[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6279526,"mediaKeyId","2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6","parentId",2622529,"title","Developer scales down Econized Closets site plan; planning commission holds second work session","audioSeconds",1920,"startMs",7940000,"endMs",9860000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6&start=7940&end=9860","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6/thumbnail_7940000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6279526/Falls-Church-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Developer-scales-down-Econized-Closets-site-plan-planning-commission-holds-second-work-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279526-29f7fc1e1bda5cb8dd964ae484450ebf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771209963&Signature=kb27f2wlS-app5rvtex3iijc5Q~b8HKqaO4W2ldXjm6DbR5dWFOZHh5J0BWbnAshwczfLIAFs2R-236V0QgUdaH7~UsRkSYK9IXVAlnrz8u1K8IQupFlLQZlEY1bRXP42UtD4JqRTwO8fZTM3H5wPGz-0uqBiYV~Na5NrUI6mh5VgzI6HZXCkD7Z07EmqFlX5~~0phgPfKrJrKRfzxjHRqLumDnhulRJ1nYyTKba5wqJ-TpeVkhwFB7Bu4jsks3Dfc12PgyVfydLZHM2EUDKktan86U9TvLXU3yivpmPV5jFXI3EbZc-qYzXu8ZAj0tfJBAYQy8mhkOx772cmWzVpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Falls Church, VA","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","At a March 5 work session the Falls Church City Planning Commission reviewed a revised site plan for a proposed Econized Closets showroom, offices and small coworking space on a narrow corner parcel at West Broad and Spring Streets.

Applicant team members said they reduced the building program substantially from an earlier proposal — the most recent submission shows a three‑story commercial building (basement plus two above‑grade levels) totaling roughly 11,740 square feet — and added landscaping, buffering and a transportation‑demand management (TDM) narrative intended to reduce peak parking demand. The owner said the basement will be used for small private offices or remote‑work space while the main floor will serve as the company showroom and the mezzanine and rooftop serve staff and limited gathering functions.

Staff described five waiver requests included in the revision: a reduced interior parking‑lot landscaping percentage (below the 5% standard), a waiver relating to the rear‑yard setback where the site adjoins a residential parcel (as it affects the trash enclosure), a requested 30% reduction in required parking (the application documents show 26 spaces required versus 18 provided on site), reduced parking‑island dimensions, and a waiver to allow a vehicular entrance within 100 feet of the art district standard.

Architectural materials in the updated submission show the building massing and elevations the applicant plans to construct: a white masonry façade with black metal canopies, a modest rooftop deck (approximately 700–900 square feet in the drawings provided), and two bicycle racks near the Broad Street frontage. The applicant said the rooftop will use a low‑profile tray system (porcelain pavers and thin plant trays) and that the rooftop planting is not intended to be an intensive green roof that would be credited for stormwater calculations.

The applicant’s presentation pointed to constraints that drive the waiver requests: the corner lot is narrow, and providing full code‑compliant parking and interior landscaping would materially reduce the buildable footprint and the feasibility of the project. The owner and architect said they reduced the building from an earlier, larger design to address previous comments, eliminated a previously proposed medical use for the basement, and provided a TDM narrative and no‑parking signs in the trash‑pickup area to address collection truck access.

Staff review comments provided to the applicant in late February focus on clarifying parking calculations and the requested reduction, final details of the TDM measures, the trash‑truck turning path and no‑parking enforcement for collection times, and a suite of stormwater pre‑ and post‑development calculations the city requires for approval. Staff told the commission they consider the current submission generally responsive but noted several technical items remain outstanding and said that the next submission should include the TDM plan, stormwater details, and final site plan clarifications.

Commissioners generally praised the revised massing and materials and several said they were encouraged the applicant had reduced building size and increased buffering on the residential edge. Commissioners raised the following items for the next submission: more detail on how on‑site and curbside parking will be managed (staff noted that on‑street parking is not under the applicant’s exclusive control and cannot be counted as guaranteed parking), additional screening or a low fence/knee‑wall along the residential property line to reduce headlight glare while preserving tree and planting buffers, and the outstanding stormwater calculations required before the plan can be scheduled for a public hearing.

No public comments were recorded for this work‑session item. Staff said they expect the applicant’s next submission to address the outstanding technical comments and — if complete — to be suitable for a public hearing at a future commission meeting, with staff estimating an April meeting as the earliest likely public hearing date depending on the applicant’s timing.

What the applicants proposed (high‑level): a roughly 11,740‑sq. ft. showroom/office building, basement coworking/office space, two bicycle racks, 18 on‑site parking spaces plus two curb spaces shown on plan, a low‑profile rooftop deck with thin planting trays, and architectural masonry/metal canopy details to match the Broad Street streetscape.

What remains outstanding: final stormwater pre/post calculations and details, clarified parking and TDM measures, finalized dumpster/trash‑truck access operational notes, and any additional screening measures for the adjoining single‑family property. Staff and the applicant agreed to continue technical review; the commission requested the next submittal include the TDM narrative and the stormwater package.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Falls Church Planning Commission Meeting March 5th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At a March 5 work session the Falls Church Planning Commission reviewed a revised Econized Closets site plan for a corner lot on West Broad and Spring Streets; the applicant reduced building size to about 11,740 square feet, provided additional buffering and a transportation‑demand narrative, and requested five zoning waivers including a parking reduction to 18 on‑site spaces.","taxTitle","Falls Church City, Fairfax County, Virginia","taxId",59817,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279531,"Planning commission recommends $148 million FY2026–31 capital improvements program to City Council",2574,3961000,6535000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6&start=3961&end=6535","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6/thumbnail_3961000.jpg","/articles/6279531/Falls-Church-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Planning-commission-recommends-148-million-FY202631-capital-improvements-program-to-City-Council","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279531-ab161a75c9462f0b1a16ea34842fc17a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771209963&Signature=agbFCMcmOWK1T6TA-CEhc57WHqv5GLdwr5DaNNEFHqJh9X-hZY5GkkOuCdwwixFASmqIvnnAbPDrLGQkZtHQT4LgNSm4pQBa57l0hww8TjbD6V-BSPBayU4hPZGC6RgVlDX4b1l9Urss3DSGhn8zHQU1dIF-01OhAfcnAJwnNVgpd5BdShIdZ1tITOCCR6Lypg6JgU9s0AfbkJzpiJkgXElysvfX4hkFQ7YVbGRx5X3p01GRrvL0CEexAFgr-jKmgRo4-xsergU2W3Je-HryQ36CQ-OQcUx4zohUuMsXqgiqasNRrIm1z2fM~Y0F6Vu-TCQ291-0hSeCVNWWmVyX1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Falls Church City Planning Commission unanimously recommended the city’s proposed six‑year Capital Improvements Program (FY2026–31) to City Council on March 5, 2025.

In a staff presentation, the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) coordinator said the proposed six‑year total is $148 million. Staff estimated $46 million of that would come from grants over the six years, with about $12.3 million identified as federal funding within the grant total. Staff also reported approximately $50 million in prior‑year grant appropriations remain active; $24 million of those prior appropriations are for transportation projects.

The commission’s motion, moved by Commissioner Krasner, found the proposed CIP consistent with adopted comprehensive and small‑area plans and cited priorities used to shape the program: effective project delivery, reinvestment in existing infrastructure, multimodal transportation (including protected bike lanes and missing‑sidewalk fixes), and affordable housing alignment. Commissioners also urged continued work to match project scopes to departmental capacity so awarded grants can be implemented promptly.

During the CIP discussion Commissioner Duncan asked about Cherry Hill Farmhouse restoration work and whether roof/HVAC funding could be prioritized; staff said foundation repairs were appropriated and underway, and roof/HVAC work will be proposed for funding if additional resources become available. Commissioners also raised reliability of electrical service along North Washington Street after a recent outage; staff said ongoing discussions with the local utility aim to reduce single‑point failures and that a city hall emergency power reconfiguration project is proposed in the CIP for FY2027.

The commission also approved a friendly amendment — added to the motion before the vote — requesting that rooftop solar for Aurora House and any other city buildings where solar costs are recovered through utility savings be funded to facilitate completion of those projects. Staff and commissioners noted that some school roofs and city facilities need roof replacement before solar can be installed and flagged potential funding paths (budget amendments or surplus funds) to advance projects sooner if feasible.

The roll call on the CIP recommendation was unanimous: Polinski — yes; Duncan — yes; Krasner — yes; Stevens — yes; Friedlander — yes; Kravinsky — yes; Comont (chair) — yes. Planning staff said the CIP will be transmitted with the City Manager’s proposed FY2026 budget on March 24, 2025; Council’s tentative adoption of the budget is scheduled for May 12, 2025.

Key CIP details and staff notes from the March 5 presentation:
- Proposed six‑year total: $148,000,000 (all programs).
- Grants: $46,000,000 total in the 6‑year budget; $12,300,000 federal grant portion.
- Prior‑year appropriations with federal grants still pending or active: ~$50,000,000 (transportation comprises ~$24,000,000).
- Priorities: infrastructure reinvestment, multimodal transportation, energy efficiency and affordable housing alignment.

What’s next: The CIP will be included in the city manager’s proposed FY2026 budget to Council on March 24 and will move through Council work sessions and public hearings before adoption. Commissioners said they expect to monitor grant status and project delivery capacity to reduce the risk of unspent awards.","The Falls Church City Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed FY2026–31 Capital Improvements Program — a $148 million, six‑year plan — to City Council on March 5, 2025, and added a request that rooftop solar projects with positive utility paybacks be funded for earlier completion.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279536,"Falls Church planning commission recommends zoning changes for accessory dwellings, with revisions",5347,1463000,6810000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6&start=1463&end=6810","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2622529-02d78e8a1f6cbc1befc230c32410d7d6/thumbnail_1463000.jpg","/articles/6279536/Falls-Church-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Falls-Church-planning-commission-recommends-zoning-changes-for-accessory-dwellings-with-revisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279536-9c9e1f46e52a6b4b36a1791890f24a5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771209963&Signature=Cn8GV0qP8aCF9QJKujdWVn3MngDO5JFF6M8sYBfxoRiWc7oCJGtinNLhGEsR40GKVOGOYl3A~tdMsk-EhYfwie8L0txsc6w5Uu4bmitQt-g04LMzPmkaVLyR9YPUXqgpULnDka9MsFbOPsb5eahptYxTljN-6pdQJA3z8efCvH5CJ8Nx3hlBllmWb9avlO3-tvNo7NYYkTlhDvC5noUMtEB4oZh88g1q4yaEAZ1ocLk2SBhHmn4GXXsnhTZgtIIFSx4bMwgqhNXQ0TOEgu9ZTixuFzAX0nYMpqIfCKkgFjf6wfe0Aju9AmScrsws~lpFM3U-JqipyogYuUM1J-ir3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On March 5, 2025, the Falls Church City Planning Commission voted 5–2 to recommend that City Council adopt proposed zoning ordinance amendments on accessory dwellings (T.O. 24‑17), a package of rules the commission and staff say is intended to expand housing options while addressing privacy, stormwater and design concerns.

The vote followed a public hearing in which five nearby residents urged more restrictive setbacks and protections, and a long staff presentation describing changes made since City Council gave the ordinance first reading on Nov. 25, 2024. Planning staff said the amendment package is intended to implement the housing chapter of the city’s comprehensive plan and Council priorities for 2024–25.

The commission’s recommendation sends the amended ordinance to City Council with three specific revisions requested by the commission: draft code language to prevent detached accessory dwellings from being located in a front yard or closer to the street than the primary dwelling; removal of the provision that would fold detached accessory dwellings into the existing 30% maximum coverage of the required rear yard; and a direction that special‑use permits (when required) be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Planning staff summarized the proposal as allowing one accessory dwelling per lot in single‑family districts (R‑1A and R‑1B) by right, keeping accessory dwellings in multi‑family districts as conditional uses, capping Gross Floor Area for detached units at 50% of the primary dwelling or 1,000 square feet (whichever is less), dropping owner‑occupancy and short‑term‑rental restrictions from the draft, and proposing no off‑street parking requirement. For detached accessory dwellings staff proposed a sliding‑scale height allowance tied to setbacks, and new allowances for clerestory windows that face neighboring lots when those windows do not create direct sightlines.

Public commenters pressed the commission on privacy, corner‑lot rules and stormwater. “I ask that this commission discuss and agree on a 10‑foot minimum. That’s the fair solution to our citizens,” said Jean Gresco, a Falls Church resident, during the public hearing. Kelly Port and Brian Sperry, who live at 305 Walnut Street, urged stricter rules for corner lots and asked that grading/site‑plan review be required for detached accessory dwellings sited on corner parcels. Mary Chavez, another resident, cited the city’s online questionnaire and said “60% opposed” the proposed 5‑foot setback and the removal of owner‑occupancy requirements. Other speakers warned that a 5‑foot setback would endanger trees and privacy.

Commission debate ranged from support for giving owners flexibility to build detached units in rear corners, to concerns that a 5‑foot setback is too close and would harm tree canopy and neighbor privacy. Commissioners also discussed whether accessory dwellings should be included in the city’s existing rule that accessory buildings may occupy no more than 30% of the required rear yard. A majority voted to remove that rear‑yard limit for detached accessory dwellings as part of the commission’s recommendation to council, while two commissioners opposed sending the package to council with those revisions.

Commission actions: Commissioner Duncan made and moved the recommendation to City Council; the motion as amended asked staff to include the three revisions listed above. The final roll‑call vote was: Polinski — yes; Duncan — yes; Krasner — no; Stevens — yes; Friedlander — no; Kravinsky — yes; Comont (chair) — yes.

City Attorney Miss Gillette attended virtually and told the commission she would be available for legal questions; planning staff said updated materials and a summary of public questionnaire responses were included in the staff report transmitted before the meeting. City Council had granted first reading to the ordinance on Nov. 25, 2024; Council’s final consideration is scheduled for April 14, 2025.

What’s next: The commission forwarded its recommendation (including the three requested edits) to City Council for its scheduled work session and final vote. Because the commission’s recommendation changes the draft language on rear‑yard coverage and the front‑yard/location standard, staff said those specifics will be carried forward to the Council packet and to any public materials that accompany Council’s work session on the proposal.

A number of speakers urged more protective measures (10‑ to 15‑foot setbacks, grading/site‑plan review for corner lots, and owner‑occupancy limits). Commissioners recorded those concerns in their public comments and dissenting votes; Council will receive a record of that debate along with the commission’s majority recommendation.","After public testimony and extended debate over setbacks, privacy and rear-yard limits, the Falls Church City Planning Commission voted 5–2 on March 5 to recommend that City Council adopt zoning ordinance amendments on accessory dwellings (T.O. 24‑17), including three staff-drafted revisions the commission requested before council review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer scales down Econized Closets site plan; planning commission holds second work session

Planning commission recommends $148 million FY2026–31 capital improvements program to City Council

Falls Church planning commission recommends zoning changes for accessory dwellings, with revisions