attacmet 1a a-1 - loudoun

County of Loudoun

Department of Planning

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 30, 2010 TO: Ginny Rowen, Project Manager, Land Use Review FROM: Kelly Williams, Planner, Community Planning SUBJECT: ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park (Lansdowne LB, N3) 2nd Referral Outstanding Issues The Revised General Plan identifies the site as suitable for Keynote Employment uses (Revised General Plan, Chapter 7, Planned Land Use Map). Keynote Employment Centers are intended to be “100-percent premier office or research-and-development centers supported by ancillary retail and personal services for employees” (Revised General Plan, Chapter 6, Keynote Employment Center Policies, text). Keynote Employment areas are intended to be developed as corporate headquarters/premiere office up to 1.0 FAR (Revised General Plan, Chapter 6, Keynote Employment Center Policies, Suburban Policy Area Land Use Matrix).

While the application is proposing a reduction to the FAR approved for the site, such a reduction even though at the minimum level for Keynote areas, is not in keeping with the Keynote Policies that encourage higher FAR’s in this location. The original rezoning of the property dated December 13, 2004 (ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003) better implements the Keynote Policies with respect to including a higher FAR which allows for a campus style design with larger setbacks, extensive landscaping and structured parking. Reducing the FAR, would in effect cause a redesign of the site that is not in keeping with the vision of Keynote Employment areas. It should be noted that according to the proffers, there are no commitments to develop the site at .46 FAR as the language says “up to a maximum of 328,352 square feet”. Staff does not support a reduction in the FAR. Parking In the first referral, staff recommended that the applicant revise the concept development plan to reflect the Keynote Design polices by maintaining the structured parking as approved with the original rezoning. The revised concept development plan proposes to reconfigure the site by eliminating the approved parking structure, thereby necessitating the need for extensive surface parking. While most of the parking is internal to the site, the amount of surface parking for .46 FAR requires over 1,100

ATTACHMENT 1a A-1

ZCPA 2008-0009 Riverside Office Park

Community Planning, 2nd Referral July 30, 2010

spaces, only 147 of which will be located under the buildings. Roughly 964 spaces will be surface parked which is approximately 3.5 times the amount of surface parking at the Wegman’s in the Village of Leesburg (275 spaces approved). Further, as surface parking requires more space than structured parking, some of the area that was designated for open space and extensive landscaping has been eliminated. Because of the high parking requirements associated with 100% office uses in Keynote Employment areas, structured parking is preferred in order to achieve the design guidelines of the Plan. Staff continues to recommend that the applicant revise the concept development plan to reflect the Keynote Design polices by maintaining the structured parking as approved with the original rezoning. Public, Civic, Open Space In the first referral, it was recommended that the application be revised to provide adequate public open space, beyond the landscaped buffer areas, including usable outdoor space for employees and guests. Assurances should be made as to when the proposed common area will be constructed as well as the actual amenities (i.e., picnic or café tables, benches, landscaping, etc.) that will be provided. In the response letter, the applicant states that these amenities will exist on the property. Staff recommends commitments to the specific types, numbers and timing of the amenities via a note on the plat or in the proffers. RECOMMENDATIONS The site has been evaluated under the Keynote Employment land use policies of the Revised General Plan. Staff does not support a reduction of FAR on this site as it is not in keeping with the Keynote Employment Policies that anticipate the higher FAR and a corporate campus style environment in this location. Staff recommends the following to address design issues related to the site:

Revise the Concept development plan to reflect the Keynote Employment Design polices by maintaining structured parking as approved with the original rezoning; and

Commit to adequate public open space, beyond landscaped buffer areas,

including usable outdoor space for employees and guests. Cc: Julie Pastor, AICP, Director, Planning Department John Merrithew, AICP, Assistant Planning Director

A-2

ZCPA-2008-0009 February 16, 2012

1

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT

ZONING ADMINISTRATION REFERRAL

DATE: 2/16/2012 TO: Ginny Rowen, Project Manager, Department of Planning THROUGH: Marilee Seigfried, Deputy Zoning Administrator FROM: Karen Lanham, Planner, Zoning Administration CASE #/NAME: ZCPA-2008-0009, Riverside Office Park & Inova Loudoun Hospital Zoning staff has reviewed the 6th submission of the proffers and statement of justification associated with ZCPA-2008-0009, against prior zoning comments dated October 5, 2011. At this time, the applicant has not submitted a revised concept development plan (CDP), so prior comments relating to the CDP could not be evaluated.

1. Previous Comment #4 - The applicant’s response states the Proffers reference the concept development plan (CDP), which has notes regarding which prior zoning applications apply to each property. The applicant has not resubmitted a revised CDP, therefore, the comment response cannot be confirmed.

2. Previous Comment #6 – The applicant has not resubmitted the revised CDP so it could not be confirmed whether revised Exhibit 24 is shown on the CDP.

3. Previous Comment #12 – Sheet 2 of the previously submitted CDP contains a table showing a maximum building height of 96 feet. The zoning tabulations chart shows a proposed building height of 65’ maximum under the heading of “Per ZCPA-2008-0009”. The application should be clear about whether the applicant is proposing to change the 96’ building height. If not, the “proposed 65’ maximum” should be revised or the meaning clarified.

4. The Zoning Tabulation chart should provide the revised zoning information for landbay P1 such as the proposed FAR.

5. Previous Comment #14 – The wording “Substantial Conformance” on Building 5 and the Atrium is confusing on the CDP. It is not clear what is meant by this statement. It is recommended that this wording be removed. If not, it should be clarified what application the buildings are in substantial conformance to.

6. Previous Comments #15 – 25 on the CDP could not be evaluated since a revised CDP has not been submitted.

ATTACHMENT 1b A-3

From: phillips, george

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:27 AM

To: Rowen, Ginny A.

Cc: Beacher, Andrew; Mosurak, Lou; Smithson, Terri

Subject: ZCPA 2008-0009-Riverside Office Park 3rd referral comments

In response to your February 24, 2011 3rd referral request for additional review and comment regarding the Applicant’s

February 24, 2011 referral response letter and proffer statement, please see the OTS comments below:

1. One issue needed clarification from the 2nd OTS referral dated July 20, 2010. OTS recommended that all necessary

easements and dedications for future signalization at the Riverside Parkway/Sandridge Way intersection be in place

prior to final action on this application. The Applicant responded that the easements and dedications for future

signalization at Riverside Parkway and Sandridge Way are in place. OTS has confirmed that VDOT has obtained the

appropriate easements and dedications to begin installation of the traffic signal (the traffic signal is currently being

installed). The issue has been adequately addressed.

2. No additional transportation related improvements are being requested by OTS for this application. OTS has no other

comments regarding the Applicant’s February 24, 2011 proffer statement.

Based on the above, OTS has no objection to the approval of this application.

If you need further review or have any additional questions, please contact me for a meeting.

Thanks, George

ATTACHMENT 1c A-4

County of Loudoun

Office of Transportation Services

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 12, 2009 TO: Ginny Rowen, Department of Planning FROM: George Phillips, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: ZCPA 2008-0009, Landsdowne LB N3-Buckeye LLLP Location: Southwest quadrant of the Riverside Parkway/Lansdowne Boulevard Intersection on Sandridge Way. (See Attachment 1) Background The applicant is requesting a Zoning Concept Plan Amendment to reduce the proffered floor-area-ratio from .79 to .46. to allow the redesign of buildings to reflect changing market conditions. The applicant has provided a traffic statement dated December 9, 2008 from Wells & Associates, a Statement of Justification dated December 11, 2009 and a concept plan dated December, 2008 from The KDL Group LLC for review. Trip Generation Information Based on current ITE trip rates, the currently approved 430,000 square feet of office would generate 4,102 daily, 602 a.m. peak hour and 560 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. The proposed 332,000 square feet of office would generate 491 a.m. peak hour, 451 p.m. peak hour and 3,366 daily vehicle trips. This represents a reduction of 111 a.m. peak hour, 109 p.m. peak hour and 736 daily vehicle trips.

A-5

Site Access Riverside Parkway: The site will have median break access to Riverside Parkway via Sandridge Way. This segment of Riverside Parkway is a four lane median divided road with separate right and left turn lanes at Sandridge Way. Although no VDOT traffic counts are available for this segment of Riverside Parkway, it is believed that, based on recent traffic studies in the vicinity, that this road segment carries between 10,000-11,000 daily vehicle trips which is within the capacity of a four lane divided road. This portion of Riverside Parkway is included in the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) as a major collector to be widened to six lanes within a 120-foot right of way. Sandridge Way: This facility is a private drive approximately 40 feet wide curb to curb in the vicinity of the site. Traffic on the facility is believed to be relatively small based on the amount of existing and proposed development in the vicinity. It is not included in the CTP for improvement. Transportation Comments 1. The applicant needs to confirm that adequate right of way has been provided

along Riverside Parkway and Lansdowne Boulevard for the ultimate planned widening to 6 lanes for each facility. Please confirm.

2. The proposed use will generate significantly less traffic then previously

approved. In addition, the traffic study indicates that the adjacent intersections operate at acceptable levels-of-service and will continue to do so in the future. Therefore, no additional road improvements are being recommended.

Conclusion The Office of Transportation Services can recommend approval of this application assuming adequate right-of-way is available for the planned future widenings of Riverside Parkway and Lansdowne Boulevard. Let me know if you have any questions at ext. 0122. C Drive/Landsdowne LB N3 Buckeye LLLP- ZCPA 2008-0009.doc

A-6

April 2, 2009 Ms. Ginny Rowen, Project Manager County of Loudoun Department of Planning MSC#62 1 Harrison Street, S.E. P.O. Box 7000 Leesburg, Virginia 20177-7000 Re: Lansdowne Land Bay Parcel N3 – Buckeye LLP Loudoun County Application Number: ZCPA 2008-0009 Dear Ms. Rowen: We have reviewed the above application as requested and offer the following comments:

1. The entrance to the proposed development should conform to the current VDOT’s Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, latest edition. (Minimum width of a commercial entrance is 30’.)

2. In the “Statement of Justification” (V.7. Traffic Impacts) why does the applicant states that he is unaware of any adverse impacts or additional trips generated by the proposal? A traffic study was performed so he should know what the impact is? This statement should be revised wherever applicable.

If you have any questions, please call me at (703) 383-2046.

Sincerely, Rashid Siraj, P.E. Transportation Engineer (Com.04-02-09)

ATTACHMENT 1d A-7

ATTACHMENT 2 A-8

STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION

Riverside Office Park and Inova Loudoun Hospital Land Bays N-3 and P-1 in Lansdowne

Zoning Concept Plan Amendment to Amend the Approved and Proffered Concept

Development Plan and “Exhibit 24”

August 16, 2012 ________________________________________________________________________

I. Introduction Buckeye N, LLLP of Frederick, Maryland, the sole owner of Loudoun County

Tax Map ##62-64-PH5, 62-64-PH6, 62-64-PH7, 62-64-PHCE, and 62-64-SWCE (PIN

##082-18-3427, 082-18-0919, 082-27-9685, 082-28-3383, and 082-17-7969,

respectively) (hereinafter, the "Applicant"), Washington Real Estate Investment Trust

("WRIT") of Potomac Maryland, the sole owner of Loudoun County Tax Map #62-64-

PH4 (PIN #082-18-2260) (collectively, "Land Bay N-3"), Loudoun Healthcare, Inc.,

Substitute Trustee for the Loudoun Hospital Center Land Trust, the sole owner of

Loudoun County Tax Map #62-2-2 (PIN #082-19-1967-000), and Inova Health Care

Services, the sole owner of Loudoun County Tax Map #62-2-2A (PIN #082-19-1967-

001) (collectively, "Land Bay P-1"), (hereinafter, the parcels jointly referred to as the

"Property”), are proposing a series of changes to the approved and proffered Concept

Development Plan and Exhibit 24 that governs the Property for the sole purpose to make

the Land Bay N-3 portion of the Property marketable for future Class A office use and to

differentiate Land Bay N-3 from Land Bay P-1 under the proffered Exhibit 24.

Land Bay N-3 in Lansdowne is comprised of approximately 16.6 acres and is

presently developed with one five-story office building with three other planned office

buildings and an atrium approved as part of the Lansdowne Village Greens approvals

(ZMAP 2003-0006, ZCPA 2003-0003 and SPEX 2003-0011). The Property is zoned

Planned Development-Office Park (“PD-OP”) and governed under the provisions of the

Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (the “Zoning Ordinance”) and the

Revised General Plan. Land Bay P-1 is 50.00 acres and is also zoned PD-OP.

ATTACHMENT 3 A-24

ZCPA 2008-0009 Statement of Justification Page 2

Presently, the approved and proffered Concept Development Plan approved in

conjunction with ZMAP 1994-0001/ZCPA 1994-0002 (Lansdowne) depicts a free-

standing and awkwardly-shaped parking structure that is designed to serve four office

buildings on Land Bay N-3 with minimal surface parking at a relatively high density

(0.79 FAR). “Exhibit 24” of the approved Concept Development Plan defines the

maximum development potential for each Land Bay in Lansdowne and permits a

maximum of a 0.79 FAR on Land Bay N-3. With one of the four office buildings built

and partially occupied (and owned by WRIT), the Applicant is now preparing the balance

of the land bay for office use without a free standing parking structure. Given the

changes to the proffered layout for Land Bay N-3, the existing Concept Development

Plan needs to be amended to effectuate the development of the balance of Land Bay N-3.

The Applicant is requesting a Zoning Concept Plan Amendment to revise the

approved and dated Concept Development Plan approved pursuant to ZMAP 2003-

0006/ZCPA 2003-0011 (Lansdowne Village Greens) in order to:

1) Designate Land Bay N-3 for a 0.46 FAR for a maximum 328,352 square feet of

total development on the 16.6 acres;

2) Eliminate the averaged limitation of 0.4 FAR, shown on Exhibit 24, between

Land Bay N-3 and Land Bay P-1;

3) Reconfigure the proffered Concept Development Plan to eliminate the proffered

requirement for structured parking (other than under the four office buildings);

4) Reconfigure the proffered Concept Plan to show a mix of surface parking and

structured parking areas and an access drive adjacent to existing Office Building 4

along Lansdowne Boulevard; and

5) Delete any reference to phasing of development between Land Bays N-3 and P-1.

Since Buildings 4, 5, and 7 on Land Bay N-3 have already been approved by the

Zoning Administrator as being in “Substantial Conformity” with the original Lansdowne

Village Greens applications, 230,852 square feet of space is already approved for office

development purposes. Accordingly, the ZCPA for Land Bay N-3 has been redesigned

for an additional 90,000 square feet as Building 6, along with approximately 7,500 square

A-25


foot atrium connecting Building 5 and Building 6, resulting in a total developable square

footage for Land Bay N-3 to be a maximum of 328,352 gross square feet. This total

square footage is less than the original 570,000 square feet of space that was approved

under the Lansdowne Village Greens rezoning application (0.79 FAR).

In order to eliminate any further development limitations between Land Bays N-3

and P-1, the Applicant proposes to modify Exhibit 24 to delete the word "averaged" on

this exhibit and permit each land bay to develop without consideration of an averaged

development density and to develop separately from one another.

For purposes of County review, the development program for Land Bay N-3 is as

follows:

APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS OF LAND BAY N-3 “Riverside Office Park”

Building Square Footage/ Parking

Development Status

4 (Existing 5 stories)

87,352 sq. ft. / 50 spaces

under building

Developed/Partially

Occupied

5 (5 stories) 90,000 sq. ft. / 50 spaces under building

Undeveloped, “Substantially Conforms” to

Original CDP

6 (5 stories) 90,000 sq. ft. / 50 spaces under building

Undeveloped (Needs ZCPA)

Atrium 7,500 sq. ft. Undeveloped

(Needs ZCPA)

7 (3 stories) 53,500 sq. ft. Site Plan Approved

4 Office Buildings and Atrium

328,352 sq. ft.

Partially Developed

Land Bay P-1 1,089,000 sq. ft. Partially Developed

A-26


II. Justification for the ZCPA Application

Land Bay N-3 is located in the southwest corner of the prominent intersection of

Riverside Parkway and Lansdowne Boulevard. Due to its location immediately north of

Route 7 in the Keynote Employment office area of the Lansdowne community, the

Property is a strategically located site to attract high quality office use (i.e., good location,

visibility, road access near an interchange, capacity and proximity to central utilities,

etc.). Land Bay N-3 has been approved for PD-OP/commercial office use since the

original Lansdowne rezoning application was approved by the Board of Supervisors in

1985. The 2,267 acre Lansdowne planned community was originally approved for over

10 million square feet of office and hotel/conference uses as well as residential uses.

In 2005, Exhibit 24 was amended based on the "Lansdowne Village Greens,"

which included a proffered layout for Land Bay N-3 that was comprised of office

buildings with a separate parking structure and an FAR of up to 0.79 FAR, to be

developed in two development phases. This dense commercial development program

with free-standing structured parking is no longer economically viable.

The Applicant is now proposing to develop Land Bay N-3 up to a 0.46 FAR and

up to a maximum 328,352 gross square feet of commercial office and ancillary

(permitted) commercial uses. Under this ZCPA request, the Applicant proposes to

construct the project in one phase and delete the previously proffered free-standing

structured parking facility. Land Bay N-3 will instead be developed at a maximum FAR

of 0.46 in four buildings with an atrium located between Buildings 5 and 6, along with a

mixture of surface parking and parking under the office buildings, similar to what exists

within Building 4. The proffered uses, approved under the Concept Plan for the

Lansdowne Village Greens applications, will remain as office and PD-OP accessory uses.

Building heights under this proposal would decrease from over 10 stories to a maximum

of five stories, in keeping with the building height of Building 4. The parking setbacks

would not change from the proffered Lansdowne Village Greens layout. Importantly, the

proposed layout for Land Bay N-3 meets the current commercial office market conditions

in Loudoun County.

A-27


The proffered document that governs all of the residential and nonresidential

development and its associated FAR within Lansdowne is known as Exhibit 24.

Specifically, the Land Bay Tabulation Chart included on Exhibit 24 is proposed to be

updated to reflect the Applicant’s proposed development program. Land Bay N-3, which

is presently approved for a 0.79 FAR (averaged with the adjacent Land Bay P-1 not to

exceed a combined 0.4 FAR), is similar to the majority of the commercial office land

bays in Lansdowne. With the 2004 approval of the Lansdowne Village Greens

applications, approximately three million square feet of office space is now permitted

under the proffered Land Bay Tabulation Chart. This square footage will not change

through the approval of this ZCPA. Land Bay N-3 will be developed without the concept

of averaged FAR with Land Bay P-1, therefore, Exhibit 24 has been amended to delete

the word "averaged" between the land bays.

The Applicant is proposing to build a total of four "Class A" office buildings

within the “Keynote Employment” area of the Lansdowne planned community on Land

Bay N-3. Essentially, the ZCPA will reconfigure the approved and proffered, yet

outdated, Concept Development Plan to reflect market conditions and amend Exhibit 24

to illustrate the new development limits. The proposed ZCPA conforms to the numerous

suburban development policies set forth in the Revised General Plan that call for “Class

A” office development in mixed-use communities such as Lansdowne while promoting

economic development activity, i.e., the creation of jobs for county residents.

Additionally, the current proffer situation is confusing and needs revision concerning

proffered Exhibit 24. The 0.79 FAR proffer limitation for Land Bay N-3 is tied to the

adjacent Land Bay P-1 and averaged at a maximum of 0.4 FAR. To resolve this proffer

confusion, the Applicant proposes to separate the two land bays and eliminate the FAR

averaging as shown on the revised Exhibit 24 sheet of the ZCPA Plat. This change is

being proposed to the approved and proffered Concept Development Plan to reflect the

changing market conditions for the area while continuing to implement the “Class A”

office development standards that the Applicant has previously constructed on adjacent

Lansdowne land bays. Land Bay N-3 has all the necessary public utilities and services to

promote future “Class A” office development. Importantly, the FAR recommended in

the Suburban Policy Keynote Employment area is between 0.4 FAR and 1.0 FAR (See

A-28


Chapter 6, Land Use Matrix, p. 6-33 of the Revised General Plan). The Applicant is

proposing to build to a less intense FAR, yet still within the recommended FAR range for

Keynote Employment land uses as recommended under the provisions of the Plan.

III. Transportation Considerations

Due to the development limitations that would be imposed by this ZCPA

application at the proposed 0.46 FAR, fewer vehicular trips will be generated by this

proposal versus the approved 0.79 FAR that is defined under Exhibit 24. Given the fact

that this ZCPA application will reduce or limit the trips generated by the previously

approved Lansdowne Village Greens development program, road capacity will not be

impacted as compared to the approved and permitted office uses. Sandridge Way, off of

Riverside Parkway, is the main access road for this development and will operate at

Level of Service A or B based on signal timing improvements. As stated in the Traffic

Statement, the decrease in the trips will allow the adjacent intersections to operate at an

acceptable level of service. The traffic generated by the proposed use will be adequately

and safely served by roads, pedestrian connections, and other transportation services

currently in place.

IV. Zoning Concept Plan Amendment (ZCPA) Matters for Consideration

Section 6-1211(E) of the Zoning Ordinance contains criteria for approval of

Zoning Map Amendments. In considering a ZCPA, the following factors shall be given

reasonable consideration. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that the Applicant is to

address each factor in its Statement of Justification, unless such criteria are deemed

inapplicable to the application. The ZCPA meets the applicable criteria as explained

below:

1) Conformance with the Revised General Plan: According to Chapter 6 of the Plan,

the County supports "Keynote Employment" with increased employment

opportunities and continued development of established suburban communities.

This ZCPA proposal is in conformance with both of these goals.

A-29


2) Changing conditions in the area: The revised FAR and office development

potential for Land Bay N-3 will be compatible with the changing economic

conditions in Lansdowne that do not favor the construction of structured parking.

3) Compatibility of proposed uses: The proposed PD-OP/office use is compatible

with the existing zoning districts that abut Land Bay N3 and provides a

compatible use to the adjacent land bays located in Lansdowne (office, hospital,

and multi-family).

4) Adequacy of services to support proposed uses: Adequate public services are

available to support the proposed increase of FAR on Land Bay N-3. Water and

sewer are presently available and road capacity exists on the adjacent roadways.

5) Effect of proposed uses on ground water supply: Existing ground water supply

will not be adversely affected by these proposed ZCPA changes.

6) Effect of proposed uses on the structural capacity of the soils: The soils will

adequately support the construction of the proposed office development.

7) Traffic impacts: The ZCPA is proposing to limit the maximum FAR for Land

Bay N-3 to a 0.46 FAR, thus limiting additional trips that will be generated by the

project. As stated in the Traffic Statement from Wells + Associates, the decrease

in the vehicular trips will allow the adjacent intersections to operate at an

acceptable level of service. The traffic generated by the proposed use will be

adequately and safely served by roads, pedestrian connections and other

transportation services currently in place.

8) Economic viability under the current zoning: The proposed ZCPA approval will

allow Land Bay N-3 to develop into a project similar to other office developments

in the vicinity of this Land Bay and within the commercial areas of Lansdowne.

9) Environmental impacts: Land Bay N-3 contains no designated floodplain areas,

endangered or threatened species, or steep slopes, and the proposed office density

will not adversely affect air or water quality in the County. The original trees on

the site have been replaced by a very dense landscape buffer. Given the lack of

existing tree species on Land Bay N-3, the Applicant will provide sufficient

landscaping as a replacement. Additional trees and landscape plantings will be

provided in accordance with Section 5-1300 of the Zoning Ordinance.

A-30


10) Tax base enlargement, economic development and employment growth: The

additional commercial office square footage will enhance the tax base of the

county. The additional tax revenue collected from this development will help

stimulate further economic commercial office growth within Lansdowne and

along the Route 7 Corridor. Additionally, Land Bay N-3 is well situated near

employment centers and residential neighborhoods along the Route 7 Corridor,

which will facilitate shorter commutes for residents working nearby, especially

within Lansdowne.

11) Consideration of agriculture, industry and business needs: The proposed

commercial office project will not include any agricultural uses and will enhance

the office tax base of the county, which will indirectly support agricultural uses in

the county.

12) Whether the proposed rezoning considers the current and future requirements of

the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and

economic studies: This ZCPA application addresses a critical need for quality

Class A office use in well-designed office parks in the county. Lansdowne is

already developed with substantial infrastructure in place and is able to

accommodate additional commercial office growth.

13) Conservation of property values and promotion of appropriate land use: The

development of Land Bay N-3 will serve as an extension of the commercial office

base within Lansdowne and will provide employment opportunities for nearby

residents. Office development on this Land Bay will likely increase nearby

property values by providing additional employment opportunities located in

proximity to existing residential neighborhoods.

14) Growth trends, economic factors and public facility capacity: According to U.S.

Census Bureau and county forecasts, Loudoun County will continue to grow

substantially with new residential and non-residential development. The new

office space included as part of this proposal will help facilitate this future

growth.

15) Provision of moderately priced housing: There is no housing proposed as part of

this application.

A-31


16) Natural, scenic, archaeological or historic effects: There will be no impact on any

natural, scenic, archaeological or historic features in this area of Lansdowne.

V. Conclusion

The proposed ZCPA for Land Bay N-3 to permit the 0.46 FAR, with a maximum

of 328,352 square feet of office and related development in Lansdowne, will benefit

Loudoun County through the provision of additional employment opportunities and will

not adversely affect any residential properties or nearby/adjacent commercial properties

in Lansdowne and will limit the confusion related to Exhibit 24. The office use is an

excellent land use for the Land Bay and is compatible with the surrounding uses in

Lansdowne and will not negatively impact the capacity of adjacent intersections in

Lansdowne. Moreover, the redesigned Land Bay will provide more flexibility to respond

to market conditions and, therefore, provide additional employment opportunities in the

county in the near term.

A-32

ATTACHMENT 4 A-33

WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH

& WALSH PC

Wil li am J. Keefe Land Usc Pla nne r (57 1 ) 209-5774 wkccfc@l dn.th c l and l awycrs.com

June 9, 2011

Via Hand Deliven1 and E-nwil

Ms. Ginny Rowen, Project Manager Loudoun County Departm ent ofPlanning I Hanison Street, S.E., Third Floor P.O. Box 7000 Leesburg, VA 20177

Re: Third Referral Response Letter -Buckeye, LLLP

Lansdowne Land Bay N3 - ZCPA 2008-0009

Dear Ms. Rowen:

On behalf of Buckeye, LLLP (hereinafter the "Applicant") I am providing you with this letter as a written response to the final referral agency comments provided for the above referenced application for Lansdowne Land Bay N3, ZCPA 2008-0009. The ZCPA proposal would decrease the FAR on Land Bay N3 to 0.46 FAR from the approved 0.79 FAR. For your convenience, each ofthe staff comments are listed below, followed by the Applicant's responses.

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, ZONING ADMINISTRATION (Karen Lanham, Planner, 4/11/11)

Zoning staff has reviewed the 3rd submission of ZCPA-2008-0009, with respect to Cindy Lintz's prior zoning comments dated July 15, 2010, and offers the following comments:

Proffer Statement Dated 2/24/2011

1 . Premnble - The preamble states these proffers will supercede prior proffers applicable to th e

Subject Property. There are prior unfulfilled proffers associated with the subject property. The proffer statement should be revised to incorporate any outstanding proffers associated with this landbay. Please see comments by Susan Glass dated 4/08/2011 which reference outstanding proffers (Attached).

I'II ONE 703 737 3633 I !'AX 703 737 3632 I WWW.TII EI. ANIJLAWYlii!S.COM I

E. MARKET ST RE ET, l'll lllO FLOOR I LEESUURG, VA 20176-3014

ARI.INGTON OH I CE 7 03 5 28 4700 I PR I NCF. W ll.I.I IIM OJIJIJO: 703 680 4661

,\TTORN E Y S liT LAW

{J .0 I 968R3.DOC /3 Rei"crra l Response J .cltcr 4-26-1 I 001 339 000027}

A-48

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tii/

l3uckcye, LLLP- Lansdowne Land Bay N3 June 9, 2011 P age 2

Applicant Response:

The Applicant has revised the Proffer Statement to reflect the staff comments. See attached.

2. Proffer I.A. - The first paragraph references the proffered sheets. Which sheets are proffered?

Applicant Response:

Sheets 1, 2, 5 and 6 will be proffered. See attached Proffer Statement dated June 9, 2011.

3. Proffer LA., Paragraph 2- This proffer states .... "corresponding increase of "Office Area" at a maximum of 3,200,000 square feet for all commercial land bays in Lansdowne. Can this proffer revise square footage for other landbays if they are not part of this application? Please clarify how the 3,200,000 square footage amounts were derived . Is it based on FAR or just a total amount?

Applicant Response:

In order to insure that all commercial land bays in Lansdowne are "whole" for office square footage under Exhibit 24, and that there is no dispute in the future, the total office area should be increased beyond the origina/2,984,230 square feet. The Applicant suggests that 3,200,000 square feet be considered in Exhibit 24, but this number is negotiable.

4. Proffer LA., Paragraph 3 -This proffer states... "The applicant reserves the right to develop stmctured parking (either under the commercial buildings or as a separate parking stmcture) on the Subject Property, depending on market conditions". The wording of this proffer conflicts with the "underground parking" wording on the buildings on the CDP. References to structured parking should be the same throughout the proffers, CDP, and Statement of Justification.

Applicant Response:

Comment noted. The CDP (Sheet 5) has been changed to reflect consistency throughout the documents related to structured or underground parking.

5. Proffer II.A, Fire and Rescue Contribution - This proffer needs to restate the proffer contribution amount, since the p1ior proffers are planned to be superceded.

Applicant Response:

The new Fire and Rescue contribution amount has been restated in Lhe updated proffers.

{ LO I %883.DOC I J Refen al Response Letter 4-26-1 I 001339 000027)

A-49

Buckeye, LLLP- Lansdowne Land Bay N3 June 9, 2011 Page 3

6. These proffers need to address the proffered Life Safety Center Traffic Signal. In addition, the signal equipment location and any required easements necessary for installation should be shown on the concept plan.

Applicant Response:

As of May 10, 20 II, the signal had been installed but is not operational. According to recent discussions with VDOT and Mr. George Phillips, it is our understanding that the necessmy easements for the signal are in place. No additional proffer language is required.

Concept Development Plan:

I. Sheet I, "Summmy of Land bay N3 ZCPA Proposal"

a. Note #3 - This note, and other references to the structured parking on the concept plan and in Proffer #IA, Paragraph 3 of the proffers, appear to conflict in places. For example Note #3 specifies the structured parking is to be under the buildings, but Note #4 suggests a mix of different types of parking. The references to parking should be consistent throughout the CDP, the Statement of Justification, and the Proffers.

b. Note #6 -A drive-thru phannacy and bank are permitted uses within the PDOP Zoning

District. This note references adding these uses to the use list. Was there a list which limited uses in Land bay N3? If not, this note should be deleted since these are already permitted uses.

Applicant Response:

The notes on Sheet 1 have been revised to reflect the requirements of the Applicant. The notes now allow for structured parking as an option, not a proffered requirement. Note 6 on Sheet 1 has been deleted.

2. Sheet 2, General Notes

a. Note #2 -Please be sure the wording for the structured parking is consistent throughout the plan. •

b. Note #2- Recommend removing the note regarding the drive-thru pham1acy and bank

since these are permitted uses already. c. Note #3 - This note was revised to update the legislative applications, but still needs to

include the most recently approved ministerial applications such as site plans, etc. •

{ LO l9G883.DOC I 3 Referral Response Letter 4-26-ll 001339 000027}

A-50


Applicant Response:

a. Note 2 reflects the fact that structured parking is an option in the ji1ture, not a proffered requirement.

h. This not e has been removed regarding the drive-thru pharmacy.

c. The Applicant is unaware of any additional site plans or subdivisions in Lansdowne that have been built in the last few years other than the WRIT building (90,000 square feet) on Land Bay N3.

3. Sheet 5, CDP- The CDP legend includes shading and striping to indicate which areas ofN3 are subject to the ZCPA It seems the entire landbay should be subject to the revised ZCPA Please clarify.

Applicant Response:

As staff has requested, the Applicant has eliminated the shading on Sheet 5 of the CDP.

4. Sheet 5, CDP - The buildings contain wording referencing underground garages. This wording could be in conflict with other areas of the plan and proffers which reference structured parking. If the intent is to have flexibility with the structured parking, then labeling "underground" parking on the CDP, could limit the applicant's options. Please clarify the intent with the parking situation for the site.

App/ic:ant Response:

The Applicant has eliminated the phrase "underground parking" on Sheet 5 of the CDP because it is not a land use that needs to be identified on the CDP.

5. Sheet 5, CDP- Building 7 references "Office Building with Bank". If a drive-thru bank or pharmacy are contemplated at this location, then the wording on Building 7 should be less specific, or include possible drive-thru phannacy.

Applicant Response:

The Applicant is simply identifYing the uses that are approved as the Building 7 site plan and a bank • is approved for this site but the wording for the bank has been deleted.

6. Sheet 5, CDP - Building 7 shows a square footage of 53,500 but the approved site plan shows 48,259 sf. Building 4 shows a square footage of 87,352 but the approved zoning

I

{L0196S83 DOC I 3 Referral Response Letter 4-26-11 001339 000027] A-51


permit for this building is 89,532 sf. Please clarify all square footages or remove the specific building square footage from the CDP. Square footage revisions to sheet 5 need to be made to sheet 7 as well.

Applicant Response:

The Applicant has revised the square footages accordingly.

7. Sheet 5 and 7, CDP- The wording for Buildings 5, 6, and the atrium is confusing. What is meant by, "Future/Approved 5-Story'' vs. "Future 5-Story". Why do building 5 and the atrium have the notation (substantial conformance) and building 6 doesn't? Please clarify why these buildings have different references.

Applicant Respo11se:

The previous Zoning Administrator (Ms. Melinda Artman) allowed for "Substantial Conformity" for Buildings 4, 5, and 7 based on the original CDP approved for Lansdowne Village Greens (ZCPA 2003-0003, ZMAP 2003-0006. The only conformity questions for ZCPA review were related to the free-standing parking stmcture, the location of Building 6, the location of the atrium, and the access drive around Buildings 4 and 5 that were approved as part of the Lansdowne Village Greens approvals.

8. Sheet 5 and 7, CDP- The Buffer Yard note wording needs to be revised. A type 3 buffer is already required by ZCPA-2003-0003.

Applicant Response:

Please refer to Sheet 7 of Lansdowne Village Greens (ZCPA 2003-0003) that states, "Buffer Yard, Type3.

9. Sheet 6, Revised Lansdowne Exhibit 24- Exhibit 24 on the CDP groups Landbay Pl with Landbays P2, Q, R, S, T, V. This is incorrect according to Bill Keefe and needs to be replaced with the exhibit prepared by Bill Keefe dated June 2, 2010 which groups Landbays N3 and P1 separately.

Applicant Response:

See revised Exhibit 24, dated May 18, 2011, atlached.

10. Exhibit 24 dated June 2, 2010- Revised Exhibit 24 will need to confom1 to the format, contain all line items, and use the most recent Exhibit 24 numbers associated with prior applicable rezoning applications.

{L01 96883 DOC I 3 Referral Rcsronsc Letter 4-26-1 1 001339 000027}

A-52

Buckeye, LLLP -- Lansdowne Land Day N3 J une 9, 2011 Page 6

Applicant Response:

The Applicant has deleted Exhibit 24 on Sheet 6 to. The revised Exhibit 24 dated June 9, 2010 is proffered.

II. Sheet 8 of 16 of the previously approved ZCPA, Lansdowne Village Greens Zoning Concept Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Zoning Modification, and Special .t:xception shows the modifications that were approved for Landbay N3. If these modifications arc still needed, then they need to be incorporated into the current application.

Applicant Response:

Comment noted. These modifications have been included in the notes and proffers.

12. Sheet 14 of 16 of the previously approved ZCPA, is the pedestrian circulation plan. This sheet needs to be included in the revised ZCPA plan.

Applicant Response:

The pedestrian circulation plan as shown on ZMAP 2003-0006 has been reflected on Sheet 5 of this ZCPA application.

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT (Susan Glass, Proffer Manager, 4/8/11)

I reviewed the draft proffer statement dated February 24, 2011 for ZCPA 2008-0009, Riverside Office Park, which is located in land bay N3 of Lansdowne and the CDP dated December 2008, revised 9-7-10. My comments from a proffer management stand point are:

1. Preamble: The parcels listed in the first paragraph are not identified on the CDP; please

label the corresponding parcels. Applicant Response:

The CDP has been revised to include the six parcels identified on the Proffer Statement.

2. Preamble: The last sentence states: "These proffer conditions are the only development conditions offered in this ZCPA application and shall supersede any prior proffers applicable to the property". There are proffer obligations previously approved with ZMAP 2003-0006 that are not included in the draft proffer statement for ZCPA 2008-

( Ull %883.DOC I J RckJTal Response l,cllcr 4-26-ll 001339 000027)

A-53

Uuckeyc, LLLP - Lansdowne Land Bay N3 June 7, 20 1 1 Page 7

0009. It is suggested that the applicant include these proffers from ZMAP 2003-0006 because they are applicable to the development of this property:

• Proffer III.B.4: Multi-Purpose Trail - please provide a status for this trail, is it completed?

Applicant Response:

1'l1e proffers have been amended to reflect that the unjidjilled proffers that are specific to Land Bay N3 will be completed by the Applicant.

The trail along Riverside Parkway has been built and is now shown on the CDP.

• Proffer III.D: Multi-Modal Transportation

Applicant Response:

Bike racks have been installed and are shown on CDP.

• Proffer N.C: Pedestrian Circulation (sheet 14 of the ZMAP 2003-0006 shows a sidewalk located in Land Bay N3)

Applicant Response:

The pedestrian circulation plan from ZMAP 2003-0006 has been reflected on Sheet 5 of this ZCPA application.

• Proffer VI.B: Commercial Owners Association

Applicant Response:

This Commercial Owners Association requirement only applies to Land Bay E.

• Proffer VII: Design Guidelines (land bay N3 is subject to the Lansdowne Conservancy architectural review)

Applicant Response:

Land Bay N3 will continue to be subject to the Lansdowne Conservancy design review process.

3. Proffer LA: Please specify which sheets arc "the proffered sheets of the CDP".

I

{ L0196883.DOC /3 Referral Response Letter 4-26- 1 1 001339 000027)

[

A-54

Buckeye, L LLP- Lansdow11e Land Bay N3 Ju ne 7, 2011 Page 8

Applicant Response:

Sheets I, 2, 5 and 6 are proffered with this application.

4. Proffer LA: Please remove sheet 4 from the CDP as it depicts what was previously approved with ZMAP 2003-0006.

Applicant Response:

Sheet4 has been deleted from the Plan set.

5. Proffer I.A: Please remove the legend designations on sheet 5 of the CDP for the "AREA THAT COMPLIES WITH EXISTING APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN" and "AREA SUBJECT TO AND MODIFIED BY ZCPA 2008-0009". Just show what applies to ZCPA 2008-0009.

Applicant Response:

The shading area for Building 6 and the corresponding legend have been removed from Sheet 5.

6. Proffer LA: Please include a Pedestrian Circulation Map for land bay N3 (sheet 14 of ZMAP 2003-0006).

Applicant Response:

The pedestrian trail system that was proffered as part of ZMAP 2003-0006 has been delineated on Sheet 5.

7. Proffer I.A: Exhibit 24 contained errors previously identified in Zoning detenninations. For example, it is suggested that the unit count for Leisure World be cotrected in this version of Exhibit 24.

Applicant Response:

Exhibit 24 has been updated based on best available information. Land Bays U and V (Leisure World) have been revised in consultation with representatives of Leisure World and are reflected on revised Exhibit 24, dated June 9, 201/.

8. Proffer LA: Exhibit 24 in ZMAP 2003-0006 has land bay Pl, Hospital/Office, with an

allowable net density of 0.2-0.5 FAR. Exhibit 24 in the CDP provided with ZCPA 2008-

{ LO I W>811J.DOC / 3 Rcrcrral Response J.ctlcr 4-26-11 00 I JJ9 000027)

t:

A-55

Buckeye, LLLP -- Lansdowne Land Bay N3 June 7, 20 II Page 9

0009 has PI grouped with several other land bays, with an overall development of 0.2-0.3 FAR. It appears this change may affect !nova Hospital; therefore, they may need to be a party to this application.

Applicant Response:

!nova was determined to not be a necessary part of this ZCPA, application based upon prior comments provided by Zoning Administration staff See the previous Zoning Administration referral. There is no change in FAR or land use for Land Bay P1, only a proposal for separate Land Bay N3 from Land Bay P1 on Exhibit 2Y.

9. Proffer I.A: The draft proffer language states "a corresponding increase of "Office Area" at a maximum of 3,200,000 square feet for all commercial land bays in Lansdowne. Please quantify which land bays add up to this figure.

Applicant Response:

In order to insure that all the commercial land bays in Lansdowne are afforded the total amount of square footage in the future, 200,000 square feet is proposed to be added to Exhibit 24.

I 0. Proffer LA: The draft proffer states "The Applicant reserves the right to develop structured parking (either under the commercial buildings or as a separate parking structure) on the Subject Property...". This statement is in conflict with sheet 5 of the CDP, which states UNDERGROUND GARAGE for Building 6 and Building 5. Please either revise the proffer statement and/or CDP to sync up the proffer and CDP.

Applicant Response:

Underground parking is considered structured parking, therefore, there is no conflict between the Proffer Statement and the CDP.

11. Proffer II.A: Please repeat the language that was in proffer V.B of ZMAP 2003-0006. As currently drafted, the contribution amount is not provided, nor is the base year stipulated.

Applicant Response:

The proffer for emergency services from ZMAP 2003-0006 has been replicated in the revised Proffer Statement.

12. Proffer Il.B: Emergency Vehicle Access: Isn't this required by the FSM? Why is this being proffered? Is there something that you are doing above and beyond the

{LOI96RR3.DOC /3 Rcfcrrall{csponsc Letter 4-26-11 001339 000027} A-56

Buckeye, LLLP --Lansdowne Land Bay N3 Jun e 7, 2011

Page I0

requirements of the County's existing regulations?

Applicant Response:

This proffer for emergency vehicle access has been eliminated.

13. Proffer liLA: I suggest that the 2nd sentence of this paragraph be deleted; the proffer should not state what has already been planted . The CDP shows Type 2 required; type 3 provid ed/ex isting. lfthe landscaping has already been installed, why proffer it?

Applicant Respouse:

The landscape plan proffer has been eliminated.

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY PLANNING (Kelly S. Williams, 3/16/11)

Staff has reviewed the third submission dated Febmary 24, 2011. The issues outlined in the Commw1ity Planning second referral dated July 30, 2010 are still outstanding.

Applicant Response:

Comment noted.

COUNTY OF LOUDOUN OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (George Phillips, 4/4111)

In response to your February 24, 2011 3rd referral request for additional review and comment regarding the Applicant's Febmary 24, 2011 referral response Jetter and proffer statement, please see the OTS comments below:

1. One issue needed clarification from the 2nd OTS referral dated July 20, 2010. OTS

recommended that all necessary easements and dedications for future signalization at the Riverside Parkway/Sandridge Way intersection be in place prior to final action on this application. The Applicant responded that the easements and dedications for future signalization at Riverside Parkway and Sandridge Way are in place. OTS has confirmed that VDOT has obtained the appropriate casements and dedications to begin installation of the traffic signal (the traffic signal is currently being installed). The issue has been adequately addressed.

{ LO 196883 DOC I J Referral Response Lcllc r 4-26- 11 001 339 000027)

A-57

I3uckeyc, LLLP -- Lansdowne Land I3ay N3 J u ne7,20 11

Page 11

Applicant Response:

Comment noted.

2. No additional transportation related improvements are being requested by OTS for this application. OTS has no other comments regarding the Applicant's February 24, 2011 proffer statement.

Applicant Response:

Comment noted.

Based on the above, OTS has no objection to the approval of this application.

It is the Applicant's hope that the responses provided in this letter adequately address

Staff comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning this referral response letter.

Sincerely,

WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH & WALSH, P.C.

Land Use Planner

Cc: Mr. Edward Smariga, Buckeye, LLLP Mr. Iohn Davis Mr. Michael Romeo, AICP, WCLEW J. Randall Minchew, Esq., WCLEW

WJ K:jla

{ L0196883.DOC I 3 Referral Response Letter 4-26- 11 001 339 000027) A-58

ATTACHMENT 5 A-81

attacmet 1a a-1 - loudoun

Documents