AlexWest Draft Plan: Community Comments

Date Received

Source

Draft Plan Chapter

Community Comment

Staff Response

Collaboration powered by Smartsheet | Report Abuse

6/27/2024

General

At the May meeting with Fairlington Villages, Jeff spoke about the south-side of King Street having a sidewalk tree-line design while the north-side of King Street (Fairlington Villages) will be left undisturbed. When asked if that can be written into the SAP, Jeff had said a provision can be written within the SAP. Can you please tell me the actions I need to take to ensure that provision is written in the SAP?

The Plan identifies King Street as a “Primary Street,” and provides a recommended street section design with streetscape improvements for all Primary Streets. Due to the significant tree canopy and steep topography on the north side of King Street, the Draft Plan does not recommend streetscape improvements for that side of the street. To provide further clarity on this topic, Staff will add the following language in the Primary Streets section of the Mobility + Safety chapter: Streetscape improvements for King Street will only be on the south side of the street.

6/27/2024

Comment Form

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Figure 6.1 in the plan shows a close correlation with tree canopy and surface temperature, however the following page states that while new development should provide tree cover, if it can’t provide it on site it should provide the tree cover within one of the same land use strategy areas. However these areas are much larger than the cooling effect zone around a tree or trees. This policy could still lead to inequitable access to tree canopy.

The goal of the Plan is that development will provide on-site tree canopy coverage consistent with City policies. The Focus Area is already deficient in tree canopy when compared to the rest of the Plan area. If a project in the Focus Area cannot meet the on-site tree canopy requirements, the intent is that the off-site tree canopy still be provided in the Focus Area. This is addressing inequitable access to tree canopy as there isn't enough tree canopy in the Focus Area currently.

6/27/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

I’m excited to see vastly improved pedestrian and biking infrastructure. For pathway lighting, I would like to see this area (as well as additional small area plans) focus on lighting that is friendly to migratory birds and nighttime insects, whose migration and/or reproduction are disrupted by light pollution. This includes low temperature lighting (lower than 3,000K, which also benefits humans), not over-lighting, and pointing light fixtures down so that they do not project light upwards into the sky.

Pathway lighting will be subject to Citywide standards.

6/27/2024

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

I particularly support adding entrances to Winkler BP and connecting Winkler with the Holmes Run Scenic Easement, as well as connecting Dora Kelley with Chambliss Park.

Thank you for your comment.

6/27/2024

Comment Form

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

I appreciate the focus on expanding tree canopy to combat the heat island effect and overall health of the community, as well as buffer areas for erosion control and water quality. Alexandria’s urban forest policy is to plant native trees, which is not explicitly called out here, but could be. AlxWest has a few large areas of native habitats currently — Dora Kelley, Winkler, and the Holmes Run areas. However we can also think about integrating native habitat more seamlessly into residential and commercial areas through use of green infrastructure such as rain gardens and bioswales, and by integrating pockets of native pollinator gardens into open spaces that may have other primary use cases. Private development should be encouraged to landscape with native plants, and avoid known invasive plants, to the extent possible. The latter is especially important as invasive plants from landscaping easily spill over into adjacent natural areas, which we already see happening in Dora Kelly, Winkler, and Holmes Run.

Alexandria Urban Forestry policy and City Landscape Guidelines currently and will in the future apply to the AlexWest Plan area. Projects through the development review process are required to plant native trees. No invasive species are allowed to be planted.

6/28/2024

Comment Form

General

At a local community meeting in May, staff had stated that "the south-side of King Street in Area 2 will have a tree-lined sidewalk design-scape while the north-side of King Street in Area 2 will be undisturbed". When asked if that can be put into the SAP, staff stated that a provision can be written. My two questions are: 1. How does one have this particular provision "the south-side of King Street in Area 2 will have a tree-lined sidewalk design-scape while the north-side of King Street in Area 2 will be undisturbed" be put in the SAP? 2. Where will this particular provision be written in the SAP?

7/1/2024

Public + Connected Open Spaces

Are the trees in the NOVA campus, endangered in Alexandria West Plan, to build more housing in the Tree or NOVA parcel?

In the Small Area Plan, NVCC (neighborhood 2) includes significant new parks and open spaces. These overlap with the existing tree canopy to a large extent. Currently, there are no development applications for the NVCC property. However, should a development application be received it would be evaluated through the City’s Development Review process and would have to comply with the Small Area Plan and the City’s other City-wide policies, including regarding tree canopy.

7/1/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

It seems like you are not accounting for the amount of traffic in the area. More attention should be paid to traffic flow because there is a lot of traffic in this area.

As part of the planning process, KimleyHorn and Associates prepared a high-level traffic study to evaluate the impacts of the changing traffic demands on the surrounding transportation network with the Alexandria West Plan. Major study area corridors include N Beauregard Street, Seminary Road, Little River Turnpike, W Braddock Road, Sanger Avenue, and King Street. The traffic study analyzed the transportation network under the following land use scenarios: 2022 Existing Conditions, 2045 Base Conditions - Based on forecasted volumes from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (MWCOG) travel demand models, 2045 Sensitivity Test - Considers a 30% growth in addition to the 2045 projected growth. The study concludes that the transportation network can reasonably accommodate the currently forecasted growth, based on the 2045 MWCOG travel demand models and the 2045 sensitivity test. This study does not negate the requirement for site-specific transportation studies for individual development projects, as required by the City’s Transportation Planning Administrative Guidelines. You can find the study on the project page under Resources and More Information.

7/2/2024

Comment Form

General

I’d really like the city to recognize that most residents just want basic services (police, street maintenance, refuse collection, parks maintenance). We don’t want or need huge plans that involve social engineering.

The AlexWest Plan is a land use plan that addresses multiple elements including land use, mobility, and parks/open spaces when development occurs. Public feedback informed the Draft Plan where many flagged housing affordability as a concern and the Draft Plan creates a proactive vision for future development. Many elements of this plan, such as the Street Network, Street Cross Sections, Bike and Pedestrian Network, commitment to green buildings, and more, will help support the efficient provision of important basic services, such as maintenance, public safety, and recreation.

7/8/2024

Neighborhoods

I'm one of the Alexandria leads for YIMBYs of NoVA. We've been reading through the draft Alex West plan and are looking forward to providing some comments. Thank you to you and the team for your hard work to communicate complex subject matter in a document that is easy to read and understand - it is a world of difference from the 1990s SAPs, and shows that the city really cares about giving people the opportunity to understand what's planned for their neighborhood. As we work on our comments, I want to make sure we understand correctly what the plan is for the Crossroads neighborhood. Is the plan to leave all of the existing Southern Towers buildings standing, and develop new residential buildings on top of all of the surface parking lots surrounding them? If so, do you have an example of a development similar to this that has been successful?

The plan for the Crossroads Neighborhood is to retain the existing towers while incentivizing development on the parking lots. That development will provide parking, open space, a new street grid, expanded retail spaces, and a new transit center. Locally, one example of this approach is the RiverHouse redevelopment in Pentagon City: https://www.arlnow.com/2022/10/17/jbg-smith-files-plans-to-turn-riverhouse-parking-lots-into-more-housing/. Also in Arlington, Lofts 590 is a large apartment development built on a former parking lot: https://www.donohoe.com/construction/projects/lofts-590/

7/3/2024

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

There’s nothing at all inclusive. It will force people to move.

Without a Plan, the housing challenges faced by many existing residents in AlexWest will continue to worsen. The Plan’s Land Use Strategy prioritizes development of new market rate housing and new committed affordable housing on surface parking lots and underutilized commercial and office space to minimize displacement of existing residents.

7/3/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

The traffic and road proposals are TERRIBLE. People need cars to get to work and buses are a TOTAL waste of time and money and bus lanes will HARM WORKING PEOPLE.

7/3/2024

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

The connected spaces seem to be all about preventing people from driving to work.

The Draft Plan wants to balance all users traveling by car, bike and also by vehicle. Having connected spaces gives community members better access to a local park within walking distance.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

The requirement to replace parking that is developed is in direct contradiction to the goal of inclusive growth in that it will raise development costs while being out of sync with the really important mobility improvement set to benefit the corridor with the West End Transitway

Plan Recommendation 13 requires development that occurs on parking lots to provide new parking for existing and future uses consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Current regulation allows for parking reductions for sites that have high access to multiple transit options, acknowledging that access to transit provided by the WET enables lower car ownership rates.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Housing Affordability

I suggest that removal of Parking Minimums should be applied to the West End to maximize the flexibility to develop land. The majority of residents only have 1 or no cars as it stands because of the affordability benefits of not being reliant on cars. This would allow us to maximize our housing stock while allowing businesses to evaluate the minimum needs for parking. It will not make as much sense for development on the west end transit way to need significant parking space.

The Draft Plan is not proposing changing city policies as it relates to parking minimums, however, the zoning ordinance does enable parking reductions based on improved access to transit.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Removing parking minimums or even requiring sustainable additions (trees and solar production) to lots of certain sizes would be a nice addition to maintaining a sustainable community as well through improving tree canopy and energy efficiency.

The City’s existing requirements regarding energy efficient and sustainable development practices are in the Green Building Policy, which is in the process of being updated. You can read more about that process here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/GreenBuilding

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Maintaining Community

I strongly support development the encourages walkable development, with a variety of uses, and a variety of price points.

Thank you for the comment.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

Area 3 in the Plan shelters generally wealthy and low density neighborhoods from inclusive growth. Keeping Area 3 with no significant plans for redevelopment undermines our goals for inclusive growth for all residents, because we will fail to provide a variety of housing types in Area 3 that provide access to a variety of incomes and family types. At the very least, we should rewrite Area 3 to allow for greater variety of housing types consistent with the vision of inclusive growth.

The long-term (20-25 years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area. The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing. Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Housing Affordability

Area 3 preserves too much low density housing, and thereby hinders the City's goals with respect to housing affordability. Area 3 neighborhoods also tend to be the wealthiest, and are the least susceptible to displacement. There should be greater consideration of mixed housing types and some increased density to address housing need and affordability.

Area 3 includes single-unit, townhouses, and multi-unit communities. Area 3 also has a variety of townhouse and condominium communities that are unlikely to redevelop. Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

The City should more strongly commit to dedicated bus lanes in Alexandria West. In particular, we should commit strongly to dedicated lanes on Beauregard, Seminary, King, and Sanger Avenues. Reliability is a significant factor in transit use, and if we want to encourage access then we must ensure that buses don't face additional traffic and congestion issues. The City should avoid sharrows. In particular, the City should commit to a separate bike lane for the full length of Braddock to support cyclists and scooters. Connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists to Chambliss is poor. The Plan should provide for access between the cul-de-sacs into the park for pedestrians and cyclists. Without that access, a significant portion of the plan is not really accessible to all transportation modes.

The West End Transitway, first identified in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, approved by Council in 2011, and re-affirmed in the 2021 Alexandria Mobility Plan, is currently in design for Phase 1 of the project, which is focused on transit signal priority, queue jump lanes, and new bus stations, and is anticipated to begin operation by FY 2027. Phase 2 of the project, which includes dedicated transit lanes on portions of Van Dorn Street and N. Beauregard Street, is not yet funded and will require work with private developers for additional right-of-way. Additional separated bike lanes, while desirable, have to be balanced with competing priorities for limited right of way and other factors. Future bike facilities could be considered as part of a future update to the citywide Alexandria mobility plan. Access between cul de sacs would necessitate taking private land for public right of way which was not identified as a priority in the plan area.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

I support connected open spaces as accessible third places for residents in the community. The city should include, where possible, shelter from the rain and weather for users and residents. Frequently, rain and sun can hinder enjoyment of outdoor places, and it's relatively easy to provide some shelter for these places.

The specific design of the new parks and open spaces included in the Plan, including the design of specific amenities like shelters, lighting and benches, will occur during the development of the park and will include opportunities for community members to provide feedback on the design. Chapter 8, page 65 shows park amenities, generally, that are required in the public parks provided as part of the Plan, including the provision of shade structures and flexible seating areas. In addition, the plan explicitly states that parks should be designed with functionality and enjoyment in mind.

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Area 3 is relatively close to many of the transit hubs, particularly to the north along Seminary Road. To support sustainable communities, the City should incorporate more transit-oriented design choices into both Area 2 and Area 3 (with particular emphasis on the need to reconsider Area 3 in light of transit-oriented design principles).

7/4/2024

Comment Form

Recommendations

Overall, I support the Plan recommendations. I believe the Plan provides strong support to address housing need, transit access, mixed development, and third places for the local communities. However, as a long term plan we should more definitively commit to the connections, land use, and roadway use to support our goals of inclusive growth, diversity, local retail, and maximum transit use. By acting with foresight, we can minimize displacement. However, Area 3 in particular will actively encourage displacement by hindering transit access and land use in ways that discourage building housing where it is desperately needed.

7/5/2024

Comment Form

Implementation

I’m ok with it as is

Thank you for the comment.

7/7/2024

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

I would love to see an expectation that open spaces are NOT on rooftops and include gathering spaces (benches, tables, pavilions). That is part of needing to be accessible to the public!

Thank you for the comment. The Plan anticipates approximately 60 acres of new publicly accessible ground level parks in the Focus Area. Chapter 8 shows park amenities that are required by neighborhood. This is in addition to the open space requirements for new development which may be at or above-grade.

7/7/2024

Comment Form

General

I really like the added multi use trails, parks, multi modal connectivity and planned pedestrian safety improvements. I also really like the focus on housing and development over parking lots, like the current conditions. This seems like a very good plan. Thank you.

Thank you for the comment.

7/10/2024

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

I broadly support the approaches in this chapter. In addition to requiring/encouraging retail in designated districts, I would consider allowing (by administrative DSUP) local serving retail such as coffee shops/bodegas in ALL areas.

The Draft Plan recommends neighborhood-serving retail and the Plan does not preclude retail where it is already allowed by zoning.

7/10/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

I support the approach in Chapter 4, and would prioritize both dedicated transit lanes and a connected low stress bike network.

Thank you for your comment

7/15/2024

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

I appreciate the mobility and safety plan, particularly the improvements in the areas near King Street. However, I would strongly suggest making the areas immediately left of King Street a focus area. King Street is heavily used and is very close to the exit to I-395. While we love the planned multi-use paths on King Street, it’s also crucial to encourage public transit use over cars. This means we need dedicated bus lanes and infrastructure that make it easier and faster to take public transit.

One of the key Plan objectives developed by the community was to create a multimodal environment, making it easier and safer for people walking, biking, taking transit, as well as in cars, requiring a necessary balancing of needs to accommodate all users.

7/15

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

Regarding the connected open spaces plan, I would suggest adding a park or communal area near King Street and Northampton Drive. This area is experiencing an influx of new residents, and we’ve noticed families with children using empty parking lots for play. An established communal space would be highly beneficial and appealing to these families.

The intersection is located in Area 2 of the Plan. While development is not broadly anticipated here, if new development occurs it would need to provide open space (which could be a combination of at or above-grade). In Figure 5.3 the Plan calls for possible new/upgraded pedestrian access to the nearby James Mulligan Park.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

The Draft Plan takes large swaths of Plan Area off the table for affordable housing construction. With a few exceptions “Area 3” covers Alexandria West’s lowest density and wealthiest neighborhoods, sheltering them from meaningful growth. Heights in these areas are capped at 45 or even 35 feet: enough for a townhome or single family home but not much more, and certainly not enough for any building that includes dedicated affordable units. In fact the city’s “bonus height” provision doesn’t even apply to these areas, only coming into play for areas where heights of at least 50 feet are allowed. We can’t afford to prioritize the aesthetic preferences of low-density neighborhoods if we want to avert serious displacement. The 10% affordability requirement in this Plan won’t apply to most of Area 3, because there is no allowed increase in height or density from which the City can extract 10% affordability.

In developing the Plan’s land use strategy, Staff considered areas that won’t displace existing residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning.

The properties in Area 3 would be subject to current zoning, which includes the Zoning for Housing updates to the Zoning Ordinance approved by City Council.

The 10% affordable housing requirement applies to new development in the Focus Area and Area 2. In addition, property owners can request bonus density and height above what is depicted in the Plan with the provision of committed affordable units as permitted by Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Even in the core “target area” and along the planned West End Transitway, allowed heights and densities in some areas are insufficient - in some cases less than what already exists there today.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

The plan’s vision of building on surface lots and in commercial areas is admirable, but we question its feasibility given current parking mandates. To replace existing parking on the lots where these homes are envisioned, projects would need to build expensive parking garages that can quickly make the new projects unaffordable or infeasible.

The Design Guidelines require one level of below-grade (underground) parking. Developers are allowed to provide at- or above-grade parking but will need to screen it with active uses and it does count towards Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The City’s parking standards do allow parking ratio reductions based on proximity to transit and other amenities.

Parking will be reviewed as individual projects go through the development process.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Remove Area 3: Area 3 appears to largely shelter wealthier, lower-density neighborhoods from any growth, preventing them from contributing to housing affordability in any meaningful way. Despite parts of Area 3 being adjacent to high-amenity commercial areas in both Alexandria and neighboring jurisdictions, this plan prevents any growth beyond what’s allowed by the current zoning code. The low height limits used in this area ensure that some of our best tools for creating affordable homes are unavailable. Low-density neighborhoods in Area 3 should be incorporated into Area 2, with increases in height and FAR to match this new classification, to open the full Plan Area to new and affordable housing.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Increase baseline height to 85 feet: The Draft Plan mentions that very large buildings are unlikely to pencil out in Alexandria West for the near future. If this is the case, we should be maximizing the area in which smaller mid rise buildings can be constructed. 85-foot height limits are enough to enable construction of buildings short enough to rely on relatively inexpensive materials but large enough to add significant housing supply, including affordable housing. It would also ensure the universal applicability of the Bonus Height rule, which is only allowed where heights of at least 50 feet are allowed, and of the 10% affordability requirement.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Transit-adjacent land should maximize allowed height and density: All land adjacent to the Alexandria West Transitway should allow the tallest buildings envisioned by the plan, with 150 feet of baseline height. This will allow the City to maximize return on its investment in the Transitway, while also adding as much housing as possible.

The long-term (~20years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. In AlexWest, market rents do not currently support the cost of construction for steel and concrete high-rise buildings. It is expected that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Property owners can request additional density or height above what is depicted in the Plan with the provision of committed affordable units as permitted by Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

7/29

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Existing heights should be legalized: Many of the Plan’s neighborhoods have height limits that are significantly lower than existing buildings in the neighborhood. For example, the Hilton is 338 feet tall, but the Plan imposes a height limit of only 100 feet on the parcel where the Hilton is located! If we must defer to the character of low-density neighborhoods in Area 3, The Plan should at least respect high-density neighborhood character as well by ensuring that height limits are at least as tall as existing buildings. If this requires Council creating a new Zone that allows more height, the Plan should recommend Council do so.

In Figure 2.4: Building Heights, Note 3, the plan states that existing constructed building heights as of 2024 are permitted to remain and subject to all applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions.

This would apply to existing buildings throughout the Plan area.

7/19

Comment Letter

Mobility + Safety

First, AFSS urges the City of Alexandria to more strongly commit to public transit access in its redesign of roadways. AFSS urges the City to commit to dedicated bus lanes for all the major transit corridors in the Plan. A reliable transportation system dependably provides users with a consistent range of predictable travel times. As drafted, the Plan commits to a dedicated transit lane only along a segment of Beauregard. Generally the Plan only commits to study and address mobility-related issues at the intersections and along the corridors identified in Figure 4.9. AFSS urges the City to include an initial vision of dedicated bus lanes on identified public transit corridors. More fully committing to these enhancements is consistent with the Plan’s goals to enable individuals of all ages and abilities to more safely navigate within AlexWest and establish stronger connections to both the rest of the City and the wider region.

The current West End Transitway improvements include signal priority and queue jumps. The design and configuration of the Draft Plan does not preclude implementation of a future dedicated transitway (through building setbacks, etc.). The design and implementation of a dedicated transitway if it is pursued would involve community input.

7/19

Comment Letter

Mobility + Safety

For pedestrians and cyclists, safe and comfortable connections are important to support daily trips and errands. The Plan recommends new and improved connections between neighborhoods that will promote safe and comfortable travel by foot. AFSS supports the Plan’s commitment to connections for walkers. Walking takes longer than traveling by car, and extended detours due to connection issues discourages people from walking to their destinations rather than driving. However, access across Holmes Run remains poor in the Plan, with only two crossings planned for the neighborhoods. Individuals at Chambliss Avenue or North Armistead will need to detour to North Beauregard to access the park or the rest of the neighborhood. AFSS urges the City to add additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings that will support access for pedestrians and bikers between the neighborhoods and parks from Chambliss and Armistead. This will also help support access to the Park, which is largely not realized on the west despite Figure 5.2 indicating that these neighborhoods are within a 5 minute walk. Currently such access is illusory, since any walker must detour blocks to access the trails and parks along Holmes Run.

The Plan is committed to ensuring access to the new parks provided as part of development, including an expansion of Dora Kelley Nature Park in the Garden Neighborhood and the Holmes Run Easement in the Greenway Neighborhood. Recommendation 41.b stipulates that new public parks/open spaces must have “multiple publicly accessible entrances” in order to help facilitate their use.

In addition, Note 1 on Figure 4.6: Pedestrian + Bike Network states, “When possible, the City will work with property owners to add bicycle/pedestrian connections not shown on this map to other parks and routes.”

7/30

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Remove Area 3: The Plan shelters wealthy and low-density neighborhoods from development. This is contrary to our goals of inclusive growth and minimal displacement. Sheltering these neighborhoods will result in less inclusive growth, with lower-income residents priced out of certain locations because the affordable housing (such as small garden apartments) simply will not exist in these neighborhoods. Further, it means that residents are more likely to be displaced due to the lack of available affordable housing in these neighborhoods. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be removed and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere.

7/30

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Allow greater development near transit: The Plan right focuses development along the Planned West End Transitway. Transit-oriented development is one of the best mechanisms through which we can encourage and support transit use in Alexandria. Transit-oriented development is important to address climate change, relieve congestion, and reduce crashes. However, I’d urge the City of Alexandria to allow more growth near transit to maximize the supply of accessible housing. In some places, allowed heights are less than what already exists. We should allow heights of at least 150 feet near the Transitway, which is consistent with buildings in the area that already exist

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

We are pleased that the south side of King Street will have a tree design-scape and that City staff has agreed that the north-side of King Street from 28th Street South to South 30th Street will not be disturbed and that these will both be included in the Alexandria West SAP. This area has provided tree coverage for the Alexandria City residents within Fairlington Villages adjacent to King Street and

7/22

Comment Letter

Appendix - Other

We hope that specific types of high-quality, non-city-scape external building design expectations will be a part of the proposed Alexandria West SAP for Area 2. Many of the building-designs constructed near Fairlington within the past approximately 20 years have been without charm nor are they attractive or appealing.

Thank you for the comment. The recent developments along King Street were not subject to Design Guidelines.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Throughout the development of the Alexandria West SAP, City of Alexandria residents within Fairlington Villages have been voicing their concerns about not wanting a city-scape built on the adjacent property (King Street Area 2), the partially adjacent property (150 Feet Height Neighborhood Area 2), and the proximate neighborhoods (Newport Village and Bolling Brook Condominiums Area 2).

Fairlington Villages’ residents living in the City of Alexandria sent a letter (March 2023) with 51 signatures expressing a desire for a “small town look and feel” like Old Town for our area and another letter was sent in May 2023 with over 100 signatures expressing our vision for King Street and nearby neighborhoods (copies available upon request). The May 2023 letter stated that the Fairlington residents did not desire to have buildings constituting a city-scape built on the adjacent property and proximate neighborhoods. Fairlington Villages’ City of Alexandria residents responded to a City survey (November 2023) stating their preference for Area 2 to continue as a suburban setting and not be redeveloped into a city-scape (list of names available upon request).

These residents offered comments on the first draft of the SAP and a packet of comments (copy available upon request) was sent to City staff (March 28, 2024). The City of Alexandria staff met with two of our longtime residents and unit owners living in the City of Alexandria to discuss concerns about the second draft of the SAP (June 2024).

Development is not broadly anticipated in Area 2. Current zoning for parcels across King Street already allows for heights greater than building heights for Fairlington Villages. Any development would need to implement the Area 2 Criteria found in Table 2.2. The Draft Plan calls for maximum heights along King Street up to 100’. The remaining heights in Area 2 reflect existing zoning.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Given the area’s topography, any new building’s juxtaposition, and/or redevelopment sites next to each other, and/or the size of the parcel of land, the proposed 100-foot-high buildings with a 2.0 FAR will continue to have the same effects as the Alexander, Northampton, and Halstead Tower.

There is steep topography throughout the Plan area. As part of the development review process, any new development would need to implement the Plan recommendations for Open Space, Mobility + Safety, etc. Design Guidelines would apply to all projects requiring approval of a Development Special Use Permit.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

The heights and building size should be in proportion to the adjacent to those in Fairlington Villages.

Current zoning for parcels across King Street already allow for heights greater than building heights for Fairlington Villages. Any development would need to implement the Area 2 Criteria found in Table 2.2.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

The character and nature of the Fairlington Villages’ neighborhood should be respected with the remaining redevelopment sites along King Street. This was not provided to us with the building of the Alexander, Northampton, and Hallstead Tower. We were hoping this would be included within this proposed SAP.

The Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area, however the Plan acknowledges that development may occur in Area 2. The recommendations and Design Standards seek to make the public realm along King St more walkable and balance all users.

New development in Area 2 would need to implement the Area 2 Criteria listed in Table 2.2. Those will be evaluated as part of the development review process.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Cap on heights (including affordable housing options)

The most common piece of feedback from community members was the urgent need for more affordable housing. Bonus height and density enables the provision of affordable housing, within a range of reasonable height and density consistent with a major transportation corridor in an urban setting.

7/22

Comment Letter

Appendix - Other

Attractive, appealing, timeless buildings (provided size is not increased).

Projects will be reviewed through the development review process. The goal is high quality designed buildings that comply with the Design Guidelines.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Fairlington Villages, along with the Pointe Condominiums, the two-story office buildings, the dry cleaners, the gas station and the former health department building do not constitute a city setting (high-rise or mid-rise), like Eisenhower, Pentagon City, Crystal City, Ballston, or DC midrise city neighborhoods. We would like to see a town-like setting as the direction for the remaining four to five re-development sites, if a suburban setting like the Pointe Condominium Community, is no longer available.

Maximum heights in the Eisenhower East SAP are much greater than the ones proposed in the Draft Plan, with the minimum height on every block except one being 125 feet. Given existing market factors, it is expected that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

For the 150 Feet Height neighborhood in Area 2, which is directly behind King Street with a corner portion being the adjacent property to Fairlington Villages, we are against a mid-rise or high-rise city-scape being built. This is an established residential neighborhood, and we are asking that the character and nature of this established neighborhood be a part of the proposed SAP. In other words, please do not turn an established residential suburban neighborhood setting into a city setting.

These heights are allowed today under the current Zoning Ordinance.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

As stated, the two four-story condominium communities (The Pointe and The Palazzo) are within the currently proposed 150 feet height neighborhood. One of the condominium communities (The Pointe) is adjacent to Fairlington Villages and runs parallel to I-395 and the other four-story condominium community (The Palazzo) is next door to the townhouse community and on the west side of the boundary along Hampton Road. With the current proposal of a 2.0 FAR and the 150 feet height, a city-scape will be permitted in this neighborhood. We also ask for a cap on heights (including affordable housing options) and attractive, appealing, and timeless buildings (provided size is not increased).

These heights are allowed today under the current Zoning Ordinance.

Staff is not a proposing cap on building heights and is not proposing changes in the provision of affordable housing for additional density and/or height from Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance. The most common piece of feedback from community members was the urgent need for more affordable housing. This tool allows that.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

For the Newport Village Neighborhood, which is also behind King Street and two other properties (Bolling Brook Condominiums and a small townhouse community), we are asking that a mid-rise city setting not be built here. FVAC Comment Letter Attachment 1 Page 3. The Newport Village property on the north and east side is adjacent to a four-story condominium community named Bolling Brook and two different townhouse communities (Stonegate and a subsidized townhouse community). We are asking for a town setting to be established. Our vision is more in line with Cameron Station, but with apartments or condominiums. We ask that time be devoted to determining how to include affordable housing within a town setting and honor the character and nature of the established residential neighborhoods that are literally next door to this property and have been here for many years.

The height recommendation for Bolling Brook ensures that future development, if it occurs, matches the development around it and is able to provide affordable housing, just the same as Newport Village. There is no guarantee that something will be redeveloped just because the height limit has been increased. However, it is important to be prepared to handle development, however likely it may be.

It is important to note that Newport Village, which is in Areas 2 and 3, has heights of 60 feet (85 feet if utilizing Bonus Density). New development that does occur, in Newport Village or otherwise, will need to provide a streetscape that complies with the Secondary Street diagram in Figure 4.5: Street Dimensions + Types and will need to meet the design guidelines.

The design guidelines will include specific guidance for the placement and orientation of new buildings, including setbacks, frontages, and relationship with adjacent buildings.

7/22

Comment Letter

Inclusive Growth

Within the 1992 SAP, the heights were 45 feet for both Newport Village and the Bolling Brook Condominiums. We understand that the proposed change of height for Newport Village is to be increased to 60 feet to accommodate affordable housing. We understand and do support affordable housing. We ask that the Bolling Brook Condominium heights remain at the 45 feet height and not be increased to a 60 feet height, as is currently being proposed, since Bolling Brook is a condominium community and not a rental apartment complex like Newport Villages that could be redeveloped.

The 60 foot height enables the potential use of Section 7-700 for bonus height/density to provide affordable housing in Area 2, including Newport Village, Bolling Brook and other areas. These updates were shared at the April 2024 community meeting. While the Plan enables the use of Section 7-700, it will not necessarily be utilized; on average the City has 1-2 bonus density projects per year citywide.

7/30

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

I appreciate the Draft Plan’s attention to multimodal transportation networks, expanded and connected parks, and accessible neighborhood amenities, but don’t believe it does enough to promote housing affordability. To truly meet the goals of improving housing affordability and preventing displacement, the Draft Plan should be changed in two ways: allow affordable housing everywhere, and maximize housing near transit and amenities. Allow affordable housing everywhere: The plan’s Area 3 ensures that Alexandria West’s wealthier low-density neighborhoods remain exclusive. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be removed and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. Maximize housing near transit and amenities: The plan focuses development along the planned West End Transitway, but still limits growth in these areas. In places, allowed heights are less than what already exists. To make housing near transit affordable we should maximize the supply of that housing. The Plan should allow 150 feet of baseline height near the Transitway, and more where buildings like the Hilton are already much taller than this. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, encourage transit-oriented and walkable development, and ensure lower income Alexandrians are welcome in all neighborhoods.

The long-term (~20years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September. The strategy prioritizes development in areas such as surface parking lots or commercial areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning . The goal is to produce new housing in locations that will not displace existing residents and secure new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City regulation, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates to the Zoning Ordinance which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production at a variety of scales.

Affordable housing is allowed everywhere.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

7/30

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

I have the following comments: - The maximum building heights are insufficient to allow for the kind of dense housing developments needed to keep housing affordable. In many cases, the proposed height caps are lower than the heights of existing structure (e.g., the Hilton). The City Council spends *a lot* of time having to hear about SUPs for new housing developments—keeping height caps too low just means more work for them, and less housing that actually gets built. Honestly, just get rid of height caps altogether. - More should be done to connect AlexWest to the rest of Alexandria in ways that don't involve automobiles. There are few pedestrian and bike routes between AlexWest and the rest of Alexandria, and the plan only includes a possibility of a 4th. I-395 does too much to cut off this part of the city, relegating it to car transit only. - I do appreciate a focus on adding walking and biking trails within AlexWest to make sure that areas within are thoroughly connected and accessible without requiring a car or being forced to walk along busy streets like Beauregard.

In Figure 2.4: Building Heights, Note 3, the Plan states that existing constructed building heights as of 2024 are permitted to remain and subject to all applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions.

This would apply to existing buildings throughout the Plan area.

7/30

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

Wow! What an incredible plan. First, please continue to support multimodal transportation networks, expanded and connected parks, and accessible neighborhood amenities. Second, do more to promote housing affordability. The West End is the Best End and we house so many diverse groups of people. To keep the houses affordable AND livable and to prevent these groups in our community from being displaced, please change the plan to include affordable housing everywhere and maximize housing near transit and amenities. Allow affordable housing everywhere: The plan’s Area 3 ensures that Alexandria West’s wealthier low-density neighborhoods remain exclusive. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be removed and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. I want duplexes or garden apartments integrated into SFH neighborhoods- maybe one of those places can have a coffee shop too. Maximize housing near transit and amenities: The plan focuses development along the planned West End Transitway, but still limits growth in these areas. In places, allowed heights are less than what already exists. To make housing near transit affordable we should maximize the supply of that housing. The Plan should allow 150 feet of baseline height near the Transitway, and more where buildings like the Hilton are already much taller than this. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, encourage transit-oriented and walkable development, and ensure lower income Alexandrians are welcome in all neighborhoods.

The long-term (~20years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing and securing new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

7/30

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

First, the plan has been extremely well communicated. The plan itself, as well as all the other communications materials, make a complex topic easy to read and understand, and it shows that the city really cares about giving people the opportunity to understand what is planned for their neighborhood. I really appreciate all the new parks and improvements to transportation in the plan; this will go a long way towards improving the quality of life in Alexandria West. However, the plan does not address our regional housing crisis with the urgency it deserves. Many older apartment buildings in Alexandria West are reaching the end of their useful life, and we urgently need more housing supply to ensure that the people who live in Alexandria now can continue to live here in the future. I believe that the final version of the plan should: - Set a height limit of at least 85 feet everywhere in the plan area, including Area 3. This will ensure that property owners throughout the entire plan area are able to build housing that makes a dent in our housing shortage if they choose to do so. - Set maximum heights of 150 feet or more surrounding all planned West End Transitway stops - Ensure that all height limits in the plan are at least as tall as existing buildings on the parcel. The plan in its current form does not respect neighborhood character, because it mandates shorter buildings than what currently exist. Thank you for listening to community members, and I hope you will take the bold action needed to address our housing crisis.

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability

unlimited car-free affordable housing should be allowed near transit and work centres. It should be no more costly to live here than in other urban or exurban areas.

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

I'm pretty jazzed to see the improved public transportation options but the housing piece of this puzzle is not quite there. I am deeply worried about displacement and gentrification in this neighborhood, and one way to prevent that is by allowing affordable housing everywhere. Please raise the height limits -- 35 feet is ridiculously short and enshrines single family housing. I would also like to see more dense housing around the planned West End Transitway.

The long-term (~20 year) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing and securing new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

7/29

Comment Form

Maintaining Community

i appreciate that this section acknowledges that the status quo will result in displacement, and we need to proactively plan for future development

Thank you for the comment.

7/29

Comment Form

Inclusive Growth

Area 3 is largely used to shelter wealthier, low density neighborhoods. If we want to prevent displacement and allow inclusive growth, we can't just leave these parts of Alx West off the table when it comes to affordable housing. All neighborhoods should grow inclusively, and that means all neighborhoods should allow enough height and density to build affordable housing. 50 feet of height is needed to trigger the bonus height provision, and 85 feet would allow small midrise buildings that can easily include affordable units. 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. Allowing residential units everywhere is great! the height map shows allowed heights that are in some cases less than what already exists. existing heights should be the baseline for what's legal going forward, with additional height allowed for future projects. the plan only seems to response "neighborhood character" for low density neighborhoods!

In developing the Plan’s land use strategy, Staff considered areas that won’t displace existing residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. Area 3 is also home has condominium communities and other garden apartments. The goal of the Plan is to minimize displacement and the Focus Area of the Plan prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercial areas as an anti-displacement and with the goal of producing new housing.

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability

figure 3.1 is great, showing where development can happen without any displacement. These areas should all allow maximum height and density, to get as much housing onto them as possible without any displacement risk i'm concerned that the plan to develop on parking lots will be hard or impossible to achieve with the city's current parking mandates. to maximize affordability and mitigate displacement, we should repeal parking mandates

Thank you for the comment. Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. In AlexWest, market rents do not currently support the cost of construction for steel and concrete high-rise buildings. It is expected that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Property owners can request additional density or height above what is depicted in the Plan with the provision of committed affordable units as permitted by Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

New development would be required to provide one level of below-grade parking. At or above-grade will need to be screened with active uses.

7/29

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

i love the focus on multimodal transportation, connectivity, safety, and accessibility. i would love to see more streets connected into grids, or as close as possible, to further improve this

Thank you for the comment. The Plan shows new streets (required/recommended) only in the Focus Area. The Design Standards require block sizes not exceeding 1,500 feet in perimeter that provide future street connections. The Design Standards apply to all development that requires approval of a Development Special Use Permit.

7/29

Comment Form

Public + Connected Open Spaces

the vision for a connected park system accessible to everyone in the entire plan area is really beautiful. this plan is a great example of how development and improved public green space can go hand-in-hand

Thank you for the comment.

7/29

Comment Form

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

i'm shocked to see that the plan area has 141 acres of surface parking lots, 11% of the total plan area. this increases car dependence, worsens runoff, and exacerbates urban heat effects. we should repeal parking mandates and redevelop as many surface lots as possible into housing and green space the plan should note that increasing housing supply near jobs and amenities in alexandria also reduces sprawl, and the long commutes forced on people displaced from Alexandria to more car-dependent suburbs. this makes our community more sustainable and healthier

7/29

Comment Form

Recommendations

Reviewing neighborhood plans & design standards, much of this plan seems to break if we maintain existing parking mandates. many envisioned projects quickly become infeasible or, at the very least, exceedingly expensive due to requirements for underground parking. we should repeal expensive parking mandates to support inclusive growth

The Draft Plan is not proposing changing city policies as it relates to parking minimums, however, the zoning ordinance does enable parking reductions based on improved access to transit.

Plan Recommendation 13 requires development to that occurs on parking lots to provide new parking for existing and future uses consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Current regulation allows for parking reductions for sites that have high access to multiple transit options, acknowledging that access to transit provided by the WET enables lower car ownership rates.

7/29

Comment Form

Neighborhoods

many of the areas near planned Transitway stops allow much less height than we should. All areas near BRT should allow maximum height and density. And existing heights should be legal to build - the Hilton building is 338 feet tall! Not even half that height is allowed anywhere in the Plan Area, despite it already existing here without problems. "Neighborhood character" exists for high densities too!

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

the plan is good overall, but isn't bold enough to prevent displacement. we should allow 85 feet of height everywhere, and 150 feet near the planned transitway. Area 3 should be removed and incorporated into Area 2 so affordable housing can be built everywhere, not just in some neighborhoods.

7/29

Comment Form

Appendix - Other

the chart of building age on page 138 is important and should be more prominent early in the report. Many of the large, affordable buildings in Alexandria West are quickly approaching the end of their useful lives, and when they need to be torn down or face large renovations the area will be facing a huge displacement crisis. This should be the #1 underlying drive behind this plan: preventing that coming crisis by maximizing housing construction, especially of affordable housing

Thank you for the comment. The chart on building age is located in the Appendix for more information. The Plan includes this along with the narrative in the Housing Affordability chapter under Context (p. 30).

“…Making the situation more challenging is that more than half of the area’s housing units were built during the 1950s and 1960s, leading to a variety of maintenance issues, which can ultimately lead to increases in housing costs and displacement as potential renovations occur.”

7/29

Comment Form

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

I appreciate the Draft Plan’s attention to multimodal transportation networks, expanded and connected parks, and accessible neighborhood amenities, but don’t believe it does enough to promote housing affordability. To truly meet the goals of improving housing affordability and preventing displacement, the Draft Plan should be changed in two ways: allow affordable housing everywhere, and maximize housing near transit and amenities. Allow affordable housing everywhere: The plan’s Area 3 ensures that Alexandria West’s wealthier low-density neighborhoods remain exclusive. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be removed and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. Maximize housing near transit and amenities: The plan focuses development along the planned West End Transitway, but still limits growth in these areas and in places allows less height than what already exists. To make housing affordable we should maximize housing supply by allowing 150 feet of baseline height near the Transitway, and more where buildings like the Hilton are already much taller than this. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, encourage transit-oriented and walkable neighborhoods in the Plan Area, and ensure lower income Alexandrians are welcome in all neighborhoods.

7/29

Comment Form

General

Several comments: 1. This is a plan to preserve economic segregation, inefficient land use, and poor transit accessibility, with modest changes in the right direction. 2. A far better plan would be to allow unlimited housing density by-right on every lot in Alexandria, provided that buildings meet relevant health and safety requirements, and to allow commercial uses in all neighborhoods provided that businesses meet genuine nuisance mitigation requirements.

7/31

Comment

General

Our overall concern with the draft plan is that it is not respectful of the many positive attributes of Alexandria West. As a consequence, it does little to protect, preserve, and enhance those positive qualities. Indeed, the very dense, urban vision shown in this document is a threat to the ambiance, character, openness, greenness, and pleasant living which attracted the current residents and businesses, and which continue to do so. The specific threats in this plan include:
• The West End Transitway (WET)
• Dwindling tree canopy and decreasing setbacks
• Increasing building heights.

Please see responses below to the three topics of the letter.

7/31

Comment Form

Mobility + Safety

The idea of the WET was hatched by some transit advocates on the Council nearly 20 years ago. Since that time, Alex West has seen enormous changes in land use (loss of nearly all office space), in demographics, and in life style, especially regarding commuting. Nothing in this plan asked the hard questions about whether a dedicated transitway still makes any sense. In general, Alex West today has a high level of transit service with connections to a large number of destinations. The bus routes penetrate the neighborhoods and thus walking distances to stops are short. There is no evidence of a pattern today or in the future that suggests a need for a special focus on higher transit speeds to get to the Van Dorn Station or to Shirlington (if Arlington is even going to continue the transitway through its territory). We in Alex West need to go to the Pentagon, King Street, Braddock Road, Old Town, Carlyle, Ballston, and many smaller destinations within the City far more than we need to go to Shirlington or Van Dorn, which is near the end of the line. So this plan potentially supports spending several hundred million dollars for an unneeded facility that will destroy the beauty of the nicest boulevard in the City, N. Beauregard Street, from King Street to Sanger Avenue. It will make us walk farther to/from a stop, and create pedestrian safety issues to cross six or more lanes, especially for the children attending four elementary schools which are or will be along Beauregard. We fully support location-specific improvements to signal timing, bus priority treatments, et al., and would be happy to work on improvements to our already excellent transit service, but otherwise, please remove this unwise, expensive, unnecessary, and ugly idea from the plan.

The West End Transitway was proposed and approved as part of a separate process that included significant community engagement over multiple phases, incorporated as part of the Alexandria Mobility Plan, and most recently approved by City Council in 2021, all before the AlexWest Small Area Plan began. You can read more about the project here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/transportation-planning/west-end-transitway

The AlexWest Small Area Plan builds on existing City policy, including the policy recommendations of the Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP), which recommends the Transitway for the Plan area. The AlexWest Plan does not preclude future implementation of the Transitway through additional setbacks of buildings, particularly on Beauregard. Any future design and implementation of a dedicated transitway will require an additional community input process.

The current transitway improvements include signal priority and queue jumps that are modest improvement to the existing streets. The transit stations will be greatly enhanced as part of the transitway improvements.

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth
Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Alex West has only 33 percent tree canopy, compared to the national guidance for 40 percent. And we have experienced major tree canopy loss in the recent past due to how the City permits development to occur. Every new development in our neighborhood in the past 20 years has removed virtually every tree on the property. Examples include the Blake, where more than 100 mature hardwoods were removed; the St. James Place apartments and the townhouses next door, which wiped out nearly four acres of tree canopy; the Spire, or … the list goes on and on, and this plan does NOTHING to prevent that from continuing to happen. Moreover, this plan is ALL about densification of development, trying to squeeze in more and more dwelling units on a finite amount of land. None of the proposed development will save our tree canopy; rather, new, dense development will continue to wipe it out.

The Focus Area (about 1/3 of the Plan area), which is the area that is recommended for additional development, consists primarily of commercial areas and parking lots, which have almost no open space and limited tree canopy, depending on the site. Parking lots, in particular, make up approximately 20% of the focus area, and contribute negative impacts such as increased surface temperatures and polluted stormwater runoff.

With new development sites will be required to provide tree canopy consistent with existing City policy and provide approximately 60 acres of new public parks, further enabling opportunities to increase tree canopy.

Inclusive Growth

Building residences on existing surface parking lots, most of which do have some trees, eats away at potential green space, and wipes out the trees in the lots. The plan is full of very urban images, trying to show them as ―green.‖ But there are NO images of the quality of green openness and tree canopy that we have in Alex West. Our residents cannot relate to the images in this plan because NONE of them show what Alex West is all about and what we want to have maintained. In particular, all one has to do is see the near-zero setbacks of The Spire, St. James Apartments, or all the new development at King/Beauregard to conclude that this plan envisions a street, curb, sidewalk with narrow planting strip (if at all), and then the building. We in Alex West came here because the buildings were well set back from the street: 35–50 feet for SF homes, > 50 feet for places like Mark Center, and many apartment and townhouse developments. The bottom line is this plan does not respect the quality of the Alex West neighborhoods, does not protect or preserve what is desirable, and is hell-bent on creating dense urban development like Crystal City, Rosslyn, or Carlyle. No one in Alex West wants that.

It is true that new development is planned to be constructed in a more urban manner than the development it is replacing. However, it does not have zero setbacks but will instead provide generous streetscapes, street trees, and approximately 60 acres of new public parks. We believe this is consistent with what we have heard are important elements that the community wanted to see as part of the planning process.

While 1/3 of the Plan area, the Focus Area, is prioritized for development, the remaining two-thirds of the plan area is not prioritized for development, and is subject to existing (and indeed any future) zoning requirements, policies and regulations. In addition, the redevelopment of the plan is incremental and is anticipated to occur over the next 5-20 years.

Throughout the planning process we heard from many community members who advocated for even more density than what this plan includes. These comments are evident both in this document and in previous documents that include public comments gathered earlier in the process. The draft plan considers all the feedback obtained throughout the planning process and balances all of the competing interests and needs of community members.

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

Alex West has some of the tallest buildings in the City. Tall buildings have a place in Alex West. Building heights per se are not so much the problem. Rather, it is where the plan permits the existing heights to be greatly increased that we find problematic. The building heights in general show no respect for the character of the neighborhood, nor for the provision of adequate light and air for adjacent buildings. A recent case in point was at 2000 N Beauregard St., for decades a four-story office building, well set back from the street and adjacent residences, surrounded by trees and parking. Now that site is the Blake Apartments, six stories, hard by the street and far too close to the adjacent residences, some of which now do not even get blessed with sunlight. The previous plan kept ALL the really tall buildings between Beauregard and I-395. We asked at the start of this planning effort to preserve that, and to step down the heights as one got closer to one- and two-story residences. This plan instead brings heights too high into too many residential areas, and that is an affront to the people who live in Alex West. No one bought in with the idea that they would not be able to see the sun from where they live.

In general, the Alex West plan does not propose to substantially increase building heights in the plan area: only 17% of parcels in the AlexWest Plan are seeing an increase in height above what is currently permitted by the existing zoning. While there are limited parcels that increase in building height, design standards are intended to result in buildings that are of higher quality and better fit into the context of each neighborhood.

As mentioned previously, and as is evident in both the accumulated public feedback in this document and in others, we heard from many community members who wanted increases in height to an even greater extent than what is included in this plan. The draft plan considers all the feedback we obtained throughout the planning process and balances competing interests and needs of community members.

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

In the Focus Area, nearly everything was pre-approved as part of the BSAP, and it will bring INTENSE change to the Focus Area. And then the plan needs to clearly state exactly what will change: density, building heights, land use types, loss of thousands of mature trees, etc.

It is true that the development approved as part of the Beauregard Small Area Plan was carried forward as part of the Alex West Plan. This is because these sites have already approved zoning. However, while the land uses and heights are proposed to change for certain sites, development will not necessarily occur on all of the sites, even within the~20 year life of the plan. The land uses and zoning are one parameter to indicate future development, however development is also subject to many other variable elements such as interest rates, access to capital, market conditions, cost of construction, absorption, etc. Therefore, it is anticipated that approximately 1 building per year or 300-450 units/year will be built over the lifespan of the plan.

As described above, the Plan only increases heights on 17% of the parcels in AlexWest and new development will need to provide tree canopy that is consistent with the City’s existing policy at the time development is submitted for review.

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

In Area 3, which is nearly all SF homes, detached or townhouses, (of which, by the way, there is not one image of any in the plan report, further demonstrating that the plan cares not about such land uses/types), the plan needs to spell out all of the zoning changes which were made less than a year ago, and which will, when implemented, destroy the character of these fine residential areas. Multiple dwelling units on small SF lots, no off-street parking, etc. --- these are ENORMOUS changes, which the average person in Alex West likely does not really know is coming their way. They must be spelled out in the plan.

The plan does not propose any specific changes to Area 3, which includes single-unit, townhouses, and multi-unit communities. Area 3 also has a variety of townhouse and condominium communities that are unlikely to redevelop. Area 3 is additionally subject to all existing City policies, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production. The policies included in the Zoning for Housing process were part of a separate, unrelated, well-advertised, and publicly noticed process.

7/31

Comment

Housing Affordability

The City went to great efforts to reach out to the relatively low-income, non-English native speaking, chiefly immigrant residents of the many MF buildings in Alex West. This is to the City’s credit. And the plan does flag the concerns these residents have about rent increases, evictions, et al. But the plan really does not present any concrete ideas on how to preserve such market-affordable rentals. Alexandria is not the only city in the US facing these issues, and they have been addressed over the past 75 years through a variety of options --- conversion to condo ownership via low/no-interest mortgages supported by government and charitable organizations, conversion to co-ops (in similar ways), etc. In Alexandria, this was done with, e.g., Park Fairfax in the 1970s. Can the funds be found to save ALL such market-affordable units? Perhaps not, but this plan spends its efforts on talking about trying to squeeze in new construction, which will not be market-affordable until it is as old as the market-affordable rentals currently in Alex West. The residents in the existing market-affordable housing are our neighbors and friends, and our children go to school together. We know, we work, we play with these folks, and they are working hard and saving to be able to buy into our neighborhood, which still has some of the most affordable SF housing in the city (small, older homes). To not come up with better ideas to preserve what we have, rather than focus on the more expensive ―let’s build some small amount of new affordable housing‖ truly misses the boat, and is greatly disappointing.

In the AlexWest plan on page 32, the plan states, “For areas in the Focus Area with existing garden apartments, those apartments may be retained as part of the development process if they achieve the housing affordability goals of the Plan and comply with the open space and connectivity recommendations of the Plan.”

In addition, the plan will result in the development of new Committed Affordable Units, which include affordability protections that market affordable units do not.

Lastly, the Office of Housing utilizes many of their existing resources to preserve and develop affordable housing that is not able to be required through development. These tools are addressed in the Housing Chapter of the Plan.

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth
Neighborhoods

There Is No ―There‖ There in the plan. Pardon the quote of the old expression, but it seems to fit with our last concern. Since annexation in 1952, Alex West has grown in fits and spurts through a series of unrelated developments. Some were large – Southern Towers, e.g., -- and had a modest degree of internal community. The Mark Center development – the old Hamlets with a common club and several pools, and the Hamlet Shopping Center with its park-like interior --- were highly attractive, and created some modest common space for their residents. But the City has never invested in working with developers and/or using public funds to create a community center or focus area west of I-395. Contrarily, such an effort WAS done when Cameron Station was BRACed and developed, with a large park area being the public contribution. This plan continues what many see as a neglect by the City as it does not propose some sort of public/private focus area for all or at least a significant part of Alex West. It can be hard to provide just one, give the long, narrow configuration of the planning area, but none are provided in this plan. Our concept for such a place would be roughly where the Shops at Mark Center are. Adjacent are two elementary schools, a focus of human activity and foot traffic already. This plan should show/tell/order(?) the developers of that area to create, with the City, some open space, surrounded by retail and residential (with adequate parking, but behind the buildings) as a true Alex West community gathering place. The City is doing some of that at Potomac Yard, so why not here? Splash fountains for the kids, art in public places, etc. — City staff well knows what to consider and provide. There is no reason this plan should lack such amenities, which are available in other parts of the City. While we appreciate that you have worked with us over the two years of the plan, you can tell that we are not satisfied with a number of critical aspects of the plan. We remain willing and able to continue working to get this plan improved by addressing the areas of concern that we have identified in this memo. Thank you.

The AlexWest Plan does identify a site for a potential City facility at the intersection of N. Beauregard and Sanger streets. In addition, the plan commits to pursuing the development of a new recreation center in the Plan area.

In addition to the new recreation center, and as stated earlier in this document, the plan identifies 60 acres of new parks to be provided as part of development. In the Garden neighborhood where the Shops at Mark Center are, the plan identifies several parks (22-26) that will be provided with new development. These parks will be in close proximity (or in some cases adjacent to) required and encouraged retail areas in the Garden Neighborhood and new residential buildings. The Plan identifies additional parks to be provided throughout the Garden Neighborhood and the Greenway neighborhoods (as well as throughout the rest of the focus area).

In addition, the 60 acres of new public parks will include some of the amenities listed in this comment. The final composition of these parks (including what specific amenities they will have) will be determined during the development review public process and will generally include the parameters identified in Chapter 5 and in tables 8.1-8.12.

7/31

Public + Connected Open Spaces

Suggestions for new parks on the Southern Towers property, pocket parks just west of the intersection of Beauregard Street and along Seminary Road, plus land donated by Morgan Properties

Rather than having them be “ho hum”, very non memorable open spaces consider adding inspiring specialty features like:

1. Butterfly Sanctuary - plant native vegetation, such as beds of milkweed, to attract butterflies and honey bees.

2. Bird Haven - populated with bird boxes, feeders, and baths. Not only for decorative purposes but primarily to attract cheerful song birds.

3. Statuary Park - filled with modern and abstract sculptures created by local artists.

4. Virginia President’s Trail - with busts on pedestals of the 8 Virginia Presidents of the United States from George Washington to Woodrow Wilson.

5. Movie and Musical Artists Statues of famous people who lived in Alexandria - such as Cass Elliot of “The Momma’s and the Poppas” or Jim Morrison of the “Doors”. There are at least a dozen of them.

6. LBGTQ+ Friendly Space - featuring colorful and flamboyant iconic items like Dorothy’s ruby red slippers from the Wizard of Oz plus statues of Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and Cary Grant.

7. Jazz Icons - statues (with musical instruments) of legendary musicians in that genre.

Such specialty parks would be more educational, interesting, and fun for both locals and tourists alike.

The Plan provides general parameters for public open space/park requirements as part of development. Specific details, such as the creative ideas listed in your comments, for Park amenities will be further developed and finalized as part of the development review public process and will be based on the current needs assessment (p. 122, Note# 2)

7/31

Mobility + Safety

Why not TWO Dash Bus Schedules? Pre-Pandemic the main objective of the Dash bus traveling east on Beauregard Street was to deliver passengers quickly to the Pentagon for jobs in DC. Post-Pandemic the number of West Enders who tele-commute and work from home is substantial. No need to travel to DC. Shouldn’t the bus schedule for Beauregard street reflect this altered reality? Suggest a new 2-tiered, more flexible schedule. Continue same morning and afternoon “rush hour” bus schedule. But during non-rush hours have a more Alexandria focused route - deeper into neighborhood side streets. The loop that forms when Rayburn and Reading avenues intersect badly needs service. As does conveniently traveling to the new Del Pepper Community Center. Serving 2 different types of clientele during different times of the day would be win-win for all!

DASH bus routes and schedules are not within the purview of a small area land use plan, and so this Draft Plan is not proposing any changes to DASH. To contact DASH with route/schedule feedback, go to: https://www.dashbus.com/contactus/

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

while I appreciate the content of the sustainability and open space chapter, I would urge you to include a paragraph or 2 that addresses the impacts of the climate crisis/environmental justice and how this plan addresses the impacts in each of the other chapters. For example, because of the increase in heat and extreme weather events with associated power outages – buildings that are much more energy efficient reduce the energy burden on residents and allow them to remain in their homes for longer during power outages. When it comes to environmental justice, I think what may be missing is the “why”. Everyone should have clean air and clean water – both inside and outside. Building buildings that are energy efficient and not having to burn fuel to create the power to heat the buildings (vs. fuel provided by the sun, wind or water) means increased clean air inside and outside. So early on perhaps on page 7, I suggest you include a reference to environmental justice in the center boxes where you include people, culture + diversity and social spaces and community.

Acknowledged, we will amplify environmental justice and the “why” for sustainability measures.

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Second, all Small Area Plans are supposed to incorporate other citywide plans/policies such as the Mobility Plan. Therefore, at the beginning this plan there needs to be a specific reference to: a) the Environmental Action Plan (with a target of 50% reduction in pollution by 2030 and 80-100% by 2050), b) the Energy and Climate Change Action Plan (with its requirement of 95% of new buildings must be high performance) as well as c) the Climate Emergency Declaration (costs to address the climate crisis will only go up as time moves forward) declared in 2019. This is VERY important in this Plan since we have had developers in the past suggest they only have to comply with the Green Building Policy and ignore the other Citywide policies and plans that may affect their developments. Thus, they have no plans to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2050. There is no point in having these policies if no one has to think about how they must comply with them in the future. After all developers must comply with all the other specific plans on specific subjects – environmental plans/policies should be no different.

The expectation of the draft Plan is that new development will be consistent with all applicable City policies at the time development is submitted for review. Developers must comply with these other policies, however these policies may change or be updated. Including them by name in this Plan risks creating redundancies and anachronisms, or reference to outdated information.

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Third, as an example, the Housing chapter should include the fact that many of the residents of affordable housing and even market rate housing have very high energy bills ($250+/month) and poor indoor air quality per the Healthy Homes project results. If we set high energy efficiency requirements via the GBP this reduces the monthly cost of energy by up to $200/month and makes their indoor air much cleaner - thereby reducing asthma rates for the children who live there. This is an example of the kind of environmental justice reference that should accompany each major chapter. The Plan should include something similar to the Mobility chapter and perhaps some of the others.

Utility cost was flagged by the community during the planning process. The analysis related to housing affordability takes into account the cost of utilities. The intent of the draft Plan is that development be consistent with applicable City policies at the time development is submitted for review. This would include any updates to utility efficiency included in the Green Building Policy. Reference to environmental justice is acknowledged and we will integrate this theme as mentioned above.

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Pg 73 – Really excellent – reducing heat islands and parking lots that affect stormwater quantity and quality while encouraging more tree planting that helps improve water quality, air quality and reduce stormwater impacts as well. Also improves mental health of nearby residents. Also possible to include the collection of rainwater with larger buildings in cisterns and use this gray water in local irrigations systems to reduce runoff and reuse water thereby reducing water and stormwater fees.

Acknowledged – thank you for your comment!

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Pg 74 – Excellent reference to district wide energy. The City should be asking our elected officials to make sure current laws will allow buildings with a street separating them to share hot/cold water/air. Also every new building should include ground based heat pumps unless the footprint is too small.

Acknowledged – thank you for your comment!

7/31

Comment

Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Pg 74 – Resist the temptation to use jargon – like greenhouse gas (GHG) because a majority of the public doesn’t know or understand these words. I suggest instead you use words such as air pollution or water pollution that results in extreme heat and/or extreme weather events or something similar. Nearly everyone understands the need to provide everyone with clean air and clear water. They also should understand less pollution or bad air/water makes their life better and more pollution bad air/water makes their life worse. Perhaps also show a picture of solar panels on a roof in the diagram on page 74

Thank you for the suggestion. Staff will review to make the Built Environment section easier to understand.

7/31

Comment

Recommendations

Pg 75 – Recommendations – regardless of what the Green Buildings Policy says – developers should comply or show how they will comply with:
a) the targets of the EAP,
b) ECCAP implantation requirements on page ES-7, and
c) Climate Emergency Declaration.
If everyone can just ignore these citywide policies and declarations then they become meaningless and a waste of taxpayers’ money. We don’t let residents and business owners comply with just a few of the citywide policies – they must comply with ALL, but somehow we fail to include the requirement for climate crisis policies. Are these just the city’s “poor stepchildren” policies or are they as important as housing, mobility and stormwater? If so, we need to demonstrate that within this document and all future SAPs.

The intent of the draft Plan is that development be consistent with applicable City policies at the time development is submitted for review. Developers must comply with these other policies, however these policies may change or be updated. Including them by name in this Plan risks creating redundancies and anachronisms or outdated information. Consistent application of these citywide policies needs to be done at a citywide level, not in specific areas of the city.

7/31

Comment

Implementation
Recommendations

Pg 79 Mobility + Safety – Also Implementation page 127 Project 4: What about biking and other connections within this SAP but between other Focus areas such as between area 3 and 1 or 3 and 2? Even though we are focusing on development outside of Area 3 we still need to make sure we are thinking about how to connect all the 3 areas other than just for cars. Thus, how do we improve travel by other mobility options other than cars across all 3 areas?

7/31

Comment

Mobility + Safety

Pg 80 B – we must cite the EAP and ECCAP targets, not just the GBP since all are policies or plans adopted by Council. Perhaps also cite the Climate Emergency Declaration and highlight some of its specifics such as reducing pollution as fast as possible and the costs of not doing this now will only increase over time as well as reduce property values and thus income for the City.

The intent of the draft Plan is that development be consistent with applicable City policies at the time development is submitted for review. Developers must already comply with these other policies, however these policies may change or be updated. Including them by name in this Plan risks creating redundancies and anachronisms or reference to outdated policy.

In the case of the Green Building Policy (and the upcoming Housing Master Plan update), those are in process at this moment in time and so we reference them to ensure that they are enforced later.

7/31

Comment

Neighborhoods

Chapter 9 neighborhoods – perhaps in the first page of each neighborhood section show a map with the full WestEnd and then a cut out of the specific neighborhood you are going to talk about. At this point, I don’t believe the residents or business owners are familiar enough to know when you talk about for instance the Terrace Neighborhood – where that is within the WestEnd.

Figure 8.0 shows the neighborhoods within the Plan area. In addition, we have added a small inset map to each neighborhood section.

7/31

Comment

Neighborhoods

Restore RPA, especially the Greenway neighborhood – note all areas within the RPA or near the RPAs should consider the potential impacts of extreme weather and the flooding events. Thus all those areas should be able with little expense to recover from extreme flooding easily and we should exclude wherever possible any building or expensive amenities within the flood zone. We don’t need to spend another 10 years waiting to restore bridges or other infrastructure on or near streams that will flood today and worse tomorrow.

Any development or park amenities (like trails) would need to adhere to the City regulation for the RPA. In addition, in Chapter 6 the plan states, “Removing existing encroachments (such as buildings) from the RPA and restoring this area during redevelopment provides an opportunity to protect and improve water quality, reduce flooding, create green space, and restore habitat.” It is the intent of the plan that new development will not occur in the RPA.

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 127 – Project 5 – What other Recreational facility in the City is only part time for residents – like Ramsey in the WestEnd? This is another indication of the lack of respect the residents of the West End get from the City. This must be part of the next years CIP budget. Also, since it may be likely future development will be eliminating outdoor pools within or bordering RPAs, we MUST include City replacement pools. Once again, the WestEnd has a large population but no city owned/maintained indoor or outdoor pools. This amenity must be included in future development.

The Plan is prioritizing a new recreation facility as high priority.

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 127, Item 7: Access to Mulligan Park – looks like this park needs some serious work to eliminate invasive bamboo and converting natural areas to native plants.

Any changes to James Mulligan would be a separate process that would include community input. Maintenance of James Mulligan is handled by RPCA.

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 128, Item 1: I think you meant this to refer to Figure 8.10 vs. 8.11 – please correct this.

Thank you for catching this, we will make sure it is updated.

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 128-9, Housing - Items 4-8: Perhaps the City should explain exactly how it expects residents to respond to increased rents that are inevitable as the area gentrifies and the City is unable to guarantee a one for one replacement of housing units that don’t cost more.

Throughout the engagement process, we heard overwhelmingly from residents about this exact issue. The City is limited in terms of what it can do to control existing rents (for instance, we are not able to implement rent control). Both in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 7 the Plan discusses utilizing existing City policies to address increases in rents due to development pressures. The additional housing units produced by the development incentivized in the Focus Area will relieve some of this development pressure, however we know that this is not enough and does not address rent escalation that is happening today. The upcoming Housing Master Plan Update will address some of these problems and the City is committed to pursuing legislative authority and other additional tools and partnerships to address these challenges.

100

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 129-130, Mobility – Items 9-18: Item 10 & 12 as above – For instance - make sure you are connecting Lincolnia Hills development in Focus area 3 with the other areas that are undergoing more development. Just because Focus area 3 is not undergoing development doesn’t mean it should not be considered when trying to encourage mobility connections within Focus areas 1 and 2. This will be even more important if some of the sinlge family homes are converted to 2-6 flats.

Note 1 on Figure 4.6: Pedestrian + Bike Network states, “When possible, the City will work with property owners to add bicycle/pedestrian connections not shown on this map to other parks and routes.” We are not precluding the possibility of new connections in Area 3 – they will be identified and implemented through the development review process if properties in Area 3 are submitted for development.

101

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 130, Parks & Open Space, Item 20 – This should be upgraded to Short Term to get it into the City budget as soon as possible since it will take several years to build before it opens. In addition, since we already have only a part time Rec Center in West End if we are serious about equity and environmental justice this needs to be fixed now, not later.

The Plan acknowledges the facility is needed now and is high priority, however it will take time for planning, funding, and construction. In Chapter 5, the Plan states “Funding for such a facility will compete for funding through the City’s Capital Improvement program (CIP) and/or grand funding sources.”

102

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 130, Sustainability, An added Item should be included here: Comply with City’s Environmental Action Plan and Energy and Climate Change Action Plan as well as City’s Climate Emergency Declaration and all developers should have to explain how their development would comply with eliminating pollution (greenhouse gases) by 2050, etc. We MUST NOT rely solely on the Green Building Policy because we do not know whether it will get us to the final target Council supported in the EAP, ECCAP and Declaration.

The intent of the draft Plan is that development be consistent with applicable City policies at the time development is submitted for review. Developers must already comply with these other policies, however these policies may change or be updated. Including them by name in this Plan risks creating redundancies and anachronisms or referencing outdated documents.

In the case of the Green Building Policy (and the upcoming Housing Master Plan), those are in process at this moment in time and so we reference them to ensure that they are enforced later.

103

7/31

Comment

Implementation

Implementation: page 130 Item 24 – Yes, Yes but please explore whether there are any legal impediments to buildings sharing hot/cool air or water across public streets. Explore and confirm this it OK now so the General Assembly can address any impediments ASAP.
This is outside the purview of a small area land use plan. The legal viability of any district-wide sustainability measures will be explored through either the development review process and/or through upcoming City policy work.

Acknowledged – thank you for your comment!

104

7/31

Inclusive Growth

For any new buildings in the Area 2 neighborhoods including King Street (Area 2) and King Street (Focus Area), how do we ensure that any new buildings be charming and timeless, like some of the new buildings in the North Potomac Yard Small Area Plan or some of the buildings (like the Alban Towers) on Wisconsin and Massachusetts in DC or 3 of the building designs that were sent to staff via a staff-requested project (September 2023)? We are also trying to avoid having city-scape looking buildings or unattractive and unappealing ones that are currently on King Street in Area 2.

The Plan will include design guidelines which clearly layout the required design elements of buildings in the Plan area, including materials, setbacks, facades, etc. These design guidelines will ensure that buildings are built using high quality materials that age well and that reflect the needs and aesthetics of the surrounding area. The buildings referenced on King Street in Area 2 were built using the limited design guidance in the 1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan.

105

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

Within the 1992 SAP, the heights were 45 feet for both Newport Village and the Bolling Brook Condominiums (Area 2). We understand that the proposed change of height for Newport Village is to be increased to 60 feet to accommodate affordable housing. We understand and do support affordable housing. However, we ask that the Bolling Brook Condominium heights remain at the 45 feet height and not be increased to a 60 feet height, as is currently being proposed, since Bolling Brook is a condominium community and not a rental apartment complex like Newport Villages that could be redeveloped. We are hoping that is a possibility for us. Is it?

106

7/31

Inclusive Growth

Given there are not specifics and details such as set backs, topography, juxtaposition of buildings in relationship to the established low-rise residential neighborhoods or other buildings, proportion of building to land, etc., in Area 2 within the AlexWest June draft SAP, how do we ensure that any new building have the needed specifics and details so that the established low-rise residential neighborhoods are respected? How do we ensure that any new buildings respect the established low-rise residential neighborhoods in Area 2? From our viewpoint we felt this had not been done with the building of the Alexander, Northampton and Halstead Tower. Our concerns of these three buildings such as heights, widths, dimensions, proportion of building to land, respecting established adjacent property and low-rise neighborhoods to name a few were not included in the development process from our perspective.

The design guidelines in the plan will include specific guidance for the placement and orientation of new buildings, including setbacks, frontages, and relationship with adjacent buildings.

107

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

Within the Newport Village neighborhood (Area 2), we ask that it not be a city-scape setting with any new redevelopment. We ask that the setting either honor the neighborhood setting of the established low-rise residential areas (Stonegate Townhouses, Bolling Brook Condominiums, The Palazzo) or it have the look and feel of a town setting as in Cameron Station (as opposed to a city-scape setting as in the Eisenhower neighborhood near Wegmans). Would that be possible?

Newport Village, which is in Area 2, has heights of 60 feet. This is substantially lower than the heights in the Eisenhower East Small Area Plan, where the height minimums are almost all over 125 feet except for one block. These height differences will result in radically different types of development. Regardless, new development that does occur, in Newport Village or otherwise, will need to provide a streetscape that complies with the Secondary Street diagram in Figure 4.5: Street Dimensions + Types and will need to meet the design guidelines.

108

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

Hello, I as a West End community member do not support this Plan because the working class families like mine that earn less than 50K a year. (translation)

Throughout the engagement process, we heard overwhelmingly from residents about this exact issue. The City is limited in terms of what it can do to control existing rents (for instance, we are not able to implement rent control). Both in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 7 the Plan discusses utilizing existing City policies to address increases in rents due to development pressures. The additional housing units produced by the development incentivized in the Focus Area will relieve some of this development pressure, however we know that this is not enough and does not address rent escalation that is happening today. The new development will also be required to provide 10% of the additional development as committed affordable units set aside for households that earn less than 60% of the area median income. In addition, the upcoming Housing Master Plan Update will continue to address these problems at a citywide level and the City is committed to pursuing legislative authority and other additional tools and partnerships to address these challenges.

109

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

Hello, I as a West End community member do not support this Plan because the working class families like mine that earn less than 50K a year. (translation)

Throughout the engagement process, we heard overwhelmingly from residents about this exact issue. The City is limited in terms of what it can do to control existing rents (for instance, we are not able to implement rent control). Both in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 7 the Plan discusses utilizing existing City policies to address increases in rents due to development pressures. The additional housing units produced by the development incentivized in the Focus Area will relieve some of this development pressure, however we know that this is not enough and does not address rent escalation that is happening today. The new development will also be required to provide 10% of the additional development as committed affordable units set aside for households that earn less than 60% of the area median income. In addition, the upcoming Housing Master Plan Update will continue to address these problems at a citywide level and the City is committed to pursuing legislative authority and other additional tools and partnerships to address these challenges.

110

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

In this Plan, the majority of benefits are for the developers not for the community. (translation)

The plan identifies numerous benefits that will be provided to the public by new development, including, but not limited to, more Committed Affordable Units, 60 acres of new publicly accessible parks and open spaces, land for a new recreation center, a new Transit Center in the Crossroads neighborhood, expanded bike and pedestrian infrastructure and more. These benefits are provided to the City by developers and are only able to be obtained through the development process.

111

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

This Plan guarantees a lot of housing in our community but does not have anything that guarantees that the housing is for us, the families that already live here and barely earn minimum wage. (translation)

We acknowledge that there are housing policies, like a right of return, that the City would like to include in this plan (and others) but which we are currently not able to enforce due to limitations in State legislation. In the future, the City is committed to advocating for expanded legislative authority in order to develop more tools to preserve and develop affordable housing.

112

7/30

Comment

Inclusive Growth

Retail is an accessory use and the Plan does not preclude retail where it allowed by existing zoning.

113

7/30

Comment

Mobility + Safety

I support the approach in Chapter 4, and would prioritize both dedicated transit lanes and a connected low stress bike network.

Thank you for the comment

114

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

This Plan is worrying because it does not preserve families that already live her. For those reasons, I do not support it. (translation)

A central goal of the Plan is to minimize displacement by prioritizing development on surface parking lots and commercial areas. Without a Plan, rents will continue to rise which may lead to displacement. The Plan outlines the tools that the City has to minimize displacement but acknowledges more tools are needed through legislative authority.

115

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

This Plan says a lot of good things but it is not for our families that will be displaced because of high cost of rent that it will generate. That means that my family will be displaced. (translation)

116

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

If it’s true that we are a priority, The City should not approve this Plan that does not include working-class families that earn 40% AMI or less. (translation)

Housing at this income band (at or below 40% AMI) is extremely expensive to produce and difficult to finance. Providing these types of units will require some type of public-private partnerships that necessitate a lot of financing sources to come together including City funding. One zoning tool that incentivizes units at deeply affordable levels is the Residential Multifamily zone (RMF).

117

7/30

Comment

Housing Affordability

If it’s true that we are a priority, The City should not approve this Plan that does not include working-class families that earn 40% AMI or less. (translation)

118

7/30

Comment

Neighborhoods

Please revise the plan for South Pickett Street so that Cameron Station Blvd is not impacted by additional traffic. The negative effects to the Cameron Station neighborhood far outweigh the revisions proposed. Revision will bring substantially increased traffic which end result will be more noise, pollution and dangerous driving conditions to the Cameron Station neighborhood. Cameron Station Blvd will invariably be used as a cut-thru from Duke to South Pickett in both directions. This will result in an unacceptable outcome for the many residents of our beloved neighborhood. The safety of the elderly, disabled, dogs and children will be severely and unnecessary compromised with serious consequences. A reevaluation of the existing plan must be done to ensure these changes do not impact Cameron Station in a reckless and irresponsible manner. Thank you. Robert Gormley 281 Cameron Station Blvd Alexandria, VA. 22304 571-228-5351

The South Pickett Street project is not in the Alexandria West plan boundaries. More information can be found on the South Pickett Street Corridor Improvement project page

alexandriava.gov/transportation-planning/project/south-pickett-street-corridor-improvements

119

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

I see there are plans to have dedicated areas for neighborhood serving commerical as well as public green zones. Where would the the creation of neighborhood serving faith based community centers be allowed? Which zone would these fit in? Many of the residents in this area belong to various faiths and ensuring multi-model access to these institutions would be a beneficial. As a muslim myself, having access to a mosque that doesn't require driving my car would reduce the need for parking lots, especially on fridays when muslim men are required to attend a communal prayer for roughly half an hour. Currently only one mosque exists in the entire west end area, located near the Jacobs neighborhood at the every edge of the west end area. Dedicated areas within each neighbhorhood for faith based centers would be a step in the right direction to ensure all needs are met of the residents of west end.

Places of Worship are allowed in residential and commercial land uses and also by existing zoning.

120

7/31

Comment

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

121

7/31

Comment

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

As a resident of Alexandria (in Del Ray) I really appreciate the work that City staff has put into the AlexWest Draft Plan, especially the attention to multimodal transportation networks, expanded and connected parks, and accessible neighborhood amenities. However, I am worried that it does not do enough to promote housing affordability which is such a huge issue here in Alexandria. I'd like to encourge the City to meet the goals of improving housing affordability and preventing displacement by changing the Draft Plan in two ways: allow affordable housing everywhere, and maximize housing near transit and amenities. Specifically: The plan's Area 3 allows Alexandria West’s wealthier low-density neighborhoods to remain underdeveloped. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be eliminated and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. While the plan focuses development along the planned West End Transitway, it still limits growth in these areas. In places, allowed heights are less than what already exists. We should maximize the supply of that housing to make housing near transit affordable. To do so, the plan should allow 150 feet of baseline height near the Transitway, and more where buildings (like the Hilton) are already much taller than this. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, encourage transit-oriented and walkable development, and ensure lower income Alexandrians are welcome in all neighborhoods.

The long-term (~20 years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing and securing new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

122

7/31

Comment

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

The long-term (~20 years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing and securing new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

123

8/1

Comment

General

Increase police patrols in the West End, especially around Edsall road, Yoakum Pkwy, Stevenson Ave, Reynolds Ave, and Whiting St. Police presence serves as a great crime deterrence!

Yoakum Pkwy, Stevenson Av, Reynolds Av, and Whiting St are not within the Plan boundaries.

You can submit general comments, complaints, and inquiries to the Alexandria Police Department via Alex311

124

8/1

Comment

Housing Affordability

Please include more affordable housing options at the Watergate at Landmark.

Watergate at Landmarks is not within the Plan boundaries. For information related to affordable housing options please visit: alexandriava.gov/Housing or contact Office of Housing at 703.746.4990.

125

8/1

Comment

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

This plans focus on transportation, parks, and neighborhood amenities is commendable, but it falls short in promoting housing affordability. To better address this, the plan should: Allow Affordable Housing Everywhere: The current restrictions in Area 3 keep Alexandria West’s wealthier neighborhoods exclusive. Removing these restrictions and allowing an 85-foot height baseline throughout will enable more affordable housing across the area. Maximize Housing Near Transit: The plan limits growth along the West End Transitway. To make transit-adjacent housing more affordable and sustainable, increase the baseline height to 150 feet near the Transitway and even higher where taller buildings already exist. Build Denser Housing to Reduce Pollution and Traffic: Denser housing, particularly near transit, decreases reliance on cars, which reduces noise pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and fine particulate matter pollution. This shift also lessens traffic congestion, benefiting those who do drive. These changes will boost the supply of both market-rate and affordable housing, stabilize rents, prevent displacement, and promote environmentally friendly, transit-oriented development.

The long-term (~20 years) Plan prioritizes development in the Focus Area.

The Land Use Strategy was originally shared with the community last September and staff considered areas that won’t displace residents, areas that will be near transit, and properties likely to redevelop with existing zoning. The Focus Area prioritizes development on surface parking lots and commercials area as an anti-displacement strategy and with the goal of producing new housing in locations that will not displace existing housing and securing new Committed Affordable Units.

Area 3 is subject to existing City policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which are intended to incentivize affordable housing production.

In developing Figure 2.4: Building Heights map, staff reviewed building heights per existing zoning and the two governing Small Area Plans (1992 Alexandria West Small Area Plan and 2012 Beauregard Small Area Plan). The Plan does recommend taller heights in the Focus Area and near transit, ranging from 85 to 150 feet.

Market rents dictate the construction types of buildings that will be built. It is anticipated that developers in AlexWest will build wood frame buildings that max out at 85 feet or about 8 stories. Through the application of Section 7-700, some of these heights can increase by 25 additional feet.

126

8/1

Comment

Mobility + Safety

I'm not sure what's actually being proposed, so I apologize if my comments don't "fit." I am old, and I walk with a cane. I don't know how to drive. I rely on public transportation, mainly DASH. I need buses to run fairly frequently and to have the stops not too far apart. I know it's not feasible to have shelters or even benches at every stop, but it would be really helpful it they could be at as many stops as possible.

The Plan does not propose to alter the schedules or stops of any existing bus lines as that is not in the purview of a land use plan. However the Plan does recommend several transit improvements. First, a new Transit Center in the Southern Towers will help to ensure that transit options are safer and more accessible for residents. Second, new development will be required to enhance transit services by providing additional facilities (shelters and other improvements).

127

8/1

Comment

Mobility + Safety

Rethink the multiuse trail on Beauregard. More important to make the Beauregard / 7 crossing safer for those who intend to continue onto Walter Reed. It’ll be a trail to nowhere otherwise, and actually maximize points of conflict at that intersection.

The Plan is proposing multi-use paths on both sides of N Beauregard St. In Chapter 8, Neighborhood 1 has a call out connecting to the path in Arlington County.

128

8/1

Comment

Housing Affordability
Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Townhouses. Missing middle. Higher density but not high density. The answer is not affordable housing but housing affordability. Increase the housing supply across the economic spectrum, or your middle class will leave and not come back.

There will be a combination of market rate and committed affordable units in the Plan. The Plan envisions mostly multi-unit residential, but allows townhouse as well as garden style development, and calls for a variety of height with taller buildings in the Focus Area and served by transit.

All areas of the Plan are subject to existing City Policy, which includes the 2023 Zoning for Housing updates which incentivize housing production at a variety of scales.

129

8/1

Comment

Neighborhoods

City staff are a little too quick to dismiss comments as NIMBYism. In fairness, a huge proportion of it is. But not all. Do a better job of not being so quick to defensive and de-facto dismissive with nice words. I know you have budgets, timelines, details we do not know about. But we also have details you do not know about. Please stop defaulting to seeing us as your project adversaries. We are collaborators and stakeholders with eyes on the ground that you do not have. You might be surprised how receptive to actual collaboration many of us are.

Community input has been and continues to be welcomed throughout this planning process. Feedback is important to creating a community vision for AlexWest. Community members have shared their lived experiences, concerns, and questions. Staff is available if there are questions and comments.

130

8/1

Comment

Implementation

Don’t put process over product. Just because it’s “in the plan” and “no one really commented before the deadline” doesn’t mean you should ignore serious resident concerns after the comment deadline. Use your judgment, but please default to seeing us as your teammates versus your adversaries. Thanks.

Comments related to the AlexWest Plan will continue to be accepted past the August 1 online feedback period closing date including up to the September public hearings where community members can provide public testimony.

Feedback on the Plan can be sent anytime before the public hearings in September via email or phone to Christian Brandt, Urban Planner, christian.brandt@alexandriava.gov, 703.746.3895

131

8/1

Comment

Housing Affordability
Inclusive Growth

I appreciate the Draft Plan’s attention to multimodal transportation networks, expanded and connected parks, and accessible neighborhood amenities, but don’t believe it does enough to promote housing affordability. To truly meet the goals of improving housing affordability and preventing displacement, the Draft Plan should be changed in two ways: allow affordable housing everywhere, and maximize housing near transit and amenities. ● Allow affordable housing everywhere: The plan’s Area 3 ensures that Alexandria West’s wealthier low-density neighborhoods remain exclusive. To ensure all of Alexandria West is open to affordable housing, Area 3 should be removed and a baseline height of 85 feet should be allowed everywhere. ● Maximize housing near transit and amenities: The plan focuses development along the planned West End Transitway, but still limits growth in these areas. In places, allowed heights are less than what already exists. To make housing near transit affordable we should maximize the supply of that housing. The Plan should allow 150 feet of baseline height near the Transitway, and more where buildings like the Hilton are already much taller than this. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, encourage transit-oriented and walkable development, and ensure lower income Alexandrians are welcome in all neighborhoods.

132

8/1

Comment

Mobility + Safety
Public + Connected Open Spaces
Sustainable + Healthy Communities

Hon Mayor Wilson. We had sent you and members of the City council a previous message with regard to the West End transitway and the environmental damage and detrimental removal of many trees along the proposed Beauregard street corridor. reference Figs 4.7, 6.1, & 8.8. You have said that the need is to preserve the City Tree Canopy. This proposed West End Transitway Route destroys the existing trees and is totally destructive for the whole area. We cannot understand this vision to destroy the whole park-like and beautiful Beauregard St. areas. (We saw the slum type street zoom video shown by the Transit planner earlier.) We have noted that almost all streets in Arlington including Walter Reed Drive in Arlington which feeds into Beauregard Street have center islands and tree-lined streets. Even Columbia pike! We are horrified!!!. This is like tearing down a Greek temple to build a parking lot. Why was this ever proposed? Let's get away from ideas of building highrise buildings everywhere and treasure what we have here in Beauregard St. ---- 3 parks, a stream, 3 elementary schools, 1 college, school reduced traffic signs, much people traffic with the schools, a shopping center and all the park-like buildings and pools of the former Winkler development, also a giant swimming pool along the N. Beauregard St. This area has pull offs for buses and 4 lanes for traffic - what more is needed? The current Dash Route 35 is more than adequate and it is unnecessary to continue this ridiculous plan which will destroy our beautiful area and is not needed. Only the road developers benefit - not Alexandria and not the West End. Use the money to get the Alexandria Hospital built - that's something that's needed but is still not under construction!!!!! Dan & Mary - residents in the Adams neighborhood at 5673 Rayburn Ave. Thanks for your and staff consideration. Please help us!

133

7/31

Comment

Public + Connected Open Spaces

1) Figure 2.4 shows that the existing greenspace (in front of the Double Apple / across Seminary from the Blake) is approved for a building height of 100ft (or 125 with automatic waiver approval). Previous plans discussing Upland Park showed that this was to remain greenspace. What is the current plan for this corner of Seminary and Beauregard? The existing open space is also not identified as such in Figures 5.1 and 5.3. Figure 8.1 is not completely clear on this topic, and (I am assuming because the Double Apple folks wouldn't sell) it is not included in the Upland Park design.

The open space that exists today is within City Right of Way, which is why it is not considered open space for the purpose of this plan.

The plan proposes a public park be provided through new development in this neighborhood in figure 8.4 with another possible configuration listed on the previous page. The planned public park would be at least 37,000 square feet.

134

7/31

Comment

Mobility + Safety

2) I regularly ride my bike up and down Fillmore between Seminary and Beauregard (on average twice a week excepting winter), and I am very concerned about the REDUCTION in cyclist (i.e., my) safety that putting "protected bike lanes" on this particular street would effect. I am happy to elaborate; how can I become more involved in the planning process? [As an additional note, I don't think that I have once in all of the years I have been riding there ever encountered another cyclist on Fillmore despite the bike share rack. While I recognize that folks may well be riding there when I am not, I have to believe that it isn't terribly common despite being currently a much safer option than riding to and from Beauregard and Skyline on Seminary.]

The intent of implementing protected bike facilities on Fillmore is to improve the safety of bicyclists on the street. They are also consistent with the goals of the Alexandria Mobility Plan.

Your insights as a cyclist are important as part of planning for specific bicycle facilities implementing the Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP). The Transportation Commission advises on the AMP. Please visit alexandriava.gov/transportationcommission ) or email TransportationCommission@alexandriava.gov for additional information.

135

7/31

Comment

Mobility + Safety

3) On a related note, I do, however, routinely see cyclists riding up hill on Beauregard from King to the corner with Seminary, which must currently be done with traffic and will remain that way under the existing plan -- given that the proposed Harris Teeter Access route / multiuse path as I last understood it is only planned for the downhill route. Is the grant from Harris Teeter (or the property owner / developer), by any chance? There is an existing sidewalk that is more than adequate for the current level of foot traffic, and cyclists have the advantage of riding downhill with the traffic on that side. It's been a little sketchy with the construction, but it is still downhill. If you were only going to put a multi-use trail on one side, being protected from cars going uphill (so at reduced speed) while simultaneously extending Arlington's multi-use trail on the other side of King would seem to make more sense. Currrently, crossing King from that trail is a bit of a Hail Mary every time, and having to cross Beauregard twice to access (and then leave) the multi-use trail isn't much of an alternative.

The Plan is proposing multi-use paths on both sides of N Beauregard St. Figure 4.5 outlines these requirements in the Primary Street dimension diagram.

136

7/31

Comment

Public + Connected Open Spaces

3) Making Winkler preserve more apparent and accessible will be very nice. I have lived in my current location for over 15 years, and I have never stumbled across the entrance. I also whole-heartedly approve the park expansions. The existing park areas see a lot of use from a wide variety of folks, and it would be even nicer for there to be more such spaces for families as well as those out for exercise. Still not optimal for cycling, though, so I am wondering about ways to discourage cyclists from blowing through at high speeds (sometimes electronically assisted) or in large groups. I ride through there occasionally but slowly and cautiously. I have seen others at speeds and / or in groups that feel unsafe given the many small kids, dogs, etc., that walk along that trail. Of course, having the bridge and tunnel out for so long has cut down substantially on that traffic, but we are still planning to repair that, correct?

Winkler Preserve is owned and operated by NOVA Parks. The development of entrances to the Preserve will be coordinated between NOVA Parks and the City

The Holmes Run Trail repairs are planned; status updates can be found here: alexandriava.gov/capital-projects/project/holmes-run-trail-repairs

137

7/31

Comment

Inclusive Growth

4) As a general comment, "encouraging" developers to do something (e.g., retail) will have zero impact unless also incentivized, so I hope that incentives are included.

The plan uses the word “encourage” for items that the City and Community would like to see but which are not possible to legally require. During the development review process, staff uses these elements of the plan to inform their comments on submitted applications and proposals. The Required retail areas are the key sites where retail must be provided.