Peter Murphy, chair of the Fairfax County Planning Commission, recognized that pretty much everything about the hearing was weird. “This particular foray into land use in Fairfax County has been a bit screwed up,” he said during the commission’s March 22 meeting.
The case features a developer using a mathematical gimmick to try to squeeze 256 units onto just over three acres and a condo association that is an unwilling participant in the process. Throw in an accidental release of several resident’s phone numbers and strident opposition from the National Rifle Association, and one has a recipe for an odd night.
It started in 2001, when the Board of Supervisors approved the construction of the Fairfax Ridge Development. The development, now finished, is 420 mid-rise condo units on 19.8 acres in roughly a “C” shape off Waples Mill Road, just north of Route 50.
The empty portion of the “C” is developed with some office buildings and a surface parking lot.
When the initial plan was proposed, Trammel Crow Residential, the developer, planned to build more residential units on the surface parking lot.
The first “C-shaped” portion — now completed with people living in it — was built at a density of 20 units per acre. The Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan allows for up to 25 units per acre in the area. Trammel Crow intentionally built the first part at a lower density than it could have with the plan of later using that unbuilt density on the parking lot area.
The time for that has come.
Trammel Crow is proposing to put 256 units on the roughly three-acre parking lot. By itself, this would equate to more than 80 per acre, but by using the unused density from the existing condo complex in the calculations, it brings the density down to about 28 units per acre (the developer gets some additional density for including affordable housing).
TO DO THIS, the condo association has to sign on, and until last month, that hadn’t been a problem.
As people bought up the units in the existing building, the condo association had been under the control of a property management company, as is usually the case in a new development.
The developer-run association had been amenable to the new construction, and to allowing the use of their property to make the density calculations work. The condo association was a co-applicant in the overall process. The association had not been informing the residents of the plan.
But in the last month, that changed. Under state law, after 50 percent plus one of the units are sold, the association shifts from developer control to being controlled by the residents.
Fairfax Ridge just hit that threshold, and now that the residents can stand on their own, they want out.
“We ask to be removed from the application,” said Anita Stoll, president of the newly constituted homeowners association.
Stoll said that the residents had not been kept abreast of what was going on.
Trammel Crow acknowledged this and apologized. While they passed the plans along to the management company, the information did not go further.
“Unfortunately, I did not press the issue,” said Sean Caldwell, managing director of Trammel Crow Residential.
Caldwell also issued another apology. When the Planning Commission staff published the list with the night’s speakers, the phone numbers of those speakers was accidentally left on the list. Caldwell began calling the numbers, which upset those who got calls. He apologized for doing so.
Murphy also apologized for the error by the planning Commission staff, and said that commission would work to make sure it does not happen again.
Stoll, who said she got a call on her Ohio cell phone number, accepted the apology, but said that it puts the residents at a disadvantage since the developer can contact them directly.
On the topic of the development, she said the residents had known that the parking lot would be developed, but were expecting something around 80 units, about one-fourth of what is proposed. “None of us imagined that such a colossal structure would be built,” she said.
THE CONDO ASSOCIATION is named as the co-developer of the property. Its attempt to pull out is creating a confusing situation.
“This is odd that the co-applicant in a case is apparently not supporting it,” said Commissioner Jim Hart (At-large).
Hart wondered aloud what this would mean for the development proposal if the condo association pulls out, and the developer no longer has the unused density from the condo complex. “When the co-applicant renounces the application, is that fatal to the application?” he asked.
Commissioner Suzanne Harsel (Braddock) agreed. “I don’t see how we have an application,” she said. "We don’t have 24 acres, we have three acres. I think we’ve got a problem. A big, big problem.”
Tom Colucci, attorney for the developer, said that there is no problem. He said that as the units were sold, a document was included that added the right for the developer to use the property as part of the density calculations in future developments, similar to a binding covenant which runs with the property.
Essentially, the condo owners already agreed to be a part of the development, even if they did not realize it at the time.
That issue will hashed out by attorneys from the developer, residents and the county over the coming weeks
EITHER WAY, the residents oppose the development on other grounds. They cited traffic concerns that would come with so many new units. They said the traffic studies done on the structure were inadequate. The National Rifle Association agrees.
The association’s headquarters is located a stone’s throw away along Waples Mill Road. Bill Byrne, spokesperson for the NRA, said that they had been waiting for 12 years for the improvements to the intersection of Route 50 and Waples Mill Road. The improvements were just completed in the past few months.
While the situation is not perfect, it is considerably better, Byrne said. “Now, we’re back here, pleading with Fairfax County not to allow unnecessary density,” he said. “It’s going to add unbelievably to the traffic.”
He also questioned the traffic studies, which he said fly in the face of people’s experience. “On paper and in studies that you guys do, it seems logical,” he said.
Byrne said that his organization is generally supportive of rights, and would support a by-right development, but not a rezoning for higher density.
The developer is planning to limit the availability of parking to try and limit the number of cars and, by extension, encourage the use of mass transit. The residents think this logic is flawed. In their development, many residents end up having to park on crowded streets, and they fear that the new building will only compound this problem.
David Sousa, who lives in the existing development, says he takes the metro to work every day, but he still has to use his car to drive to the station.
He also said that the proposal did not offer enough visitors parking. It only envisions nine visitor spots for more than 250 units. “You don’t need to be looking for one vehicle families, you need to be looking for families that have no friends,” he said.
The area is in the Providence district, and Commissioner Ken Lawrence (Providence) said that discussions about the traffic impact analysis and the proposed density level would be necessary.
He deferred the decision on the case for a month — until April 19 — to allow time for the developer and the residents to discuss the plans. “We’ll see where that four weeks takes us,” Lawrence said.
After the Planning Commission makes its recommendation, the case will come before the Board of Supervisors for another public hearing and a final decision. A date has not been set.