89°Mostly Cloudy

Board of Supervisors Defers Vote on Application For New Hotel

by RestonNow.com May 3, 2018 at 12:08 pm 5 Comments

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (BOS) this week deferred a vote that could impact a developer’s application to build a new hotel in a section of the parking lot at Reston’s Lake Fairfax Business Park.

A vote on the necessary rezoning that would allow the project to move forward was on the BOS agenda Tuesday, but the vote has now been postponed to May 15 at 3:30 p.m. According to the BOS website:

“The PCAs and RZ application are needed to remove the property from the Lake Fairfax Business Park approvals and allow development of the existing surface parking lot on the property into an approximately 98,500 square foot twenty-four hour suite-style hotel to its own set of independent proffers. The Special Exceptions will permit the hotel and increase the permitted Floor Area Ration (FAR) from .50 to .67 (within the allowable range of up to .70).”

In other words the developers, TH Holding Company LLC, want the hotel to be considered separately from the business park, and be subject to its own zoning and permit regulations. County planning documents indicate that city staff members want some portions of the application to be denied.

The current plans for the hotel outline 299 parking spaces, including 149 spots for hotel guests and employees, and an outdoor terrace that would sit next to the hotel’s main entrance and face toward the neighboring office building.

The plan is designed to transition into a future street that would connect Business Center Drive to Michael Faraday Drive. Reston’s comprehensive plan proposes a local street running along the southwest border of the site.

  • 30yearsinreston

    Force the developers to pay for another exit to Business Center Drive
    The existing entrance can’t handle the traffic and causes huge delays on Sunset Hills Road
    Would it be imposition on Hudgins to work for residents ?

  • MCallaghan

    The applicant is seeking to provide less funding than is suggested for
    Reston athletic fields. This would result in a loss of $109,442.

    This applicant is also suggesting to pay less into the Reston Road Fund than required, which would result in a loss of $632,233.

    Our Supervisor should not accept less for Reston and allowing less on either item will set a terrible precedent. It should not be approved. If you are reading this, voice your concerns by contacting Supervisor Hudgins at [email protected]

    Staff report:
    http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ldsdwf/4613720.PDF

    • 30yearsinreston

      Thanks for posting the link

      Staff rightly so, rejected this proposal

      Some choice excerpts from the developer proposal

      “A public access easement is proposed along the western drive aisle of the office portion of the site to facilitate the construction of future road connections by others.”

      Translation : we wont contribute
      Staff : “Based on the Guidelines, this application is expected to contribute $965,300 for the 98,500 square feet of new development proposed on site (the hotel). The applicant has not followed the Guidelines, and instead proffered a contribution of $333,367 ”

      Developer argues that it would be “economically infeasible” to pay more

      Their response regarding traffic is an insult to our intelligence viz: “that the traffic in the surrounding area will benefit from a the forthcoming traffic signal at the intersection of Business Center Drive and Sunset Hills Road.”

      Besides being irrelevant, ignore the fact that they aren’t contributing a cent towards the cost !

      This is a perfect example of the type of carpetbaggers who are attracted by the great Reston Land Rush

  • Dale

    Our Supervisor;
    Virginia Code § 24.2-233 states that “Upon petition, a circuit court may remove from office any elected officer or officer who has been appointed to fill an elective office, residing within the jurisdiction of the court.”[2]

    Recall reasons
    Code § 24.2-233 states acceptable reasons for recall when it has “material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office” include:[2]

    Neglect of duty
    Misuse of office
    Incompetence in the performance

    Petition requirements
    The petition for recall must be signed by at least 10% of the number of people who voted in the last election for the office being recalled.[2] The petition must also detail the reasons for removal.[4]

    • 30yearsinreston

      I’ll sign the petition

×

Subscribe to our mailing list