Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quantum Park Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission briefed on Quantum Park zoning amendment proposing data center expansion over retention basins
Summary
Staff briefed the commission on a Quantum Park zoning concept amendment that would add about 500,000 square feet of data center and office use by building over existing retention basins and by revising some height and setback rules.
The commission received a staff briefing on an application that would amend the Quantum Park zoning concept to allow additional data center and office uses on an existing campus that was originally approved for up to about 3.3 million square feet.
Staff said the amendment would add about 500,000 square feet of data center and office space by building over existing retention ponds (one decorative pond and one to be relocated underground), and that the project would remain below the original campus approval cap of 3.3 million square feet. The filing requests changes to the campus program and to building height allowances in certain frontage areas; staff explained that in one portion the applicant seeks the ability to reach 100 feet in height closer to the road without the stepback that is otherwise required under the district's stepback rules. The applicant is also proposing a substation on Loudoun County Parkway similar to an existing substation elsewhere on the campus; staff said the project team would provide additional architectural and screening details for the substation and noted ongoing coordination about Lockridge Road improvements and adjacent construction status.
Commissioners asked about visual impacts, grading and retaining walls for buildings located on sloped parcels, construction status of adjacent projects and whether the removal or relocation of the retention ponds would alter open-space calculations tied to the original rezoning. Staff committed to obtain updated construction-status information for adjacent projects and to provide a clear account of how the original open-space commitments are affected by this amendment. Commissioners also questioned whether a substation on a prominent road frontage would be consistent with prior practice; staff said they typically recommend against visible substations on major frontages, but that applicants can propose heavy screening and masonry walls and that each case is evaluated based on site layout and screening.
No action was taken at the briefing; staff said the application would return for a public hearing and that the commission will receive more detailed visual exhibits, stormwater and architectural materials to support further review.
