Falls Church planning commission forwards recommendations on Lee Park 2 site plan after stormwater, alley and screening concerns

The Falls Church Planning Commission on Jan. 7 transmitted formal recommendations to the city’s designated agent on the Lee Park 2 subdivision and site plan after a lengthy discussion about stormwater, alley access, parking and landscaping.

Staff described the application as a consolidation of three parcels into a 15‑lot subdivision totaling about 31,071 square feet in the southwest quadrant of Park Avenue and North Lee Street. The applicant, MS Lee Park 2, LLC, contract purchaser Madison Homes presented the site plan and said the proposal is a by‑right development under the T‑1 zoning standards: 15 units, a density of roughly 21 units per acre, and a 45‑foot maximum building height.

"This is a true by‑right plan," Andrew Rosenberger of Madison Homes told commissioners, noting the project includes a retaining wall (maximum about 3½–4 feet) and hydrologic modeling prepared by Kimley‑Horn to address overland relief and a 100‑year storm event. Rosenberger said the firm paid for the modeling and that it shows no adverse impacts to adjoining properties, including the Kensington and the Hilton Garden Inn garage.

Why it matters

Commissioners focused on design details that affect neighboring properties and long‑term livability. They sought assurances that stormwater runoff will be handled without increasing flood risk, pressed for clearer landscape treatments where units back up to an existing parking garage, and asked that the development provide practical access and amenities for residents who will use narrow, shared alleys.

Key facts and commission direction

- Applicant: MS Lee Park 2, LLC (contract purchaser Madison Homes). - Site: consolidation of three parcels (701, 703, 705 Park Avenue) into a 15‑lot subdivision, ~31,071 sq ft. - Zoning: T‑1; no variances or waivers requested. - Density & form: 15 single‑family townhouse units (about 21 units/acre); several units fronting Park Avenue include private elevators and two‑car garages. - Parking: applicant reports 1.4 parking spaces per unit (exceeds 1.0/unit required). - Stormwater: applicant engaged Kimley‑Horn to model the watershed and designed open space and retaining walls to preserve overland relief; retaining walls are about 3½–4 feet high. - Sustainability/readiness: units are all‑electric; buildings are "solar ready" (conduit to roofs) and garage prewired for owner‑installed EV chargers.

Commission requests captured for transmission

The commission voted to "provide the above recommendations" and to transmit language to the designated agent. Staff will finalize the exact text; the recommendations the commission requested staff to record included: denser evergreen screening behind the rear alley units (explicitly naming the alley units requested), consideration of additional programming for the small amenity / stormwater area adjacent to the Kensington (for residents rather than a public cut‑through), and installation of at least one visitor bike rack in the Park Avenue amenity zone. Commissioners also asked staff to confirm the parking and Kensington overflow arrangements and to include clearer streetscape and planting plans that reflect updated 2025 streetscape standards.

Formal action

Commissioner Duncan moved that the planning commission provide the above recommendations and transmit them to the designated agent for consideration (site plan application no. 2025‑0923). The motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote (unanimous in favor). Staff said the subdivision will return for final consideration on Feb. 4, 2026 and the site plan will receive a final action from the designated agent on Jan. 19, 2026.

Next steps and outstanding items

Staff will refine and circulate the recommended language before transmission. Commissioners asked staff to: confirm the number and status of the former on‑site parking spaces used by the Kensington (approximately 10 was cited by the applicant, on a month‑to‑month basis), provide any available fiscal or assessment figures comparing existing uses to projected tax revenue after build‑out, and coordinate any streetscape clarifications (which staff said will use the most recent 2025 streetscape standards). The commission left the record open for staff to complete the recommendation memo and to transmit it to the designated agent.

Ending

The commission’s action was procedural: it did not approve the subdivision or site plan but provided a documented set of recommendations to be considered by the designated agent and staff as the project moves forward to final action and public hearing.