Plans to redevelop the Courthouse Plaza Shopping Center near Old Town Fairfax were put on hold last week, giving city officials and the developer more time to find compromises on the overall proposal.
“Being good partners requires flexibility not just from the developer, but from the city as well,” Fairfax City Councilmember Anthony Amos said at the July 22 meeting, where council members voted 5-1 to defer final consideration until Oct. 28.
Combined Properties is seeking to construct a 315 multifamily apartment units while retaining much of the existing shopping center, which is anchored by Safeway. The 8.7-acre lot at 10300 Willard Way is bounded by University Drive to the west and Blenheim Blvd to the east.
The supermarket would remain under the most recent incarnation of the development plan, which was unveiled late last year. The western part of the center would be razed to make way for two six-story residential buildings rising 71 feet from ground level.
The proposed density of 36 residential units per acre on the parcel is higher than the 24 units allowed under existing zoning, but would be lower than some recently approved projects in the city. The height of the new construction would exceed the 48 feet allowed under the existing zoning.
City staff recommended rejecting the proposal for not meeting guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and Old Town Fairfax Transition Overlay District. While the parcel sits outside the historic overlay district, it’s in a transition area, prompting a heightened level of scrutiny by city planning officials.
A number of city residents turned up to criticize the development proposal during the July 22 public hearing.
“What you are proposing is a massive urbanization,” said Maryanna Fournier, a 47-year Fairfax resident.
Allowing the proposal to move forward would be another step that “will kill the character of our city,” she said.
Emily Bresson, who has lived nearby for 32 years, noted that previous proposals to redevelop the site were rejected for being too intense.
“I was really dismayed to find it up again for consideration. It just doesn’t belong there,” she said of the latest proposal. “We don’t need all of this.”
Bresson suggested that four-story residential buildings would be more appropriate, but pressed for a renovation of the existing shopping center and inclusion of more retail options on the site.
The proposal did draw some advocates.
Jim Gillespie, who lives nearby and also expressed support for the divisive Davis property redevelopment, said the city and region have a desperate need for housing. The city’s retailers would be among those benefitting, he contended.
“This is the kind of project that will bring new residents. It will bring new customers. It will take an eyesore in our city and turn it into something very beneficial,” Gillespie said.
“This shopping center has been deteriorating the entire time I’ve lived here, since 1995,” Gillespie said. “It’s not just going to magically turn around and become a vital place.”
Colleen Gillis, a land-use attorney representing Combined Properties, said the developer submitted a plan that met a number of Fairfax’s policy priorities.
“What we think we have to offer right now is an incredible catalyst to develop, to start to revitalize an important part of your downtown,” she said.
Combined Properties is one of the largest landowners in the city. Its other projects in the area have included the Scout on the Circle development on Fairfax Blvd and South Alex along Route 1 in Penn Daw.
“These are long-term holders, they are not folks who come in, build and blow,” Gillis told the city council.
Currently, the parcel is ringed by parking that takes up between 70% and 75% of surface area, Gillis said. The development plan calls for demolishing about 25,000 square feet of the existing shopping center, which dates to the late 1970s.
About 12,000 square feet of ground-floor retail would be incorporated into the new residential construction. Combined with the portion of the shopping center that will remain, there will be about 70,000 square feet of retail on the site, if built according to the plan.
After hearing from staff, the applicant and residents, Councilmember Billy Bates offered the proposal to defer for three months.
A delay would “allow for time to see what we can do to try and reach a compromise,” he said.
All council members accepted the deferral except Stacy Hall, who voted against it. Hall had raised the most questions about the project during a back-and-forth exchange with Gillis and city staff.
Echoing the desire to find a compromise, Mayor Catherine Read said everyone — the city government, residents and the developer — may need to give a little to get one.
“There’s always creative tension between what property owners want to do and what the city would like to see,” she said. “I don’t think there’s ever been a [development] proposal in this city that did not have opposition.”
