main banner

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Planning Commission approves Bailey's Crossroads shopping center

An illustration of the Shops at Bailey's Crossroads, as seen from Leesburg Pike.
The Fairfax County Planning Commission voted Feb. 12 to recommend approval of a shopping center in Bailey’s Crossroads. The project would include a drive-through stand-alone CVS and several restaurants or shops on Leesburg Pike between Washington Drive and Charles Street. A Board of Supervisors hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Feb. 17.

Spectrum Development agreed to make some changes in response to concerns of neighborhood residents and Fairfax County planning staff. A right turn lane would be added along Charles Street along Leesburg Pike. There would be additional landscaping and a pedestrian path within the right of way at that intersection. And architectural revisions have been made to the CVS, including a greater variety of color and materials and faux windows and awnings on the fa├žade.

Despite those changes, Brent Krasner of the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, said the staff has not been able to reverse its recommendation for denial of the project because it still includes a drive-through at  the CVS in a highly visible location and the entrances to the shops still face the interior of the development, rather than Leesburg Pike.

The developer also agreed to additional proffers, including truck deliveries restricted to non-peak hours, and agreed to provide funding for additional landscaping, a fence, and a driveway turn-around on the property of the Xenox family. Irene Xenos and other members of her family had fought against the development on behalf of her 93-year-old grandmother, who lives on Washington Drive directly across from the proposed entrance to the proposed shopping center.

Planning Commissioner Julie Strandlie (Mason) had opposed the proposal when she served on the Mason District Land Use Committee (MDLUC) and now recommends approval, due to the changes in the application and the need to redevelop the area. 

The MDLUC voted against the proposal in December. Strandlie read an email at the Feb. 12 session from MDLUC chairman Dan Aminoff stating that he reversed his position on the project because “the opportunity for development outweighs keeping the status quo.” 

The 2.7-acre site currently includes a now-closed Geico claims center, two single-family houses, and a weedy lot that has been vacant since 2007.

27 comments:

  1. Just to clarify, my grandmother, my family, and myself did NOT agree to the proffer for Lot 8.

    I do not want anyone to think that we made any agreement.

    We did not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just what we need, more drive-thrus, pharmacies, and low-slung suburban sprawl-esque buildings, which just add more traffic and chaos to an already overcrowded area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to "2/14/15, 6:44PM" we need new commercial development in this area to offer goods and services desired by the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods.

      Unlike a new residential development this development does not "add" traffic; and it is highly unlikely any retail store opened in this development will be such a destination it will being traffic not already here.

      In short, while the immediate neighbors may not be fully satisfied with the changes made in the development, it is a net positive overall for Mason District.

      Delete
    2. what goods and services are desired exactly? not sure a survey went around asking.

      also, they are taking down 2 houses for the project and developing into the neighborhood. not NIMBY. its more about not in our front yards. the back yard would be fine.

      Delete
    3. "2/15/15 7:19 PM" your response is full of nonsense and indicates you are out of touch.

      Private businesses open because they believe, based on whatever information they rely on, that the goods and/or services they offer are desired by customers, and they can sell them for a profit. They take a risk, and either succeed, or fail and go out of business to be replaced by another business.

      Your reference to a survey is nonsense.

      In addition, your comment about NIMBY and front and back yard is nonsense.

      The developer did make concessions; if the concessions were not sufficient to satisfy the neighboring property owners that is not reason enough to block the development.

      You, along with the expected conspiracy theorists and those who yell out corruption whenever a decision does not go their way are being childish.

      If you want to, continue to protest this development and see if you can stop it from happening. Good luck to you.

      Delete
    4. there are plenty of reasons for the county to reject the development including the county staff being on record that they recommend a denial, the fact that it goes against the county comprehensive plan, the fact that it invades into a residential neighborhood, the fact that their traffic study actually was not factual correct. even if the board approves it, it will not be built in its current form. these are not conspiracy theories but the facts. where is the "theory" here?

      Delete
    5. To Anon 1:53 & 5:42

      > we need new commercial development in this area to offer goods and services desired by the residents

      Sorry to be rude, but this is just drivel. It's nonsense. You either don't live here or are repeating a half-baked talking point. A person could hit a ball from this location to at least three other pharmacies, and plenty of fast food as well.

      No matter how much glass & aluminum gets slathered onto it, the bottom line is that this little strip mall benefits the developer at the expense of the community.

      Another way of phrasing this would be that your assertion is completely contrary to the observable reality. You know who "needs" this? CVS and Elevation Burger.

      Delete
    6. Sorry Comrade, your insults demonstrate your loose grip on reality. The new CVS will replace an old, worn-out CVS less than a mile away so it is needed, Comrade Central Planner.

      In additiion, Politburo lover, you are not an elected representative of the community. The community wants new development, NOT weeds and abandoned office buildings on its commercially zones areas.

      So take your smug, self-righteous attitude, and shove it.

      Delete
    7. the community? which community do you represent exactly? let us know. which office building is abandoned exactly? the geico that isn't being used just because they have an agreement to sell? it was operating prior to that which was earlier last year. when you say commercial zones do you mean residential as its actually going into the residential zoned area.

      maybe you should know more before you post. shove that bucko!

      Delete
    8. Thank you very much for that comment! I especially appreciated the use of the word "bucko."

      I wish you all the best and certainly understand you only want the best for everyone directly impacted by this proposed development.

      Delete
  3. Julie Strandlie was appointed by Supervisor Gross (she also is a campaign contributor to her it should be pointed out). Strandlie was opposed to the project. What happened? Supervisor Gross feels heat from the area and calls Julie Strandlie and says you owe me one and she switches her vote to give Supervisor Gross cover.

    Anyone with half a brain can see what is going on.

    Nice these people only care about themselves and everyone else is just a pawn to them.

    I hope this blog continues to do good work and watches the money trail and see who Spectrum gives money to as pay back for this mess in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anyone with half a brain can see what is going on. " Apparently not. If you want to spin conspiracy theories at least come up with a plausible one. This is a weedy, trash strewn lot on a busy commercial artery. It makes perfect sense to develop it. Spectrum made significant concessions to the NIMBY's and, as expected, nothing was good enough. If they didn't like like commercial development, then they shouldn't have moved next to a commercial lot. It's time to close out this chapter and move on.

      Delete
    2. this is not a conspiracy theory. its called public records. Julie Strandlie donated to the Gross campaign multiple times, Gross appointed Strandlie. Strandlie was against the project and voted so before she was appointed by Gross on a different board. Gross has been pushing this project for 2 years Seems pretty cut and dry really.

      Delete
    3. Julie Strandlie and Dan Arminoff were weak. Rarely around here do county staff deny a development proposal. Obviously, the county's professional planners felt that serious issues remained to be addressed and were in the process of working them out. Bonehead move by Strandlie and Arminoff to dismiss these concerns and ram this through for the developer. It is apparent that Mason District "representatives" are not able stewards for the residents of Mason.

      Delete
    4. #pennygate

      Delete
    5. #pennygate = nonsense from a desperate clown.

      Delete
    6. tell me i'm a clown in a few months when you read all about #pennygate or what ever they will call it.

      Delete
  4. Folks let it go. The strip we are talking about has been vacant for years. We should be lucky that Spectrum wants to develop in an area that is now close to a slum. Someday when we are like Arlington we can look forward to more upscale development. Lets let this seed take off and maybe if we are lucky some crazy nut will drop a bomb on Culmore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this is prime real estate others have interest in so if spectrum fails, something else more forward thinking will end up there that doesn't knock down multiple houses in a residential neighborhood for some extra parking. if spectrum wasn't so greedy and needing a third building, none of this would be an issue. this is on them for over reaching against the counties and neighborhoods pleas.

      Delete
    2. Please, its been vacant for the last 20 years!

      Delete
    3. that isn't true, there was a residential house on the corner of Charles and Leesburg Pike about 5 years ago.

      Delete
    4. > We should be lucky that Spectrum wants to develop in an area that is now close to a slum.

      Development like this will ensure it stays a slum.

      Delete
    5. If you don't get it, you don't get it. And you don't get it!

      Delete
    6. >Development like this will ensure it stays a slum. < Pure drivel from someone who has never ever come close to a slum in their entire life.

      Delete
    7. I agree - bring development in - something, anything at this point because the current situation is hideous! Anything vacant, abandoned or not serving today's residents should be bulldozed for new development!

      Delete
    8. YES YES LETS BULLDOZE EVERYTHING NOT SERVING "TODAY'S RESIDENTS" . SINCE MOST OF THE CULMORE AREA IS LATINO, LETS BULLDOZE ALL THE WHITE STUFF THAT DOESN'T SERVE THEM!

      Delete
  5. for anyone against this project, you can sign this:

    https://www.change.org/p/supervisor-pat-herrity-chairwoman-sharon-bulova-supervisor-john-c-cook-supervisor-catherine-m-hudgins-supervisor-jeff-c-mckay-supervisor-michael-r-frey-supervisor-linda-q-smyth-supervis-defer-or-deny-invasive-development-application-rz-201

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete