Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors back underground retention tank in Lee Park 2 work session; HOA maintenance and independent review requested
Summary
At a June 17 work session the commission heard that Madison Homes’ Lee Park 2 submission adds a large underground retention tank and a new storm‑drain easement; neighbors and commissioners pressed for HOA maintenance commitments and asked whether the developer’s Kimley Horn modeling should be independently reviewed by city‑hired experts.
During a work session on June 17, Falls Church City staff and the applicant described design changes for the Lee Park 2 subdivision that add a new storm‑drain easement and a large underground retention tank intended to reduce frequent on‑site flooding.
Fred Thompson, who identified himself as chair of a Broadway community task force representing more than 80 condos and 100 residents, said he supported the developer’s retention‑tank approach and urged the city to require HOA language that ensures long‑term professional maintenance. Thompson also asked that the city consider an independent review of Kimley Horn’s stormwater model because Kimley Horn has worked for both the city and the developer.
Applicant representative Andrew Rosenberger (Madison Homes) described the easement and said the area will be enclosed and gated for maintenance; he confirmed the HOA will own and maintain the bio‑retention boxes and the L‑shaped storm facility rather than individual homeowners or the city. Staff (Henry Zang) explained the easement path and noted the tank size is intended to meet pre‑/post‑development runoff criteria. Staff also said the submission 2.0 adds an easement delineation and several DRC comments remain; the application will return July 1 for a public hearing.
Commissioners asked whether a third‑party hydrogeologic or hydraulic review is necessary. The applicant said the modeling leveraged a sophisticated Kimley Horn model used for the broader co‑branch area and that city staff have access; the applicant said a third‑party review could be pursued at the city’s prerogative.
Commissioners also noted landscaping constraints above underground detention (root systems can damage facilities) and staff explained the plan reduces large tree planting over the tank and uses understory shrubs and smaller trees instead.
What happens next: staff and the applicant will address outstanding DRC comments; the commission expects the application to return July 1 for a public hearing. Any final maintenance and easement language would be resolved in site‑plan conditions and HOA documents before recordation or occupancy.
Direct quotes in this article are attributed to speakers who identified themselves on the record.
