A proposal to replace two single-family homes in Falls Church with 12 townhouses is facing pushback from local officials and planning staff.
Developer Madison Homes is seeking to rezone a 0.5-acre site on the 100 block of S. Lee Street to allow for the project, which would involve demolishing one home built in the 1920s and another built in the 1970s.
At a Monday work session, several Falls Church City Council members and staff members raised concerns about the impact the project would have on neighboring single-family homes. Some neighbors have expressed similar worries.
Council member David Snyder argued that “there are fundamental flaws” both with the proposal itself and the precedent it would set.
“I’m skeptical of moving forward — I don’t think we ought to,” he said.
The site is surrounded by single-family homes except to the northeast, where it abuts a mid-rise office building and associated surface parking connected to Broad Street.
Some others on the Council appeared more open to letting the public-review process move forward and seeing if the development team can successfully address issues.
“I don’t necessarily see the concerns being incompatible with the project,” Council member Justine Underhill said. “I’m optimistic there are ways to address concerns while still moving forward.”
To make the project work, the developer would need to combine the two parcels and get them rezoned from R-1A (less intense residential) to T-1 (Transitional). This is a recently enacted zoning category designed to provide a buffer between residential neighborhoods and the increasingly intense development occurring on the city’s main corridors.
Mayor Letty Hardi said T-1 zoning might be appropriate in this instance, and that townhouses “probably would be a good use there.” But like others, she voiced some misgivings.
Council member Marybeth Connelly said her initial view had been that the proposal for more townhouses made some sense, as it would provide a buffer.
“If this goes in, then it would actually protect the residential neighborhood from any other kind of mixed-use development that could potentially go on Broad Street. It would provide that transition,” she said.
But like others, Connelly said that red flags from planning staff and residents need to receive attention.
Falls Church currently is home to about 2,000 single-family properties and an equal number of apartment/condominium units — but, as in Arlington, townhouses are relatively rare.
Townhouse opportunities would benefit the community, said land-use attorney Andrew Painter.
“Options between single-family homes and high-rise apartments are very scarce in the city,” said Painter, who represented the developer.
More townhouses would give city residents who want to stay in Falls Church the ability to “either move up from an apartment-retail situation or move down from a single-family home,” he said.
That view, at least in concept, resonated with most Council members.
“I’m supportive of townhouses in the city and increased home-ownership opportunities,” Council member Erin Flynn said.
Still, Flynn said that townhouses, set to rise 45 feet, might be “quite jarring” to those living around them.
Representing city staff, Henry Zhang laid out concerns on a variety of topics, from the overall size of the units to their impact on stormwater and schools.
Zhang, the city’s interim deputy director of planning, noted his department’s staff had concluded that the project would have a negative impact on single-family homes around it, and “this negative impact is not offset by a compelling need.”
Another concern raised by staff: While the developer has proposed having one of the 12 units be reserved as affordable housing, city guidelines view two as the appropriate number.
In addition to concerns about the specific project, Snyder voiced concerns about what a rezoning would mean for other residential areas of the city.
“There’s no question: If we grant this project, it will be used as a precedent … to break through single-family zoning and thereby degrade our neighborhoods,” he said.
The proposal now moves to the Planning Commission for informal consideration in mid-June. The timetable for getting it back in front of the Council is undetermined, but “we will have numerous meetings” in coming months, Zhang said.
