Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer previews mixed‑use concept for Fairfax Square; proposes nearly 300 apartments and 61,000 sq ft of commercial space
Summary
A Van Meter Companies concept plan would replace roughly 10 commercial buildings at Fairfax Square with a phased mixed‑use project that could deliver about 293 apartments—including a 44‑unit affordable building—and about 61,000 square feet of new commercial space, the developer and staff told Fairfax City Council Sept. 9.
A development team led by Van Meter Companies briefed Fairfax City Council on Sept. 9 about a pre‑application concept to redevelop roughly 10.4 acres on Main Street at Fairfax Square into a phased mixed‑use center with about 293 multifamily units and approximately 61,000 square feet of commercial space.
City planner Albert Frederick presented the concept, which would retain two existing buildings (a five‑story office at 9900 Main Street and a bank at 9910), demolish about 10 smaller commercial buildings and replace them with four commercial buildings along Main Street and four residential buildings behind them. The applicant proposes one building—identified as Building A—containing approximately 44 affordable dwelling units (about 15% of the project) and several buildings with underground parking. Frederick told council the project’s density would be roughly 30 dwelling units per acre and that the applicant plans phased demolition beginning on the west side of the site.
Roy Barnett, group president for Van Meter Companies, said the developer expects to finance the affordable building using Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits and Virginia Housing loan programs; that financing, Barnett said, makes it practical to concentrate affordable units in a single building while keeping design and materials consistent with market‑rate buildings. Barnett said the affordable building would be integrated with amenities (clubhouse, pool) rather than isolated.
Councilmembers asked detailed questions about unit mix, parking strategy, tenant retention and stormwater. The developer said a typical urban mix would likely be 50–60% one‑bedroom units, 30–35% two‑bedrooms and a small share of three‑bedrooms; precise unit breakdowns and floor plans were not yet finalized. Van Meter said the plan includes underground parking for the new buildings and a shared‑parking study will be provided. On stormwater, the applicant said engineering strategies are under development and staff and applicant engineers are coordinating.
Frederick noted that staff has recommended the proposal follow a formal land‑use process: the developer would need a comprehensive plan amendment (commercial corridor to mixed‑use place type), rezoning to a planned development‑mixed use district, a master development plan, a shared‑parking study and a major certificate of appropriateness for architecture and landscaping. Frederick said the City’s 2024 comprehensive plan expressly identified Fairfax Square as 1 of 2 parcels outside activity centers where a mixed‑use place type could be considered.
Council members asked about phasing to reduce tenant displacement; Barnett said the initial building (Building D, about 30,000 sq ft) is planned to provide space for tenants relocating from demolished buildings and that the developer would use short‑term leases and a leasing strategy to reduce displacement. Barnett also said the project team is exploring a pedestrian connection to the shopping center to the west but that a vehicular connection is unlikely because of grade and property constraints.
Council members voiced a mix of support and caution. Several members said they welcome more housing and appreciated the proposed 15% affordable set‑aside but said they wanted more detail on parking, stormwater, open‑space tradeoffs and a tenant retention plan. Others emphasized that the city’s activity‑center strategy remains the main venue for concentrated mixed‑use growth and urged careful review of fiscal and market impacts before any comp‑plan amendment.
Staff told council that planning commission feedback in July was generally favorable to the concept but that the commission later recommended (5–1) in March that staff not proceed with a broader rewrite of the comprehensive plan to encourage mixed use broadly outside designated activity centers. Frederick said the council’s guidance would determine whether staff pursues formal application review steps.
Next steps outlined by staff: the applicant may file a formal land‑use application (comp plan amendment, rezoning, master development plan and associated studies); staff will continue technical review and public outreach; and council would consider any comp‑plan amendment and rezoning at future public hearings.
