28 January 2015 Sully District Council Meeting Minutes
by Jim Neighbors, Secretary

    Council Members:
    Lewis Grimm, 2nd Vice President, Franklin Farms
    Michael Hanson, Armfield Farms
    Jay Johnston, Treasurer, Virginia Run
    Mark McConn, President, Bull Run Estates
    Jim Neighbors, Secretary, Sully Station I
    Jeff Parnes, 1st Vice President, Chantilly Highlands

    Tarek S. Bolden, Department of Planning & Zoning, Planning Division, Policy & Plan Development Branch, Fairfax County
    Joe Griffiths, Project Manager, Department of Planning and Zoning, Loudoun County
    Cynthia L. Keegan, AICP, Program Manager, Community Planning, Department of Planning and Zoning, Loudoun County
    Leanna O"Donnell, Department of Planning & Zoning, Planning Division, Policy & Plan Development Branch, Fairfax County


    The meeting was called to order by Council President Mark McConn at 7:00 PM.

  3. The minutes for the December 2014 Sully District Council are available online.

  4. Refer to the January agenda for meeting announcements.




    1. 8:30 - Marlo site
      • Proponent: Tarek S. Bolden, Department of Planning & Zoning, Planning Division, Policy & Plan Development Branch
      • Action: Plan Amendment (PA) No. 2014-III-DS2
      • Location: Lee Road and Chantilly Crossing Lane (Tax Map Parcel 34-3 ((13)) 3)
        This PA concerns an approx. 5 acre site located at the intersection of Lee Road and Chantilly Crossing Lane (Tax Map Parcel 34-3 ((13)) 3) in the Sully Supervisor District. The subject parcel is currently planned for hotel and private recreation uses. According to the Comprehensive Plan, retail uses are not planned for this site; however a furniture store use is allowed under certain conditions. The proposed plan amendment will consider allowing alternative retail uses on the site. Both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings have been scheduled, with the PC hearing set for February 12th and the BOS hearing for March 24th. I would like to attend your January 28th meeting to very briefly discuss this Plan amendment and gather your feedback on this matter. If you have any question regarding this proposal prior to the meeting, please contact me and I will assist you as best I can.
      • PA 2014-III-DS2 Handouts:
      • The Land Use and Transportation committee previously considered this site on:
      • Tarek provided a brief history of the site, and indicated it was the last undeveloped lot of this large parcel. The county staff believes that although the current planning, zoning and a filed FDP show a furniture store on the lot, that is unlikely to happen, and the lot should be replaced for retail without the furniture store restrictions. Any traffic concerns would be resolved as the rezoning application review occurs.
      • The Plan Amendment clearly mentions that any proposed use will need to show that the issues related to access and transportation are resolved. So in reality, if a developer cannot show that the trip generation numbers work for their proposed use, and that they cannot alleviate any negative transportation impacts, the use cannot be approved at the rezoning time.
      • The proposed language will only open the door to proposals for a site that has been noticeably vacant for a long time, but in no way guarantees the approval of any use.
      • The SDC LU&T position is that this parcel has been before the SDC at least four times in the last twenty years.
        • When last considered in January 2003 the committee reviewed that at its November 2002 meeting Marlo had requested approval of an out-of-turn plan amendment to allow them to build a furniture store in area currently planned for tourist or entertainment uses. At that time, the committee did not approve of the Plan Amendment as proposed.
        • Subsequently, Marlo indicated its willingness to trim 7000 square feet off the furniture store it was proposing and then use the remaining parcel for a variety of uses, or instead donate funds ($250,000) for off-site recreation uses to compensate for loss of entertainment / recreational uses on this site.
        • After the presentation of the revised proposal, the following concerns were addressed:
          • Although the rezoning request requires that the signage Special Exception be modified, no signage changes are proposed.
          • Although the remainder of the property could be used for a 75-room hotel, it was the sense of the committee not to have a hotel built on any leftover property once the store was built.
          • Ensure EQC is maintained and not adversely impacted
          • Ensure the structure represents quality architecture
          • Any agreement to allow the furniture store was not indicative of a change to retail further down Route 28.
          • If retail is allowed, it must be low intensity retail, such as a furniture store
        • The committee then passed a motion that it had no objection to the proposal but recommended consideration of the following recommendations:
          • Review of signage
          • Furniture store usage only
          • No other development in parcel
          • Ensure integrity of EQC
          • Offset recreation loss
        • Subsequent to the committee's meeting, the Planning Commission heard and approved the proposed out-of-turn plan amendment. The Marlo proponents had concerns that the committee's recommendations and the Planning Commissions-approved amendment asked for both an off-site recreation donation and restricted use on the remainder of the parcel, when they had offered to do one or the other but not both. Although they initially asked for, and received, a postponement of the Planned Board of Supervisor's vote on the amendment, the Plan Amendment was eventually passed.
      • SDC has seen no compelling case to change the current planning, when it stated in 2003 that it did not want a change to retail further down Route 28 or allow anything but low intensity retail on the site.
      • What it sees before it is a change to the current planning which opens the door to a contest as to whether the proposal "alleviate[s] any negative transportation impacts." If a proposal which alleviates the traffic problems was shown to the committee, it would be quite willing to consider it, but at this time the committee sees no reason to support a modification of current planned uses just to satisfy the current owner when it has done so multiple times before.
      • The LUT unanimously passed a motion stating that they did not support PA No. 2014-III-DS2 in its present form.
      • The committee indicated it was open to compromise, as shown in its concurrence to the changes approved in the 2002-2003 time period, but they were specific, and this is generic.




  11. NEXT MEMBERSHIP MEETING - Thursday 26 February 2015 (Note change of Date - 4th Thursday due to Conflict with Park Authority Board meeting):


    The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m.

    Respectively submitted by,

    Jim Neighbors
    Sully District Council

    Sully District Council Home Page

    Sully District Council Minutes

    Land Use & Transportation Committee Minutes

    Data Area Transportation Association information

    2011 ©SDC;
    http://www.SullyDistrict.org webmaster2015 @ SullyDistrict.org

    modified by Jeffrey M. Parnes