Planning commission tables Home2 Suites (Candlewood) concept plan after neighbors raise buffer and lighting concerns

Developers seeking Planning Commission approval for a Home2 Suites (Candlewood) hotel concept site plan in Lexington Park met detailed scrutiny Oct. 26, 2009. Commissioners and nearby residents urged stronger buffers, lower rear lighting, and design changes before the project returns.

The discussion matters because the proposed four‑story hotel will sit near single‑family yards and the commission must balance downtown mixed‑use development with neighborhood compatibility.

David Barry, Department of Land Use and Growth Management, summarized staff’s analysis that the site is in the Lexington Park Development District, is outside the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone as mapped, and can be served by public water and sewer. Barry said staff identified no regulatory issues that would prevent a favorable concept determination but noted that findings for adequate public facilities would be administrative prerequisites to final site‑plan approval.

Commissioner Shelby Guazzo told the applicant she had “felt sorry for the people at the bottom of the hill in their little single family houses,” and pressed for a thicker buffer, a six‑foot fence, and limits on rear lighting. Guazzo warned that lights mounted high on the building could shine downhill into neighboring yards and bedrooms. “The buffer yard has got to be more densely planted in canopy trees for me. It has got to have a fence, a 6 foot fence, and the lighting in the back of this building must be on the property line facing the building no higher than 15 feet,” she said.

Brian Norris, chief operating officer for Cherry Cove Land Development (the applicant), said the team expected to plant an “intensely planted” buffer and that the firm is pursuing LEED certification for the building, which makes lower‑use lighting and other energy features likely. Norris also said part of the site is being reserved for future FDR Boulevard right‑of‑way and that existing trees likely cannot be relied on as a permanent buffer because of root damage.

Commissioners and staff also discussed off‑site employee parking across the proposed FDR Boulevard and pedestrian safety for employees walking to the site. Norris said the off‑site parking was “predominantly employee parking.” Staff and commissioners flagged that the proposed driveway currently intrudes into the required buffer yard and told the applicant that the driveway must be redesigned so it does not disturb the buffer.

Barry noted the plan meets the minimum code requirements but said the commission could use its discretion to request design improvements. Commissioners asked the applicant to consider moving the building forward about 10 feet to increase rear buffering, or to provide other design changes to reduce the building’s perceived “looming” over rear yards. The commission ultimately voted to table the concept to allow the applicant to return with revisions addressing the buffer, lighting and parking/driveway issues.

Motion and vote: The Planning Commission voted to table the proposal pending applicant revisions. The motion passed (6 in favor, 1 abstention). Commissioners indicated staff should ensure the driveway is removed from the buffer area, and suggested the applicant examine building placement, increased planting, lower‑mounted rear lighting, and other residential‑style design features before resubmission.