and redesign that we have to do, which is beneficial to the project schedule and overall budget. After this formal public engagement period, we go into revising the schematic design based on the public comment and additional feedback from our end users, and then into cost estimating, making sure the project fits within the budget that has been allocated for that project.

If it doesn't, we do look at certain value engineering methods for a park such as this. We might go from a synthetic turf field to a grass field to make sure we're within that budget. From there, we move into the design endorsement phase. So, we present the schematic design to the board of supervisors, and that serves as an additional point of contact with the public to get more feedback from them as well as the board of supervisors on the schematic design. And from there, with the feedback we've received from those meetings, we'll finalize the schematic design.

We will get sign off from our end users, in this case PRCS, and then at that point is when we would start legislative approval process. So that's when we start submitting our Legis specs commission permits. And from there, we move into our design permitting and construction and ultimately turning it over to the end user. But what I really want to emphasize here is that we have a continuous flow of information to the public. And while we do collect feedback through our project page throughout the design and planning process.

We do like to get the majority of that feedback earlier in the process. So with that, I'll turn it over to mister Story.

Good evening. My name is Jack Story with DuBerry. And as you can see on the screen, this is a collaborative effort, the park design between Loudoun County DTI, PRCS, county staff, and then the design team. So this project is an application that will provide a new park, as you've already heard, in the Dulles planning sub area of the county. It's funded in the capital improvement plan program.

And as you heard, the commission permit for the park was approved in 2017. And so there was some discussion about the what this park is called. It is a regional park as far as the zoning goes, and this special exception will approve that use in this zoning district. And, since that commission permit approval in 2017, the design has moved through the planning and then the design phase. And during that process, there has been the public outreach meeting that that you heard about in October 2023 where several designs were proposed or some of the preliminary designs were shown to the community to solicit feedback.

And you heard that there was 292 comments that came in for there. And through all those comments, that is the process of where the specific design elements were determined for what this park was. There are three main things that came out of that meeting, and that was the rectangular fields, the cricket fields, and then also lighted playing fields. And I think you heard mister Torpey speak to that earlier. Based on that, we went back and revised the design and started the legislative process.

During that time, there was also a meeting that supervisor Tekroni held to update the public on the final design that was going through the legislative process. And we've had multiple submissions in that legislative process to work with staff, and we are here tonight with an application that has their concurrence.

And I'll just tag on to the end of that. Our public affairs and communications team has also gone above and beyond to advertise for tonight's public hearing. Consistent with their standard notification procedures, they posted information on the public hearing to the project page, which was also blasted out to the email subscriber list. They created flyers which were distributed to the parents at the three schools adjacent to the proposed park. Those flyers were also included in the mailings to provide additional content, content and context.

And that mailing list was expanded beyond what's required by the zoning ordinance to make sure that all of the property owners on the Southwest of the property were notified. Public affairs also reached out to Willowsford HOA directly to request that they disseminate this information as well.

So you've already heard where the site is located, but it is Southwest of Braddock Road. It's directly behind the the school complex that has three different schools on it. Those are all to the east of the the parcel. To the west is a vacant HOA parcel, and then behind that is the single family that you see on the screen there. To the south is a large lot residence, and to the north is another HOA parcel that is vacant.

So the parcel is 34 acres. It's owned by the county. It's mostly undeveloped open meadow. There is a treat area on the north side of the site. And there as you can see on the screen, there is flood plain and risker that's associated with a stream that is on the school parcel. So it does encroach down the the eastern side of the the parcel. Access to the park will be through Hovatter Drive. It will be an extension into the site. And there were oh, I'll go back there. There were multiple studies that were done as part of the due diligence for this.

So there was traffic studies. There was tree surveys, environmental site assessments. They're all done that helps influence the design and helped us to really figure out where the site could best take advantage of the natural features and preserve areas and stay out of sensitive environmental areas. As part of as part of that traffic study, we heard earlier, there were three intersections that were analyzed, and each of those three intersections had three different scenarios. One with the existing conditions at the time of the traffic study and then the two future ones.

One was a future condition in 2028, not envisioning the park, and then the other one was envisioning the park. And the the existing conditions study and then the 2028 without the park study both show an acceptable level of service, a d or or greater. And then the 2028 study with the park also showed that those were operating at an acceptable level and recommended no improvements to any of those.

Okay. All set?

We're of time.

Time's a bit up. Alright. Commissioners, questions for staff or the applicant in this case. Commissioner Miller.

The fields, and maybe this is a question for Steve, I don't know. Grass or turf? At this time, grass.

Okay. Thank you. That's all. Mister Jasper.

The traffic study. So hearing now that this is intended these fields are intended for league play and are convertible. Was there I mean, I'm not sure, and this is a question I suppose for DTCI. Are there standards or grossly? Are there standards for league play? Because the the usage numbers that were put up on the chart seemed a little low.

Yeah, they are not very the IT manual does not provide a lot of specific criteria for fields. So the trip generation is based on the number of fields. So we took into account the number of fields that are shown on the plan and calculated the trip generation, but not to the nuances that you are talking about. I don't think that data is available.

Okay. And then a follow-up to that with traffic. We understand that there may be a concern from the school about I mean, I I was out there today and drove around the school and walked into the field, and that is you know, it's one lane each direction. It's clearly something the school's concerned about because they have cones out with stop signs plugged into them to make sure people don't have accidents. Is the was the was the traffic flow on the school site analyzed?

Yes. So the traffic story took into account the existing conditions, you know, associated with the schools along with the second elementary school that was added in. When the counts were done, that elementary school did not exist. But we added trips, accounted for the trips associated with that elementary school as well.

But I thought that was about intersections, the limit service at intersections. I'm talking about within the school property.

Yes. So the parks are anticipated. The activity at this park is anticipated to happen mostly in the evenings or on the weekends when the activity at the schools is anticipated to be at a lower level. So there's the conflict is not expected to happen and that's what is reflected in the traffic study basically.

And I'll add to that. So operationally the schools encourage students, parents, and staff to use Collaboration Drive, which is the plan North Road on this exhibit, and Hovater Drive is primarily for bus traffic associated with the schools. So, Hobatter would be the road that we're using as the park entrance.

And that was the road that I went on. I had one other question. I'll defer until.

Commissioner Combs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So back to the lighting fixtures, a 105 feet, is that a necessary height? I mean, couldn't we achieve lighted fields with a much lower pole height?

So the the tallest poles are driven by the cricket field that you see down the oval shape. Because it's such a large field, in order to provide consistent lighting across it only from the outside and the perimeter of it, the lights really need to be up so that they can shine down on the field rather than across and cause the lower they are, the more glare will be in people's eyes. So since it's a aerial sport that has fast moving balls, it needs to be up and provided that consistent lighting.

Okay. So you need a 105 feet at the at the cricket pitch. What about the other athletic fields? What's the height?

The rectangle are 80 to 90 feet and the hockey is 50.

And those are all necessary heights. It still seems Again, because the high I think what we've seen at some other

Because the rectangular fields are multipurpose and have a cricket pitch in between them, there can be no poles in that vicinity. So the poles are on on the perimeter to shine to shine in.

Okay. I wanna just move then quickly to, buffering. So along the, I guess that's the south border, right, where it's adjacent to the single family detached, I see there's a pretty sizable existing tree stand, but there's a pinch point as you kind of go west. What sort sort of buffer are you putting along that boundary?

Are you mentioning the pinch point that is down by the cricket pitch? That area there?

No. I guess it would be I think it's west. Yeah. So there.

So we are saving the trees along the perimeter, and then we're putting a type b buffer along that that perimeter there. Anywhere there's open will be planted with new plant material. That means

Do we have a sense of what that existing tree stand is? How says how substantial that is, especially at that pinch point?

There there are some large specimen trees that we're saving that that are in there. I can't speak to the the quality of the entire buffer, but there are specimen trees that we're saving.

In type b, can you remind us what the type b buffer is?

Yes. So a type b buffer is 20 feet in width with 80 plant units per 100 linear feet.

And that's sort of a medium level buffer. Right? We have a more opaque Stringent. Right?

That's correct. That would be the type c 25, six foot tall wall berm fence with 120 planning units per 100 linear feet. And type c requires the the wall or the fencing? The six foot tall wall fence or berm that is modifiable by minor special minimum required on that side.

Okay. Thank you.

So the follow-up, so that pinch point is a, you know, primary concern. Could you take that playground, remove it, slide the two soccer fields south, which means you're taking the lights and moving them more behind the more heavily wooded area, and then either move that playground to the north side of the soccer fields or in that area I previously talked about for additional parking. It actually seems like that would be a better place to put a playground and keep the fields tighter together by sliding the two soccer fields down. I think it would really reduce the impact of the lights. Don't know if that was thought about or if it could or couldn't be done, but it seems to me that would solve some of the problems with potentially with with the lighting because you'd have it behind the area with more substantial trees already in place.

So, one of the considerations with the placement of the playground is where we have playgrounds at sites with ball fields. Typically, you have siblings that are let to go over to that playground. Trying to centralize that playground to where anybody that is either at the cricket pitch or at the soccer fields is relatively in close proximity to that so that there can be supervision by the parents is one thing that we try to take into account. So we don't wanna tuck the playground away from where the other activity is for those times when the children are siblings of those who are playing.

Okay. So in this case, it'd just be next if you moved it to the north end, it'd just be next to one soccer field instead of between a soccer field and a cricket pitch. Correct. I don't know that I see that as a major impact, but I think the bigger impact is the lighting. The movement of the playground aside, I go back to my parking question. If this configuration stays and it turned out there was a parking issue, could additional parking be put in that area? Like maybe some impervious parking, so maybe it's not used all the time and doesn't have to be asphalt or anything. But that would that be a possibility?

So there is a retaining wall along the edge of the parking lot to make sure that we're not grading into the risker or the flood plain.