Planning Commission advances multifamily proposal in Willow Run neighborhood
The Fairfax County Planning Commission voted June 4 to recommend that a nomination for a multifamily housing project next to the Willow Run neighborhood in Annandale be added to the Comprehensive Plan Work Program.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt a work program on June 10.
The proposed project has generated a huge number of objections from nearby residents, who say it is way to dense for the property, which borders a neighborhood with single-family homes and narrow roads.
The property owner, George Hong, submitted a Site-Specific Plan Amendment for a five-story apartment building with 186 units on the site of Pro Computers and a garden center at 6675 Little River Turnpike.
Related story: Viewpoint: The Willow Run project should not go forward
At the June 4 meeting, commissioner Alis Wang (Mason) put forth an amendment, which was adopted, recommending the Willow Run nomination advance as a Tier 3 project and to reduce the number of units.
“The density proposed by this nomination is more intense than is appropriate for this site. However, it offers an opportunity to consider the site’s long-term future,” Wang said.
Wang’s motion calls for the project to be considered for multifamily housing with a range of 75 to 125 units with neighborhood-serving retail or townhomes.
Wang said, “The proposed density and development concept should be further refined through nominator engagement with the community.”
The motion recommends the evaluation of the nomination to include: (1) analysis of the feasibility of adding a stringent stormwater management control system; (2) analysis of the impact on traffic on neighboring streets, pedestrian safety, and parking; (3) full compliance with open space and parks requirements; and (4) appropriate buffering and transitional screening.
In 2023, the Planning Commission rejected Hong’s nomination for a multifamily building on this site with 109 units.
“Some might argue that the nomination for this site was rejected a few years ago, so why is the Planning Commission even revisiting this?” Wang said. “The composition of the Planning Commission is very different from a few years ago, with many new members, myself included, coming on board since then.”
“We also have very different economic conditions,” she said. “So it makes sense for the current commission to take a fresh look at this rather than just doing what the previous commission did.”
Related story: Planning Commission agrees to consider plan amendment nominations
The Planning Commission designates SSPA nominations as Tier 1, 2, or 3.
Classifying this nomination as Tier 3 means it has lots of issues, Wang said. “The developer will have to put in the work and show that they’re serious about doing something realistic on the site before they proceed further.”
“If we just flat out reject the nomination, the site will continue to sit in an underutilized state when anyone can see it has potential for redevelopment,” she said.
Wang’s nomination was passed 8-4.
Alyssa Batchelor-Causey (Dranesville), who opposed the motion, said, “It’s important for the Planning Commission to remain consistent.”
The density range considered now is above what was rejected in 2023, she said. “It’s time for the nominator to go back to the drawing board on this one and come back with a nomination that makes a little bit more sense for the location, reach out to the community, and come back in the next SSPA process.”
John Carter (Hunter Mill), who voted against the motion, said, “We have to be careful about making changes in something that has already been decided. That does not build trust in county government.”
James Thomas (Springfield) and Chris Landgraf (Franconia) also voted against the motion.
Commission Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner (at-large) voted in favor of Wang’s motion, acknowledging that the nominator “needs to reach out to the community in a meaningful way.”
One of the complaints by Willow Run residents is that the nominator didn’t attend community meetings on the proposal or respond to residents’ concerns.
Following the vote to modify the nomination, the commission voted 8-4 to recommend that it be added to the work program.
The Willow Run nomination was one of five nominations countywide that were considered separately. The other nominations were recommended for approval in an omnibus motion.
One other nomination in Mason District was singled out for separate discussion – a proposal for additional affordable housing at Strawbridge Square in Lincolnia.
Batchelor-Causey requested that the project be removed from the omnibus motion because of concerns about displacing residents from what is already an affordable community.
The nominator proposed bulldozing some of that housing and replacing it “without a plan for potential displacement and without consulting the residents that live there,” she said. “That is deeply concerning to me.”
The Planning Commission rejected that motion and then approved a motion to add the Strawbridge Square proposal to the work program as a Tier 3 project.
5 responses to “Planning Commission advances multifamily proposal in Willow Run neighborhood”
Leave a reply
The Willow Run and adjacent neighborhoods, along with the Planning Staff rejected this nomination and the smaller 2023 previous one, on concerns of incompatible density, traffic, pedestrian safety, storm water management, to name a few.
Instead of rejecting the nomination altogether as they have in the past, they allowed it to live another day to negotiate under Tier 3, for the largest number of units that the developer may get away with, at the expense of the neighbors.
Commissioner Wang cited in her remarks that “Some might argue that the nomination for this site was rejected a few years ago, so why is the Planning Commission even revisiting this?. The composition of the Planning Commission is very different from a few years ago, with many new members, myself included, coming on board since then.”
That is very disturbing, as the negative realities for this suite haven’t changed, thus, does a change of personnel changes reality?
Commissioners might have changed, but the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policies have not. Commissioners are to advise on proper land use according to established plans and policies. The outcome should be the same. This nomination should not have been accepted or even entertained in any capacity. Why is this level of density so critical at this location that we would step away from policy?
The Commissioners communicated an air of arrogance toward the represented communities at the meeting. In some cases they appeared to be saying, we listened to you……BUT……..we’re smarter. We have better vision. We don’t care what the Board decided 2 years ago, we’re in charge now. It was obvious this proceeding was not the result of community outreach. I pity the staff, as they are the ones who will have to work long and hard to meet the demands placed on them by good intentioned Commissioners.
This is very bad for current homeowners and residents. Our schools are already overfilled and crime is up, why bring in more people if our property taxes are already not meeting the needs of the ones who are here? What is the purpose of adding apartments or townhomes to an established single family neighborhood? How does this serve the established community? Who in their right mind would agree to this when our homes are worth <$1 million? We paid to live in a quiet single family neighborhood and asked that it remain so. Find another location! The neighborhood has repeatedly rejected this proposal. Why would we pay our insane property taxes to not be respected? This proposal is entirely at the expense of the neighborhood and its residents.
After the unpopular food tax (repeatedly opposed by the community) and now the 6675 Little River proposal, it’s obvious the Board of Supervisors is pushing its own agenda over the interests of residents.
The unusual move to attach a “suggested range” of density says it all: they want higher density here, regardless of what the community wants, or the safety concerns it raises for nearby neighborhoods.
In 2023, the nominator tried to scale back their rejected ~100-unit proposal to ~50 units at the last minute. It was too late, and the commission rejected it. Now, instead of resubmitting the 50-unit version, they’ve come back with something even more extreme: ~180 units. It’s a textbook bracketing move, and it’s disheartening to see it working.
Think about the precedent this sets: get denied, wait two years, come back with an even worse plan, and walk away with more than you originally asked for. The Board seems terrified of underused land, and developers are clearly taking advantage, at the community’s expense.
They’re not just ignoring their constituents — they’re actively encouraging bad-faith behavior by future nominators.