1. I guess what really upsets me is that a group of people and others have spent countless hours reviewing and agreeing to the plans and then Mill Creek shakes the etch-a-sketch and provides a new plan for approval totally disregarding the agreement. I hope City Council does not approve the special exemption because it has 1) not be vetted with the citizens, 2) the net revenue model and results have many unanswered questions, 3) parking is not sufficient, 4) aesthetically it needs improvement since this is an anchor to our city, 5) movie theaters are no longer profitable and this one is asking the city to collect a tax and rebate it to them (because it is not profitable), 6) the number of school children the city has forecasted is much lower than other developments and more discussion is needed since that adds a high cost to the community, 7) let’s do this project right and not hastily approve something that was changed dramatically without the proper review.

  2. The development is way too big for that small area of land. Traffic will be a nightmare and I have yet to see any valid traffic studies. By not providing ample parking for customers/residents/visitors is just a recipe for disaster. Do they think that people won’t use cars? Not true. Parking is already a nightmare in Falls Church City. Don’t make things worse by adding traffic and less places to park.

  3. I am glad to see others share my concerns regarding this project, i.e. The only anchor is a movie theater and movie theater is on the decline, the projected number of pupils decreased from 109 students to 64.5, the lack of sufficient on-site parking, the traffic impact from the large number of residential units (322 multi-family and 72 age-restricted), the data used to determine the net benefit to the City, and more. Please be express your concerns to the Council; it is too late to stop the project but not too late to stop the amendment request.

  4. Some Questions (if anyone knows the answers) Can the Planning Commission stop this? Is the 64.5 pupil estimate a conservative number? That’s a huge decrease and at $15K per child per year cost, the net impact could be grossly overstated by using a number that is not correct. Is there a traffic study and who did it? Remember, Mt. Daniel is expanding and that will add to the traffic on West street also.

  5. I know one person that worked very hard to ensure that the developer addressed many issues: placement of dumpsters, ingress/egress, landscaping, crosswalks, etc. Now all the plans have changed because the developer says they cannot get the requisite commercial space that the city required for the special exemption. They have 3 years to find the tenants. Hold them to the agreement. Please city council, be vigilant. The corner is extremely busy and both automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic is already a nightmare at that corner (try rush hour – horrible). Urban planning is a skill and requires wide sidewalks, sufficient crosswalks, traffic calming and traffic flow measures that have not been adequately addressed. It makes me uneasy that the net revenues have been so fluid so quickly and many are asking thoughtful questions about the net revenue with no real answers. Answers first then maybe approval.

  6. I need to make a correction to the parking information I provided. Per City code, this development should provide 1 space for each of the 10 studio apartments, 1.5 parking spaces for each of the 207 1-bdrm and 1-bdrm with off apartments (311), 2 spaces for each of the 105 2-bdrm and 2-bdrm with office units (210) plus the same number for the 38 1-bdrm and 1-bdrm with office and 34 2-bdrm and 2-berm with office units in the age restricted bldg (125 spaces). Add to that the parking for the office space (11), one space for every 4 seats in the 800 seat theater (200 spaces) and parking for the retail/restaurant space (195) and you arrive at 1062 spaces required by code. They would like to reduce the number of spaces by ~3%, to either 1035 (on the paper work the City has received) or 1026 (on the slide presented at the Community Meeting on June 27. At one time, there was talk of 7 street level spaces being on Founders Avenue, the street internal to the project. I am still reading through all of the documents trying to determine if those spaces are still in the design and, if so, they art included in the 1035 count.

  7. If you can, please look at some of the documents showing the design plan for this project and let the Planning Commission know of any concerns you may have on color, material, overall design, and the like. During the public comment period of the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Monday, July 16 is a good time to ask about or comment on concerns you may have about the construction itself, such as staging of trucks, parking for workers, hours of construction, and anything else construction related. It is also a good time to comment on facets of the design you like. If you cannot attend the meeting on Monday, send your comments in an email to plan@fallschurchva.gov by Wednesday evening so they will be included in the package distributed to the commissioners Thursday or Friday.

    Of concern to some, to include a Planning Commissioner, is the yellow color of the age-restricted building that sits at the corner of Broad and West and the “prison-like” look of the eastern side of the project (the side that faces St James and will be highly visible when traveling east on Broad Street).

    Links to documents:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *