Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines 158‑unit Samuel Morris Drive residential plan; Reston Association to weigh comment letter
Summary
PY Home Company and counsel presented a proposal to redevelop three parcels on Samuel Morris Drive into 158 residential units with consolidated parkland and road improvements; board members pressed developers on parking, tree waivers and stormwater, and asked staff to prepare a comment letter for an upcoming county hearing.
Developer representatives and counsel presented an updated Samuel Morris Drive development plan to the Reston Association board on Feb. 26, describing a multi‑parcel housing project aimed at replacing older office uses with new multifamily and stacked townhouses.
Brian Winterhalter of LA Piper, working with the applicant and PY Home Company, said the current proposal covers a roughly five‑acre assemblage of three parcels along Reston Station Boulevard and Sunset Hills Road and would include about 158 dwelling units: 112 in three multifamily buildings and 46 stacked townhouses. The team said the plan provides roughly 1.44 acres of publicly accessible urban parkland and a floor‑area ratio (FAR) near 1.2–1.4 once workforce housing bonus units are counted. Winterhalter said the proposed residential option generates fewer AM/PM peak vehicle trips than the office designation in the current comprehensive plan.
Board members pressed for specific details. Director Mullen asked whether new units would join Reston Association; the developer said the owner of LOFTS One previously joined the association and the intent is to put similar membership arrangements in place for the new project. Director Perry and others questioned parking and access: the developer said the proposal would meet Fairfax County's 194‑space requirement and would provide about 246 spaces overall, including some visitor and tandem spaces and publicly accessible on‑street parking.
Directors also raised stormwater, tree preservation and the project's relationship to an adjacent Meridian land bay that earlier had been part of the team's concept but is no longer included. Several directors urged the applicant to hold a dedicated community meeting with nearby Loft One residents and other neighbors; staff said county hearings are tentatively scheduled for April–June and that comments before the Planning Commission hearing are most influential.
A motion by a director to have the RA board affirm the comprehensive plan task force recommendation did not receive a second and therefore did not move forward. Several directors asked staff to draft a comment letter for the board to consider at its March meeting so RA can submit comments to the county before the Planning Commission hearing.
What happens next: staff will collect director feedback and proposed edits, and the board expects to consider a draft comment letter at its March meeting; the county's Planning Commission hearing on the SSPA is scheduled in April with rezoning hearings later if the county process proceeds.
