Planning commission forwards recommendations on 258 North Washington site plan after debate over parking, design and historic context

The Falls Church Planning Commission on March 18 reviewed a site-plan application for 258 North Washington Street, where a proposal would add eight apartments to an existing historic farmhouse and build a three‑story, roughly 9,700 sq. ft. addition behind the house.

Planning staff introduced the application, saying the submission (received Feb. 23) generated technical comments on sewer and stormwater and flagged inconsistencies with the comprehensive and downtown small‑area plans. “Staff completed their first review on March 11,” Jeff Holland told the commission, noting staff corrected an earlier miscalculation: the T1 zone requires one parking space per unit and the project therefore requires nine spaces, and the affordability requirement is one ADU at 80% AMI rather than two.

Charles Warren of Taze Warren Architects, representing the applicant, presented design concepts, calling the new building “an addition to the existing house” with a modern expression that seeks to preserve the farmhouse’s porch and introduce materials such as composite panels and wood accents. He described massing strategies to make the three‑story block read more like a two‑story base with a set‑back top and estimated the new building height at roughly 38 feet.

Commissioners focused on how the new structure would relate to the historic farmhouse and the public realm. Several raised concerns about the scale and proportions, discrepancies between packet sheets and the presentation renderings, and missing details in the landscape and parking plans. “If we’re going to make real progress on affordable dwellings for families, this is an opportunity,” Commissioner Duncan said, urging that the required affordable dwelling unit be a multi‑bedroom unit rather than a one‑bedroom unit.

On parking and operations, commissioners and staff parsed the sheets and confirmed the project provides nine ordinance‑count parking spaces plus two tandem spaces that are shown as additional amenities but do not count toward the minimum. Staff and the applicant agreed to clarify the parking table and provide a dimensioned, structural‑coordinated parking plan to verify maneuverability and turning radii for delivery and trash trucks. The commission also asked the applicant to show service and delivery locations on the plans to avoid temporary stopping on adjacent streets.

Several commissioners asked the applicant to reconcile inconsistencies in how the historic house is depicted in the packet and in the presentation. Staff reiterated that the historical advisory body’s (HARB) role is advisory: HARB recommended that the house not be substantially altered, but the project is a by‑right application and design recommendations remain voluntary. Commissioners said the applicant should preserve the historic home in its pre‑construction condition and reconcile elevation and rendering discrepancies before final action by the designated agent.

The commission compiled a set of recommendations for the designated agent, including: reconciling discrepancies in plan documents and renderings; ensuring that the historic house remains untouched in practice; providing a dimensioned parking plan that clearly marks tandem spaces; confirming trash/truck access and delivery locations; asking the city arborist to verify tree survivability during and after construction; and encouraging prewiring garages for EV chargers and provision for solar infrastructure. The commission voted to approve those recommendations and forward them to the designated agent; the motion passed unanimously.

What happens next: staff and the applicant are expected to submit revised materials addressing the commission’s recommendations; the designated agent will take action under the city’s by‑right review process. The commission’s recommendations are advisory and intended to guide the designated agent’s review and any applicant revisions.

Key details from staff and applicant materials: the lot is about 9,400 square feet (≈0.216 acres); the project proposes eight new units plus the existing single‑family house, with the development requiring nine parking spaces under T1 zoning; the applicant proposes one affordable unit at 80% AMI; the new building gross area is ~9,700 sq. ft. with ~2,900 sq. ft. in the existing house.

The Planning Commission recorded the recommendations agreed on March 18 and moved to the next agenda item.