Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gatewood Plaza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gatewood Plaza proposal draws pushback from staff and questions from council over density, RPA and parking
Summary
A developer—or Gatewood Plaza (10201 Fairfax Boulevard) proposed a seven-story, 307-unit mixed-use project with underground parking and a fiscal analysis projecting a net $10 million fiscal benefit over 10 years; staff said the submission conflicts with current comprehensive-plan place types and flagged major exceptions for height, density and resource-protection-area (RPA) encroachment, prompting council to ask for a policy step back and more analysis.
City staff and the applicant presented competing assessments of a redevelopment proposal for Gatewood Plaza at 10201 Fairfax Boulevard. Planning staff said the application requests a zoning map amendment, comprehensive-plan amendment, a special use permit for upper-story residential mixed uses and nine special exceptions to allow an 85-foot, seven-story building with 307 dwelling units (roughly 111 dwelling units per acre), encroachments into required yards and resource-protection areas, and a parking reduction (417 proposed spaces vs. 676 required).
Planning staff advised that the proposal "does not fit squarely into any of the place types described in the comprehensive plan" and said staff cannot support the proposal as submitted. Staff recommended the applicant either revise the submission to align with current policy or that council consider a broader policy question before approving a site-specific comprehensive-plan amendment.
Applicant counsel Sarah Mariska and fiscal adviser Will Rich (Cavalry Real Estate Advisors) said the existing office building is losing tenants and presented a fiscal-impact model estimating the proposal would generate about $21.3 million in gross revenue and $11.3 million in city expenditures over 10 years for a net fiscal impact of roughly $10 million (about $1 million per year). Will Rich also said the project would add an estimated 28 students to local schools and increase tax revenue per acre relative to the current office use.
Council members asked detailed questions about height and bulk-plane impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods, the rationale for RPA encroachment and whether the parking reduction would lead to neighborhood overflow. Staff repeated that the comprehensive plan reserves mixed-use intensity for activity centers and that the commercial corridor place type generally does not support the residential intensity proposed; several council members urged the applicant and staff to take a step back and consider whether map or policy changes are appropriate before the council acts on this application.
Next steps: staff said the RPA delineation and the parking study are under review; council did not take action and directed additional analysis and neighborhood engagement before any decision.
