15 development proposals submitted for Mason District
Developers and property owners have submitted 53 nominations to the 2025 Countywide Site-Specific Plan Amendment process.
Fifteen of the proposed developments are in Mason District, including a major project on the long-vacant Sears property in Seven Corners.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to accept or reject the nominated projects at its March 4 meeting.
The nominations that are accepted will be reviewed by planning staff. Community meetings will be held in March and April.
After that, the Planning Commission will hold public workshops on the nominations in April and May to determine which ones should be added to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program. The Board of Supervisors is expected to adopt a new Work Program in June.
Nominations that are added to the Work Program will proceed to the evaluation phase for formal review as Plan Amendments. Development proposals still in play at this point will go through a community engagement process and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The following site-specific amendments are proposed for Mason District:
- 6211 Leesburg Pike, Seven Corners – Juniper Lane Associates proposes a development on the Sears site with a combination of townhomes and multifamily housing with up to 600 dwelling units.
- 6166 Leesburg Pike, Seven Corners – The owner of the 310-unit Jefferson Apartments wants to add another 101 units as single-family attached, stacked townhouses, and/or triplex units to the property. Eagle Rock Properties acquired the complex in December.
- 7616 Little River Turnpike and 4112, 4114, and 4116 Woodland Road, Annandale – The property owner, Nicholas Development, is proposing to convert one of the two office buildings on the site to residential use, construct a new residential building, and two new commercial buildings. This is a revised version of a proposal first submitted in 2020.
- 4111 Hummer Road and 4125 Horseshoe Drive, Annandale – Nicholas would replace two single-family homes with 19 townhomes.
- 4104 Woodland Road, Annandale – Nicholas is proposing to develop 11 townhomes on a vacant 1-acre lot.
- 6326 Edsall Road, Bren Mar Park – A proposed plan amendment calls for rezoning a 3.5-acre parcel from R-2 to R-12 to permit a townhouse development with up to 12 units per acre.
- 5300 Shawnee Road, Lincolnia – An office building would be converted to multifamily housing with 50 units.
- 5505 and 5515 Cherokee Ave., Lincolnia – The owner of two parcels totaling 1.6 acres wants to convert office buildings to a Sheetz fueling station and convenience store.
- 4600 and 4604 Randolph Drive, 6675 Little River Turnpike, and 4605 Columbia Road, Annandale – A five-story, 186-unit multifamily building with retail space would replace Pro Computers and the Miracle Garden Center.
- 5100 Lincoln Ave., Lincolnia – A nomination calls for 131 units of affordable housing.
- 6800 and 6850 Versar Court, Springfield – The property owner proposes an electric vehicle retail and service center on the site of two obsolete office buildings next to I-395.
- 6261, 6227, and 6229 Little River Turnpike, Lincolnia – A mixed-use development with five to 10 stories is proposed for the shopping center across from Landmark Plaza.
- 7304 Braddock Road, Annandale – This proposal would replace nine single-family homes with large lots with a denser single-family development with three homes per acre.
- 6541 Little River Turnpike, Lincolnia – A multifamily residential building up to six stories and an urban park is proposed for a site across from Pinecrest Plaza.
- 5521 Leesburg Pike, Bailey’s Crossroads – A plan amendment for a mixed-use 14-story building on the Food Star site with up to 1,390 dwelling units and community-serving retail has already been approved. A nomination for additional residential uses up to 20 stories has been deemed ineligible to proceed by planning staff.
35 responses to “15 development proposals submitted for Mason District”
Leave a reply
When and where can we build more schools?
I see you comment on these articles often about building new schools. You must be quite passionate about it. I encourage you to talk with the Mason District supervisor about your passion so he can know how important it is to his constituents. We can build new schools AND build new houses. As a matter of fact, we often have more money to build new schools with higher density housing because we gain more tax revenue from density than single family lots.
No we will have more cars and a big traffic.
Love the juniper plan. For all the whiners and nimbys, what would YOU put there?
Roads and schools are crowded; deal with it. I’d rather have the current plan for the sears building than more low income housing which is, if we are honest, what wrecked the shopping center and this area decades ago.
I hope this pushes out the existing low income housing (aka crime, if you follow the police excel data).
The seven corners submission is, as far as I can tell from the available documents, not accurate on this site. The original plan had called for ground floor retail. The proposed plan strikes any mention of mixed use and any retail uses and wants the site deemed completely residential at a much higher density than what the current plan would allow.
The 7 Corners area wrecked itself by failing to adapt to changing market desires, namely the desire for walkability. Compare it with the areas that are thriving and the low income housing excuse crumbles.
You’re saying Seven Corners isn’t walkable? Are you kidding? 90% of the people that loaf all over the place walk from the proximate low income housing that literally surrounds the center. There are pedestrian sky bridges across highway 50. The highway 7 low income housing is a 3 minute walk.
Overall, I like these proposals. The protracted redtape process that developers have to go through to get anything approved in Fairfax County is a reason lucrative developments are bypassing the county to greener pastures. Affordable housing and tax revenue require more streamlined approval processes that do not unjustly empower whiney NIMBYs who irrationally want Mason District to remain stuck in the archaic 1970s. Some of these projects can upgrade and update the district’s aesthetic and vibe as well as provide needed additional housing stock and revenue.
Really hope we can get a at large supervisor in 2027 who actually pushes for zoning reform like Arlington and Alexandria where we approve missing middle by right.
How are these lots able to be rezoned when neighbors wanted to re-zone their property to accommodate their aging parents and put two homes on their one acre lot. It seems developers have someone in politics in the back pocket. Woodland Road CANNOT accommodate more cars and traffic. Why aren’t there studies about all the accidents that happen at Woodland Raod and Little River Turnpike.
I also like the Juniper plan; along with it, we MUST figure out a solution for more schools. We can do both. Let’s address how we can elevate overcrowding, which is just the reality of living in a densely populated urban area with all of the perks that come along with it. And please – let me preempt predictable comments about “illegals” – it’s too easy.
I hope there will be environmental components in all these developments. Green spaces, gray water reuse, solar panels, low-flow water in sinks, toilets and showers, easy recycling, etc. How will these new developments affect water, sewer and electric supply? How will it impact schools?
I’m sure the developers want to scrimp on parking creating problems for new and existing residents based on wishful thinking about people’s transportation habits. We could create a high rise paid parking garage with a circulator bus.
With luck it will increase our tax base to fund additional services needed including police, fire and rescue.
With all these federal employees being fired or transferred and ICE arresting people here illegally, who is going to buy or rent all these proposed apartments, etc?
Wow, glad you included the concept plan image from 6675 Little River Turnpike. What a monstrosity!
The nomination for this parcel is outrageous. Two years ago, this same nominator tried to get a plan amendment so that they could go to 1.69 FAR with 105 residential units and 18,000 square feet of retail. That nomination was rejected for being way way way too dense for the surrounding neighborhood and substantially increasing traffic and parking issues in the area. There was also environmental impact issues that were unaddressed at the time. The nominator tried to come in with lower proposed numbers at the last minute, but it was too late.
There was a community meeting with Supervisor Jimenez where the issues were raised by the community and the nominator was present. All the community issues were ignored.
Now, they have submitted a new nomination which is nearly DOUBLE the original request. Now, they want to go to 2.75 FAR with 186 residential units and 16,714 square feet of retail and put a 5-storey building on the parcel. 105 units was too much density, 186 is not even worthy of consideration.
This nomination should be rejected at the Board meeting on March 4th without further discussion. This is a developer thumbing their nose at the public and engaging in a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
Put a stop to this nonsense and reject this nomination.
I live nearby. I would cautiously support this development. I am concerned about the traffic on Columbia and Old Columbia.
I’m seeing a unsettling trend of developers purchasing existing retail spots, and replacing them with apartment building housing, and stripping away the retail component. With the county only allowing this type of development, rather than allowing new developments to spring up, we are going to be left with no retail in our immediate vicinity. The East Gate shopping center comes to mind – a thriving retail center that will soon be torn down and replaced with an apartment building.
Traffic on Columbia and Old Columbia will see an increase, and an increase right at the intersection with Little River Turnpike. Traffic on Randolph Drive will increase, too.
The conceptual plan, and apparently VDOT, have no entrance/exits directly onto Little River Turnpike from the property. All traffic will be pushed to Columbia, Old Columbia, and Randolph.
I’d certainly oppose not having an entrance onto Little River. That would be disastrous.
Old Columbia, and Columbia, are narrow, sidewalk-less roads that cannot withstand heavy traffic and also accommodate residents that walk outside their homes. The county has repeatedly said that it is not possible to install sidewalks.
I will be looking at this plan closer.
totally agree re the 6675 Little River Turnpike. This type of development does not belong here and was addressed a couple years ago.
Jam in as much as possible huh? Enough already!
6261, 6227, and 6229 Little River Turnpike, Lincolnia – A mixed-use development with five to 10 stories is proposed for the shopping center across from Landmark Plaza. This means from Grand Mart to the Motel will be demolished. This intersection is already a complete catastrophe and i simply don’t know how it can handle more vehicles. And with all the other developments mentioned above occurring on LRT it will be catastrophic
We need both of these developments to add actual density and a sense of place in the area not just a parking monstrosity that currently exists, I live near both and I am highly optimistic for these two plans to go ahead
Exactly! I can’t imagine any sane person thinking the ugly 1960s-looking shopping center and heinous asphalt parking lot there now i preferable to a modern mixed use development .
What an idiotic statement! Little River Turnpike and Beauregard St. needs all the modernization it can get. With all the construction (Hospital) going on at Landmark Mall, the Mason District needs a real shot in the arm. Landmark Plaza needs to be renovated or torn down. I’m so tired of small minded people who don’t want change in the poorest district in Fairfax County. Penelope Gross left this place a mess; now is the time to fix it.
I fully support 6675 Little River Turnpike. I live directly across from the street and look forward to that blighted block being developed with modern, dynamic development.
I agree that the site needs improvement, but I disagree with putting this scale of building/development in that location. Let the parcel owner develop it on a more reasonable scale, more befitting the neighborhood, under the current comprehensive plan.
The parcel owner apparently paid too much for it several years ago and now needs to increase the development in order to recoup the money they paid. This should not be at the detriment of everyone else.
You hit the nail on the head, “parcel owner apparently paid too much for it several years ago and now needs to increase the development in order to recoup the money they paid”, remove the word ‘apparently’ he did, I think it was about 11M. If someone knows the amount, please add.
you mean like another fairmont gardens??
Being that we have a $300 million deficit in the county, what costs ,if any, will the county incur? Just a general question.
Good to see so much new housing proposed to meet the existing high demand. We are an urban area and should start to act like one, with higher density and retail & services walkable from residences. Of course Mason District has very skimpy mass transit and bike lanes, so most new residents are likely to be car-dependent, just like the old-timers. Traffic caused by forced car-dependency is a primary factor in our quality of life here.
Applaud!
I would much rather see smart mixed-use development here, than more sprawl heading further west, in Loudon and Fauquier counties. We are an urban area. Services will need to be addressed, we will need to look at more schools particularly, but this can all be managed.
The 7616 Little River Tpke plan should be rejected as proposed. While replacing one commercial building with residential might be ok snd added development should be rejected. There is no way this area can handle more traffic snd the Hummer/LRT intersection is already scary. A similar proposal was made a couple of years ago and rejected
What has happened to Mason District; to let the area become as ‘low income’ as it is. Like a few other readers; ‘Oldies’ — Seven Corners WAS CLASS in the beginning — And Look What It Has Become — Very SAD. I was told by the two Developers from NY that bought the ‘Skyline Buildings’ and ‘Nasiff’ on Columbia Pike — ‘Mason Does Not Want YOU To Grow’. I said why not make Seven Corners like Mosaic and that is what ‘they’ said. Even Skyline, Bailey’s, Culmore all going down hill. Another issue:
ALL Of YOU That Shop On Line Need To Give It Up And Start Shopping In The Stores!! Businesses Of ALL Kinds Are Going OUT Of Business. You All Are Sitting On Your Fannies Shopping And Getting Less Healthy. Wouldn’t It Be Nice To Touch And Feel That New Garment Before You Buy It; Rather Than Looking At It On Line, Have It Arrive Home, See It, Try It On And Ugly; NOT For Me. Doesn’t Look As Good On Me As The Model On Line. I Know Small Shops That Are OUT Of Business; Leases Are Too High. Wouldn’t It Be Nice To Look Like A Well Dressed Man, In A Pair Of Dress Slacks Rather Than Sweat Pants. Likewise, For Women, Come On Men, Isn’t It Nice To See Your Woman In A Dress, Slinking Around; Rather Than Some Baggy Pants. WE need some individually owned businesses; small shops that are unique; rather than dozens of the same items on a rack.
Uhhh… yeah.
In 2015, after three years of work by two community workgroups, the county adopted the current plan for the Sears site, which includes Sears and the two adjacent office buildings. The proposal by developer Foulger Pratt for just a portion of the site represents a huge increase in development potential. The 2015 work included multiple opportunities for community and developer involvement, a review of alternative development scenarios, and an open forum where community members voted on their preferred scenario. The community’s work should be the starting point for any further discussion.