Planning commission recommends denial of Sweetspire rezoning after extensive resident opposition

The Planning Commission on May 7 recommended denial of REZ2023-00008 (Sweetspire), a request to rezone 7.1 acres in the County Center area to Planned Mixed Residential to allow 164 multifamily units. The vote followed a lengthy hearing that included an applicant presentation, a staff report identifying buffer and environmental weaknesses, and more than 40 in‑person public comments—most opposed.

Sherman Patrick, representing the applicant (KCG Development), said the site has been vacant for two decades and that market demand for office space has declined; the applicant proposed a three‑building multifamily project with one larger ‘‘activated’’ frontage building and two transitional buildings facing adjacent townhomes. He described a package of amenities, including clubrooms, a fitness center, a rooftop terrace, a 12,500‑square‑foot pocket park and a proffered 20% affordable unit commitment (targeting up to 80% AMI). The applicant also proffered a parking management plan, and proposed $2,500 per market‑rate unit (about $327,500 total) for schools.

Planning staff recommended approval in part but found multiple weaknesses: reduced HCOD/DCSM buffers along Prince William Parkway and the Cavallo Way frontage, environmental impacts with 12 specimen trees not preserved, and unresolved enforceability of a shared‑maintenance proffer tied to open space in the Town Center SUP. Staff and transportation noted that the multifamily option would produce fewer vehicle trips than the previously approved office plan but said the modified buffers would limit meaningful plantings and that utilities and stormwater facilities cross proposed buffer areas.

More than three dozen residents from the adjacent County Center community spoke at the hearing; common objections included: (1) the project would add 24/7 residential traffic to privately maintained streets and reduce available on‑street parking; (2) proposed buffer reductions would place tall multifamily buildings uncomfortably close to existing townhomes; (3) residents questioned developer outreach and said the HOA had not consented to access/declined alternatives; and (4) local schools and nearby roadway capacity are already stressed. Several speakers urged denial or deferral until the applicant negotiated binding agreements with the HOA. A small number of speakers supported the concept of infill, walkable housing.

After deliberation Commissioner Sheikh moved to recommend denial; the motion passed on roll call (Yes: Carroll, Justice, Ross, Moses Ned, Sheikh; No: Brown, Schiefler). That recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Supervisors, which will make the final decision. Staff and applicant said they are open to continued dialogue about buffers, parking management and enforceable language for shared‑space maintenance if the project proceeds to the Board.

Next steps: the transcript and staff report will accompany the case to the Board of County Supervisors; residents were advised to monitor the Board agenda and contact Supervisor Kenny Boddie’s office for updates.