Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lee Park Townhomes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves Lee Park subdivision and site plan despite stormwater concerns
Summary
The commission approved a two-application package to subdivide and build 20 townhomes at Lee Park, accepting staff and third-party review findings that redesigned bioretention will reduce peak runoff; the votes included one no on each motion. Commissioners stressed citywide stormwater capacity remains a broader issue.
The Falls Church Planning Commission approved both a subdivision and a site plan for the Lee Park townhome project, permitting the creation of 20 lots and construction of 20 townhomes after staff concluded the applications meet applicable zoning and subdivision requirements.
Staff lead Henry Zhang reviewed resubmission materials that addressed prior comments: greater architectural differentiation among the units, refined landscape and tree-canopy plans, supplemental stormwater analyses and a fire-engine turning study. Zhang told commissioners staff found the submissions satisfy Chapters 48 (site plan) and 38 (subdivision) of the Falls Church code, and recommended approval contingent on minor technical corrections to be handled administratively.
Applicant Andrew Rosenberger (Madison Homes) highlighted the stormwater approach: the design relies on on-lot bioretention planters maintained by the HOA; he said those planters "will detain 46% of the total runoff" for the site and reported peak-flow reductions for the 10-year storm of roughly 30–36% at three outfalls, a weighted overall reduction of about 31.5%.
Third-party stormwater consultants from Wetland Studies and Solutions said they had received expanded materials (increasing the stormwater set from 14 to more than 27 sheets) and that outstanding review items—impervious-area recalculations, routing calculations and hydrograph inputs—had been resubmitted but not yet fully reviewed. Consultants described the remaining items as largely technical and not expected to change the project's layout or basic conclusion that ordinance criteria are met.
Neighbors, including Broadway Condominium representatives, had pressed for clear ownership and maintenance answers for an off-site drain and for assurance the broader city stormwater network can handle diverted flows. Fred Thompson, representing Broadway Condominium, urged the city to "authoritatively resolve" whether the drain would be city-owned and maintained before development proceeds.
Commissioners debated the tension between meeting code requirements for a by-right project and the city's known systemic stormwater deficiencies. Several commissioners described the project's runoff reductions as a relative improvement versus existing conditions but noted the receiving system's limited capacity remains a citywide infrastructure issue beyond the site's approval.
The commission approved the subdivision motion and the site plan motion in separate roll-call votes; both motions passed, with one commissioner voting no on each. The approvals were contingent on the applicant resubmitting final, corrected plan sets to be reviewed administratively by the planning director and resolving minor staff comments prior to final sign-off.
