| Date Received | Source | Draft Recommendation | Community Comment | Staff Response | ||||
| Collaboration powered by Smartsheet | Report Abuse | ||||||||
| 1 |
| StoryMap | 1A- Land Uses General | First, I'll share a couple of comments on the StoryMap itself. I thought it was a really informative and accessible way to communicate the information to the public. There were a couple of things I think could have been improved. First (01 Land Use), I thought the circles for the required and encouraged retail areas were confusing as to where the retail was actually supposed to be. More precise polygons would have been helpful. | Staff will update the Land Uses Map to show extent of required and encouraged retail in Land Use Retail Map and Neighborhood diagrams. | |||
| 2 |
| StoryMap | 1C - Building Heights | Second (01 Land Use), the map of building heights should have used graduated colors - darker color equals taller building height. The map is hard to read with the seemingly random colors. | The map has been updated to clearly identify each height area with a distinct color and is more accessible for people with low vision. Staff will share this at the April 25 community meeting. | |||
| 3 |
| StoryMap | 2A - Housing General | Second, I am surprised and concerned about the following (02 Housing): "Residential development will provide 10% committed affordable housing or an amount consistent with City affordable housing contribution policies, regulations and procedures in effect at the time development is submitted for review, whichever is greater." Does this mean that if a developer is only able to make 9% committed affordable units pencil out, the project will be denied? I don't understand how the city is able to require a certain amount of affordable units if a developer isn't requesting bonus height or density. City staff has previously stated that they are not allowed to do that by state law. I am concerned that this provision may prevent housing from being built when new housing at all price points is desperately needed to combat our housing shortage and affordability crisis. Also, how does this apply to missing-middle housing allowed by Zoning for Housing? If a landowner wants to demolish an aging single-family home and build a duplex or 3- or 4-unit apartment building, does the proposed recommendation require that one of them be committed affordable? Is 10% rounded up or down? | This recommendation has been updated to clarify that the 10% Committed Affordable Housing requirement will be applied to any density that a developer proposes above the base FAR or square feet that is currently allowed. In the Focus Area, the development table will show the base FAR/SF. For all sites in the Plan boundary, City policies apply which would include Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 4 |
| StoryMap | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | Third, I'm excited to see the recommendations for transportation and parks. The off-street bike and pedestrian paths (04 Mobility) will be a huge benefit. I was also happy to see the new design for the Seminary/Beauregard intersection, which is a big improvement over the previous bizarre and confusing design. | Thank you for the feedback. | |||
| 5 |
| StoryMap | 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General | Lastly, I was very happy to see the huge number of new parks that are planned (04 Public Parks + Open Space). Overall, I'm excited to see the substantial improvements to transportation and parks, and we need lots of additional homes to go with them. Please do everything possible to avoid getting in the way of building more homes in Alexandria West. | Thank you for the feedback. | |||
| 6 |
| 1C - Building Heights | Within two parts of the 150’ feet height boundary are two different condominium communities. I can’t tell if this is inaccurate or intentional. In the farthest northeast part of the Alexandria West area from Park Center Drive starting at King Street extending to I-395 and going south are 3-4 story condominiums called The Pointe. They are inside of the 150’ feet height area. Is that an inaccuracy in the map or something different occurring? If it is inaccurate, can you please reflect on the map that this is a 45’ feet height area? In Area 2, on the east side of Hampton Road is the Palazoo Condominiums at Park Center. They are 4 story condominiums on the Hampton Road location. Due to the road declining, the back of the condominiums have 1 to 2 story parking under the condominiums. The 1-2 story parking extends the length of the condominiums but depending on the grade depends on whether the parking garage is 1 story, 1 ½ story or 2 story parking. As a result, the front side of the condominiums (Hampton Road) are 4 stories of living units which makes it 45 feet in height and on the back side, could be 5, 5 ½ or 6 stories depending on the number of stories due to parking which would make it range from 55 feet to 65 feet in height on the back side of the condominium (I think). Is that an inaccuracy on the map or something different occurring? If it is inaccurate, can you please reflect on the map that this is a 45’ feet height area on Hampton Road and a 55’ – 65’ height area on the back side of the condominium (due to the land being on a downward slope). In Area 2, within the 45 feet building heights, with 28th Street being the access road from King Street, the area known as Boiling Brook Condominiums are 45 feet in height or less. On the map, it shows that as 28th street travels south, the area becomes 100 feet high. Is that an inaccuracy in the map or something different occurring? If it is something different occurring, are those the Boiling Brook Condominium buildings within the 100 feet building heights as depicted on this map? If it does not refer to the Boiling Brook Condominiums, what buildings is it referring to? Is this a proposed increase in height in the 45’ feet height area? If it is proposed, what height building is currently there? In the NE corner of Alexandria west at the intersection of King Street and Park Center Drive, are 2-story offices. This area was initially under a 150’ feet height area and recently, the area was changed to 100’ feet height. Was that intentional or a mistake? If it was a mistake can you please change it to a 45’ feet height area to reflect the current building height? | These particular condominium communities are currently zoned RC which allows150 feet; the existing buildings themselves are 45 feet. We are not proposing to change the existing zoned height. The zoning ordinance calculation of height takes into account existing and proposed grade. We are not proposing to change the existing zoned height. Bolling Brook Condominiums is in Area 2 and the height for Bolling Brook Condominiums is shown at 45 feet, not 100 feet. 100 feet remains for Bolling Brook Towers (King St + S 28 St). Staff are updating some limited heights in Area 2 and is proposing 60 feet. Staff will share this at the April 25 community meeting. The property is zoned OCM(100) and the current height allowed by the zoning ordinance is 100 feet. Staff is not proposing to change the height. | ||||
| 7 |
| 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | It states proposed Sharrows, what are Sharrows? | Sharrows, also called Shared Lane Markings, are a type of bicycle facility where the driving lane and bike lane share a travel lane (the name is a combination of “share” and “arrow”). There are sharrows on several streets in AlexWest, including on Dawes Avenue on the north side of Seminary Road (by the Coca Cola warehouse), there are sharrows. | ||||
| 8 |
| 3C - Safety + Mobility | It also has a proposed off road multi-use path along King Street. Will the specifics of the multi-use path on King Street be presented at the April 23 community meeting? | This will be determined in conjunction with the community as part of an upcoming design process conducted by the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services (T&ES). | ||||
| 9 |
| 1D - Design | It states -“Streetscapes on major arterials (King Street, Seminary Road, and Duke Street) will be configured as generally depicted in the Urban Design Standards.” Will the “Urban Design Standards” for King Street be explained more clearly at the April 23 meeting? It states that “All development will be subject to all applicable provisions of the Urban Design Standards”. Will the “Urban Design Standards” for buildings be described more clearly at the April 23 meeting? | This recommendation has been revised to remove King Street and Streetscapes including for King Street will be in the draft Plan. Both the draft Plan and Design Standards will be released in June. April 23 meeting is being rescheduled to April 25. | ||||
| 10 |
| 1A- Land Uses General | Under Floor Area Ratio (FAR), it states a 2.0. Can you please show what a FAR 2.0 is by several real examples? What is the FAR of Newport Village in Area 2? What is the FAR of the Arrive Apartments and Park Stone Apartments in Area 2 within the 150 feet height boundary? Does the FAR change if the building heights increase? | The Plan is recommending that the FAR for sites within Area 2 is 2.0, and within the Focus Area the proposed FAR is 3.0. We will provide follow up information explaining FAR and providing examples in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document | ||||
| 11 |
| 1A- Land Uses General | What are the potential redevelopment parts of Area 2? I’m thinking the Newport Village area, the 150’ feet height area, 4 and possibly 5 spots on King Street, but I am not sure. | As part of the public comment period, the owners of Newport Village have expressed interest in redevelopment. Staff is providing an update at the April 25 community meeting on Area 2 boundaries. | ||||
| 12 |
| Feedback Session | 2C - Tenant Protections | Southern Towers utility fee is unfair. Does the Plan have pathways to accountability? | As a land use plan, the AlexWest plan does not have purview to address utility fees. However, the City’s Voluntary Rent Increase program accounts for utility costs when calculating rents. Tenants who need help with utility payments and fees can contact the Office of Housing for assistance: 703-746-4990 | |||
| 13 |
| Feedback Session | 2A - Housing General | 10 percent for committed affordable units is great. Aligned with ACT and TWU vision for AlexWest Plan. Plan should provide more deeply affordable units | The plan recommends 60% AMI for all committed affordable rental units. The plan does not preclude the provision of more deeply affordable units through partnerships and other tools. | |||
| 14 |
| Feedback Session | 2B - Partnerships | How are you making sure the Plan is providing deeply affordable units? | The plan requires 60% AMI for all committed affordable rental units. The City will seek out partnerships with property owners, and other entities (such as ARHA and non-profit housing developers, to produce more deeply affordable units. | |||
| 15 |
| Feedback Session | 2A - Housing General | "Range of Housing" types. What does that mean? Members/families need more than 1 BR units. | We are recommending, and will work with developers to provide, a range of sizes in housing units (including family-sized units) | |||
| 16 |
| Feedback Session | 3C - Safety + Mobility | Are you improving the Seminary and Beauregard intersection? | Yes, a new, design for this intersection will be explored and implemented in the future to address high traffic volumes, provide streetscape and safety measures that increase the comfort and visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, and maintain ease of access for public transit and vehicles to pass through. | |||
| 17 |
| Feedback Session | 1A- Land Uses General | Who's going to pay for construction [if development occurs] at Southern Towers? | The property owner/developer will pay for construction if development occurs | |||
| 18 |
| Feedback Session | 2A - Housing General | What type of housing does the third of bonus provide? Is that in addition to the 10 percent of CAUs? | Yes, this is in addition to the 10%. The additional one third would be affordable at 60% AMI for rental units and closer to 40% AMI for ownership units. | |||
| 19 |
| Feedback Session | Is there a contact with the City to assist with relocation? | Yes, please contact Office of Housing at 703.746.4990 | ||||
| 20 |
| Feedback Session | What is my status on the Section 8 waitlist? | Contact the Alexandria and Redevelopment Housing Authority (ARHA) at 703.549.7115 or email info@arha.us. | ||||
| 21 |
| Feedback Session | 3A - Mobility General | [Does the Plan] provide a safe crossing [like an overpass] from Southern Towers across to Mark Center Av? | The recommendations seek to improve safety conditions in the plan area and identifies locations across AlexWest that the City will evaluate for other mobility improvements including at Seminary Rd and Mark Center Av. | |||
| 22 |
| Feedback Session | 3C - Safety + Mobility | Traffic is really bad. Infrastructure doesn’t work well (timing of lights, accidents, speed). | The recommendations seek to improve safety conditions in the plan area and identifies locations across AlexWest that the City will evaluate for other mobility improvements. | |||
| 23 |
| Feedback Session | 3C - Safety + Mobility | 395 exit to Southern Towers is dangerous. (lots of accidents) | The plan, through the proposed street network and street design, recommends mobility improvements to this area that will result in increased safety for all users. | |||
| 24 |
| StoryMap | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | 25. The purple lines displaying bike dedicated facilities display a lack of connection and commitment to the mode. Without robust bike facilities the mode falls victim to hollow critiques from a loud minority of citizens seeking to maximize space for their automobiles at the expense of the saftey, health, and traffic congestion. | The bicycle network is made up of a variety of different types of connections, including dedicated bike connections, which together form the network. In most cases, the dedicated bike connections are linked to each other with off-road multi-use paths or trails (which are also off road). In limited circumstances, when the network continues on to a neighborhood street, it is connected to a sharrow. | |||
| 25 |
| StoryMap | 3C - Safety + Mobility | 32. This sectoin should seek to utilize many of the following items and include all available cameras and enfirecemnt mechanisms to deter right on red, vehicles encroaching in crosswalks, and excessive speeds. Other items could include: Speed Humps, Speed Tables, Raised Crosswalks, Horizontal Deflections, Chicanes Chokers, Roadway Narrowing, Curb Extensions (Bulb-outs), Lit pedestrian signals for crosswalks | The Plan does not preclude various strategies. Specific strategies will be implemented at later stages based on community input. | |||
| 26 |
| Comment Form | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | I am excited for the addition of bike/scooter routes through the parks. I would love to see more low stress options like this added throughout the city in ways that connect to protected bike lanes to allow connectivity to homes and shops throughout the city. | Thank you for your feedback. | |||
| 27 |
| Comment Form | I am writing to express my opposition to all proposed changes to the Alexandria West Planning. | Thank you for your feedback. | ||||
| 28 |
| StoryMap | 3A - Mobility General | Removing the slip lane in front of The Blake apartment building will worsen and already bad traffic situation on eastbound Seminary Road. If this slip lane has to be removed then Seminary Road needs to be widened to allow a right turn lane for eastbound traffic. | A new design for this intersection will be explored and implemented in the future to address high traffic volumes, provide streetscape and safety measures that increase the comfort and visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, and maintain ease of access for public transit and vehicles to pass through. The final design of this intersection will be consistent with current City policies and commitment to Vision Zero. Staff will discuss this as part of the April 25 community meeting. | |||
| 29 |
| StoryMap | 3A - Mobility General | How will this plan better connect the true west end with the rest of this city. Specifically, the redevelopment of the landmark site? Will there be a pedestrian bridge over 395 to the landmark site? | The Landmark Mall (West End) development is not part of this Small Area Plan. However, the approval of the Landmark Mall (West End) development includes a condition to evaluate the possibility of a pedestrian bridge across 395 in this location. | |||
| 30 |
| Comment Form | I fully support these draft plans. They look great. Kudos to you all and good luck. | Thank you for your feedback. | ||||
| 31 |
| 2A - Housing General | Thank you for sharing this! I really liked the StoryMap format for communicating the recommendations, and I was excited to see so many recommendations for improved pedestrian and bike infrastructure and so many new parks. I have a question about the following recommendation: "Residential development will provide 10% committed affordable housing or an amount consistent with City affordable housing contribution policies, regulations and procedures in effect at the time development is submitted for review, whichever is greater." I was surprised to see this because I remember hearing city staff say previously that due to state law, the city can't require a development to have a certain amount of affordable housing unless the developer is requesting bonus height or bonus density. Would you please clarify a. whether this is actually a hard requirement, for instance, if a developer is offering to provide 9% committed affordable units, and is not requesting bonus density or height, will the DSUP be denied? b. if this is a new and different requirement/expectation from other parts of Alexandria? | This recommendation has been updated to clarify that the 10% Committed Affordable Housing requirement will be applied to any density that a developer proposed above the base FAR or square feet that is currently allowed. This is based on existing policy and is seen in other parts of the city like Eisenhower East. If a proposal is not requesting additional density or height (i.e not above the base FAR or square feet) then this recommendation does not apply. This recommendation is based on additional density and on existing City policy. As part of the planning process we prepared an economic analysis to confirm that the recommendations of the plan can be implemented in this submarket. The analysis confirmed that they can be implemented as written. | ||||
| 32 |
| Comment Form | Leave the West End alone. We don't want to become another over-populated conjested area with no parking. | Thank you for your feedback. | ||||
| 33 |
| 1A- Land Uses General 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network 3C - Safety + Mobility | Thanks for re-sharing! I did have a few questions related to the pedestrian improvements. I’m not sure if I missed it in the plans, but will the City be working to add any additional crosswalks on Beauregard between Sanger and Mark Center Drive? The intersections are so far apart I always see people crossing in unsafe places to get to bus stops (or from bus stops). Also, not sure if there are other opportunities to strengthen the infrastructure by the Del Pepper building. We had discussed additional potential retail there or any way to make it easier for people with mobility issues or strollers to get from the bus stop to our building? | One of the key elements in this plan is to introduce a more robust grid of streets and connections, including pedestrian crossings. In addition, T&ES will be evaluating N. Beauregard Street for mobility improvements prior to redevelopment. The neighborhood diagram shows more on and off-road pedestrian connections from Del Pepper. One of the key elements in this plan is to introduce a more robust grid of streets and connections, including pedestrian crossings. The city already requires these to be ADA-compliant. While the area around Del Pepper is not a required or encouraged retail area, the Plan does not preclude retail where it is allowed by zoning or where it makes sense from a market perspective. | ||||
| 34 |
| Comment Form | 2A - Housing General | As a US born citizen with low to moderate income how do I get an in to housing in my current zip code? I do not have a social worker or counselor to provide me an edge with housing. Gentrification in Alexandria has done it's job and I cannot afford safe and fair housing. How will you support those of us who find themselves a part of the demographic unseen? I would like to have a conversation along those line. Thank you in advance. | Please contact Office of Housing at 703.746.4990. | |||
| 35 |
| StoryMap | 3A - Mobility General | I'm happy to see the pedestrian improvements in Neighborhood 1. It would be nice if an additional crosswalk was planned for the north side of the King St & Beauregard intersection. Currently there is only a crosswalk on the south side of the intersection which means pedestrians/cyclists wanting to connect to the Four Mile Run Trail have to wait quite a while for each of the stoplights to change. | As part of the plan's recommendations, pedestrian improvements and infrastructure are required in all new development. T&ES monitors and plans for the improvements of existing roads that are not connected to new development separately. Phase II of the King St/N Beauregard intersection project includes installing crosswalks at all four corners of the intersection. | |||
| 36 |
| StoryMap | 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General | I'm also really happy to see the expansion of Dora Kelly Nature Park and the creation of new neighborhood parks. The West End has really been lacking green space. | Thank you for your feedback! | |||
| 37 |
| Feedback Session | 2A - Housing General | Who gets to be in new housing? What about those making less than 60K/year? | The City does not control who property owners lease units to, however affordable rental housing provided as part of this plan will be affordable at 60% AMI, which is $85,380 per year for a family of 4 | |||
| 38 |
| Feedback Session | 2B - Partnerships | How many affordable units at 40% AMI are in the Plan? | We anticipate between 300 and 450 committed affordable units at 60% AMI over the course of the plan’s timeframe. Units below 60% AMI are possible, however they will be generated through partnerships and other tools pursued by the Office of Housing. | |||
| 39 |
| Feedback Session | 2C - Tenant Protections | Existing apartments have to be renovated. There is mold, pests, etc. (translation) | One of the core elements of the land use and affordable housing strategy is incentivizing the development of new housing on vacant parking lots and encouraging the renovation of existing aging units that may be in poor condition. The new affordable housing generated through development on parking lots will help to offset the impacts of renovation. | |||
| 40 |
| Feedback Session | 3C - Safety + Mobility | More lighting is needed in the area, there are areas that are too dark. | All development in the plan area will be required to provide lighting as outlined in existing City policy and in the Zoning Ordinance. T&ES regularly responds to 311 requests about new/repaired lighting in areas that are dimly lit. | |||
| 41 |
| Feedback Session | 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General | Parks should have areas to BBQ/grill. We are not allowed to grill on apartment patios. (translation) | As part of the design of each park required in the plan, the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities will work with the Developers to provide appropriate amenities for each park. | |||
| 42 |
| Feedback Session | 2A - Housing General | It's important that the Plan assures that the community stay here. Currently, there is nothing in the Plan that assures it. | The Plan will require that new development provide 10% affordable housing at 60% AMI for rental units. Currently, the City does not have the legal authority to require that existing residents of a property that redevelops be able to stay in those units, however there are voluntary programs to assist with this, as well as resident preference, wherein existing area residents get preference for new committed affordable housing units. | |||
| 43 |
| Feedback Session | 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General | More activities are teens; younger kids have the Rec Center. There are safety issues in the area and | The Recreation Center envisioned in the plan will include programming, which may include programming for teens, that will be determined through an engagement process with the community. | |||
| 44 |
| StoryMap | 3C - Safety + Mobility | Thank you for this! Instead of eliminating slip lanes, could you consider doing pedestrian-activated stop lights on the slip lanes? Traffic back-ups along Seminary are really bad, and keeping the slip lanes would allow traffic to keep moving when there are not pedestrians present, but keep them safer when there are pedestrians present. With the new townhomes being constructed and this plan overall possibly leading to more cars in the Beauregard/Seminary intersection, we need to make sure that traffic is not made even worse. | The Plan provides an illustrative example of one possible way that the City is considering improving the safety of this intersection. The final design of this intersection will be consistent with current City policies and commitment to Vision Zero. Staff will discuss this as part of the April 25 community meeting. | |||
| 45 |
| StoryMap | 1B- Retail | Is there a way to bring more food options in addition to retail? This would really help make this area more appealing, especially for Mark Center employees and families. | Restaurants, food halls, and other food businesses would be allowed in the required and encouraged retail areas. | |||
| 46 |
| StoryMap | 2A - Housing General | With the increased apartment construction, where are these students going to attend school? The West End schools are already at or over capacity (especially in comparison to Old Town schools), and would not be able to absorb the increase in student populations to serve. What is the city thinking about how they will ensure that schools are not put under increased pressure as a result of these plans? | The City works with ACPS on an ongoing basis to determine development impacts on ACPS student enrollment at all grade levels. Currently, ACPS and the City do not expect the new development anticipated over the 20-25 year span of the plan to require additional school capacity. | |||
| 47 |
| StoryMap | 3C - Safety + Mobility | Eliminating the skip lane at the intersection of N Beauregard and Seminary will create a traffic headache/backup at an already very busy intersection. People should be allowed to still turn right from Seminary to N Beauregard; otherwise more backups will occur. | The draft Recommendations Figures and Tables identifies one possible way that the City is considering improving the safety of this intersection. The final design of this intersection will be consistent with current City policies and commitment to Vision Zero. Staff will discuss this as part of the April 25 community meeting. | |||
| 48 |
| Comment Form | 2A - Housing General 3A - Mobility General | Let’s talk affordable housing, schools, let’s talk about places to teenagers to go after school, let’s about gangs, let’s talk gangs ! Let’s talk the lack of medical access to teenagers to get birth control. Let’s talk low public transport options! Again, youth violence is a problem. Let’s create a youth center so they can stay safe after school instead of running the streets | The Plan recommends a new recreation center within the plan area to support the services mentioned. The Plan also envisions expansion of public transport network, including with the new West End Transitway. | |||
| 49 |
| Comment Form | 2A - Housing General | All the best laid plans are worthless without money and teeth. You can talk all you want about minimizing evictions of current tenants but unless you allocate $ for rent support or require landlords to provide more than 10 percent affordable housing , you will turn the West end into another high priced high density high income area. Asking for our input is a farce - as with every other plan for the West End, the city sees only the tax dollars it will generate and how it can turn the city into a US version of a bike friendly Amsterdam - minus the social support system. | The City is currently limited by State law about what it can require for the development of new housing and what it can control with regard to rental prices. The AlexWest plan is a land use plan that sets expectations for development when it occurs. The goal of the Plan is to balance all needs and create a vision with the community related to land use, housing affordability, parks, mobility, and sustainability. | |||
| 50 |
| Comment Form | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | I strongly support the Bicycle Network Map, as depicted in Figure 6. I regularly bike in this area and it is dangerous, scary, and mostly un-bikeable. I am especially supportive of off-road bike facilities, such as the off-road multi-use path proposed for Seminary Rd. I currently bike up Seminary Rd, utilize the pedestrian bridge over 395, and then am dumped into a spaghetti mess of roadways, with no safe place to bike. The off-road path would enable cyclists like myself to safely and efficiently cycle to my home and work. Please incorporate off-road bike facilities wherever and whenever possible. | Thank you for your comment! The Plan envisions an expansion of the existing off-road facilities throughout the AlexWest plan boundaries. In addition, the Plan also envisions updates to N Beauregard St and Seminary Rd intersection that will improve safety for all mode uses. | |||
| 51 |
| StoryMap | 1A- Land Uses General 1E - Parking 3C - Safety + Mobility 3D - Transit | 1. Housing and land use elements are good. Try to avoid overly demanding off street parking requirements for new housing - explore parking benefit district(s) to better utilize on street parking instead. Also look at shared parking (among properties and uses), and other creative approaches to parking. 2. West End Transitway needs dedicated transit lanes, implement wherever possible 3. Bike facilities should, wherever possible, be seperated from pedestrian facilities, and should have physical protection from motor vehicle traffic. 4. No neighborhood element shown for King Street south of Beauregard. Development opportunity at old health dept building. Wide shared use path shown on map, this should be implemented as soon as possible. | The Plan calls for replacing surface parking and providing new parking if development occurs on existing surface parking lots. The parking requirements for new development are described in the Zoning Ordinance. The West End Transitway (WET), which is a separate process from the AWSAP, is described in more detail on the project webpage here (including whether transit lanes will be dedicated). https://www.alexandriava.gov/transportation-planning/west-end-transitway The plan identifies portions of the bike network that will be protected bike facilities where those facilities are feasible to be implemented. Heavily trafficked corridors and intersections are where the plan prioritizes protected facilities. | |||
| 52 |
| 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General 4C - Public Art + Open Space Programming | I live in West ALX off North Hampton drive. The Story Maps site was very helpful as I've not attended a community gathering for a few months now. To me this three items below are important and would change/improve the quality of life is this area. I have a short comment under each. Pedestrian + Bicycle Network This is ovedue especially seeing how close the WALX area is to Four Mile run and W&OD trail." "Public Parks and Open Space It would be nice to have more micro parks and small open areas to sit. Parks don't always have to be large sized and multi use. " "Public Art + Open Space Programming Art and culture are needed especially in WALX. Great job you all are doing. I have been very impressed all the way so far. " | The Plan does envision housing of all types, including condominiums. The City cannot control whether a developer provides rental or ownership units. The new public parks required as part of development will be a range of sizes, with many of them planned as smaller et parks. These parks are in addition to required open space that is required with development. Public art is encouraged in AlexWest and is subject to existing city policies and the Public Art Master Plan. | ||||
| 53 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 2A - Housing General | To truly meet the goal of providing for housing affordability, three key changes are needed in the draft recommendations: allow more building height, allow greater density, and allow for incremental growth across the entire Plan Area. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, and encourage transit-oriented and walkable neighborhoods in the Plan Area. Allow for greater building heights throughout the plan area Allow for building heights of 150 feet near all planned BRT stops. This height is already allowed in much of the area, and should be standardized to along the transitway to allow for transit-oriented development Allow for at least 50 feet of height in all plan areas. This height is sufficient for modern townhomes & garden apartments, and is the threshold at which a developer can provide affordable homes in return for additional bonus height. Allow for one increment of height beyond what currently exists or is allowed in all areas. All neighborhoods should share in the benefits of added housing supply, and be open to accepting new Alexandrians at different levels of income. No neighborhood should be entirely sheltered from growth. Allow for greater density throughout the plan area. Area 1 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 5.0. This complements our recommended height limit of 150 feet to accommodate transit-oriented, walkable development instead of towers sitting in the middle of giant parking lots. Area 2 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 3.0. This is sufficient for garden apartments, which should be encouraged throughout the Plan Area as a more affordable and walkable housing form. Allow for incremental growth in all neighborhoods, not just areas where density is already concentrated Area 3 should be re-envisioned to accommodate incremental growth and to welcome some of the new Alexandrians that will arrive or grow up here over the Plan’s effective life. No neighborhood should be prevented from growing and changing over long stretches of time. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet and density up to 3.0 within the Focus Area. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest and balances the need for new housing with the Plans existing development, concentrating the majority of new heights along the planned BRT route. Lastly, the City does not currently have any zone in the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate a base FAR of 5.0. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies, including policies developed and approved through Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 54 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General | Thank you for the work put into the plan. My hope for the plan is to stabilize rents and ensure that families and individuals in lower socioeconomic brackets are not forcibly removed from Alexandria. I appreciate the attention within the plan and my hope is that every single resident of Alexandria can experience walkability and access to amenities. To truly meet the goal of providing for housing affordability, three key changes are needed in the draft recommendations: allow more building height, allow greater density, and allow for incremental growth across the entire Plan Area. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, and encourage transit-oriented and walkable neighborhoods in the Plan Area. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet and density up to 3.0 in the Focus Area. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest and balances the need for new housing with the Plans existing development, concentrating the majority of new heights along the planned BRT route. Lastly, the City does not currently have any zone in the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate a base FAR of 5.0. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies, including policies developed and approved through Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 55 |
| Comment Form | 3A - Mobility General 3D - Transit 5A - Tree Canopy | Please do not eliminate the lovely trees and median on Beauregard for fewer bus stops! Building heights should be kept low, Seminary road car traffic flow should be given top priority (NOT pedestrian and bike traffic) With BRAC + new residences at Beauregard and Seminary, vehicle traffic already a problem. | The West End Transitway (WET), which is a separate process from the AWSAP, is described in more detail on the project webpage here (including whether transit lanes will be dedicated). https://www.alexandriava.gov/transportation-planning/west-end-transitway A goal of the Plan is to balance needs of road users in AlexWest including pedestrians and bicyclists. | |||
| 56 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 1C - Building Heights | To truly meet the goal of providing for housing affordability, three key changes are needed in the draft recommendations: allow more building height, allow greater density, and allow for incremental growth across the entire Plan Area. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, and encourage transit-oriented and walkable neighborhoods in the Plan Area. Allow for greater building heights throughout the plan area Allow for building heights of 150 feet near all planned BRT stops. This height is already allowed in much of the area, and should be standardized to along the transitway to allow for transit-oriented development Allow for at least 50 feet of height in all plan areas. This height is sufficient for modern townhomes & garden apartments, and is the threshold at which a developer can provide affordable homes in return for additional bonus height. Allow for one increment of height beyond what currently exists or is allowed in all areas. All neighborhoods should share in the benefits of added housing supply, and be open to accepting new Alexandrians at different levels of income. No neighborhood should be entirely sheltered from growth. Allow for greater density throughout the plan area. Area 1 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 5.0. This complements our recommended height limit of 150 feet to accommodate transit-oriented, walkable development instead of towers sitting in the middle of giant parking lots. Area 2 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 3.0. This is sufficient for garden apartments, which should be encouraged throughout the Plan Area as a more affordable and walkable housing form. Allow for incremental growth in all neighborhoods, not just areas where density is already concentrated Area 3 should be re-envisioned to accommodate incremental growth and to welcome some of the new Alexandrians that will arrive or grow up here over the Plan’s effective life. No neighborhood should be prevented from growing and changing over long stretches of time. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet and density up to 3.0 in the Focus Area. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest and balances the need for new housing with the Plans existing development, concentrating the majority of new heights along the planned BRT route. Lastly, the City does not currently have any zone in the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate a base FAR of 5.0. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies, including policies developed and approved through Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 57 |
| StoryMap | 3C - Safety + Mobility | The removal of the slip lanes, especially the east-bound Seminary/Beauregard ones, will cause an enormous traffic back-up Seminary. Please do not remove them. | Figure 7 in the draft Recommendations Figures and Tables identifies one possible way that the City is considering improving the safety of this intersection. The final design of this intersection will be consistent with current City policies and commitment to Vision Zero. Staff will discuss this as part of the April 25 community meeting. | |||
| 58 |
| WEBA Roundtable | 1A- Land Uses General 1B- Retail | 1. How are they being allowed in the Plan? Are smaller structures for retail like in Hawaii precluded from Plan? 2. Food halls are great like Union Market in DC. Should we be thinking about incubator spaces (to grow businesses from stalls to brick +mortar)? Example in Roanoke 3. What type of retail is being envisioned? I have contacts that are thinking about a variety of retail establishments | Retail spaces will be allowed via both the plan recommendations and the retail height and depth requirements that will be included in the Urban Design Standards. In the Required and Encouraged Retail Areas, the retail spaces envisioned by the plan are in mixed use buildings, however other areas of the plan may include retail as well. Generally, the retail that is prioritized within the plan area includes retail that generates high levels of pedestrian activity and street activation (restaurants, salons, stores). As written, the plan does not preclude food halls from existing in the ground floor retail spaces in the Required and Encouraged Retail Areas. | |||
| 59 | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | Trails are good but if woodchip or gravel - these are not stroller friendly. NOVA Parks has great materials that also detain stormwater. | This plan does not specify the materials that are required to be used on the proposed. The level of detail that would include the specific materials will be part of the process to develop the trail. | |||||
| 60 | 4A - Public Parks + Open Space General | Park maintenance is needed. Plan should look at proffers for continued maintenance | The plan currently does not anticipate obtaining this type of developer contribution. However, parks developed on private land with a public access easement will be required to be maintained by the owner. Parks that are dedicated to the City will be maintained by the City. | |||||
| 61 | 3A - Mobility General | Design of street section should eliminate conflicts with pedestrians and cars. Not only street trees but utility relocation has been a problem in areas like Del Ray and Old Town (you can't take down one, multiple). | The street sections are intended to be safe for all mode users. New streets will need to meet these sections. T&ES evaluates existing streets for mobility improvements, including the corridors and intersections identified in the Plan. | |||||
| 62 | 4C - Public Art + Open Space Programming | Public art - existing policies dont go far enough. City had a mural program (WEBA members had great interest but landlords said no and it was a FREE program) | Thank you for your comment! It's helpful for us to hear specific feedback like this. We had updated our public art recommendation and will continue to explore ways to incentivize this participation. | |||||
| 63 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 1C - Building Heights | Thank you for the thoughtful engagement and process on the Alex West plan. My feedback on the draft is: -Allow for greater building heights throughout the plan area -Allow for building heights of 150 feet near all planned BRT stops. This height is already allowed in much of the area, and should be standardized to along the transitway to allow for transit-oriented development -Allow for at least 50 feet of height in all plan areas. This height is sufficient for modern townhomes & garden apartments, and is the threshold at which a developer can provide affordable homes in return for additional bonus height. -Allow for one increment of height beyond what currently exists or is allowed in all areas. All neighborhoods should share in the benefits of added housing supply, and be open to accepting new Alexandrians at different levels of income. No neighborhood should be entirely sheltered from growth. -Allow for greater density throughout the plan area. -Area 1 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 5.0. This complements the suggested height limit of 150 feet to accommodate transit-oriented, walkable development instead of towers sitting in the middle of giant parking lots. -Area 2 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 3.0. This is sufficient for garden apartments, which should be encouraged throughout the Plan Area as a more affordable and walkable housing form. Allow for incremental growth in all neighborhoods, not just areas where density is already concentrated. -Area 3 should be re-envisioned to accommodate incremental growth and to welcome some of the new Alexandrians that will arrive or grow up here over the Plan’s effective life. No neighborhood should be prevented from growing and changing over long stretches of time. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet and density up to 3.0 in the Focus Area. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest and balances the need for new housing with the Plans existing development, concentrating the majority of new heights along the planned BRT route. Lastly, the City does not currently have any zone in the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate a base FAR of 5.0. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies, including policies developed and approved through Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 64 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 1C - Building Heights | Good evening, I already shared some feedback, but I would like to add a request for increased heights and FAR in all plan areas, with at least 50 feet of height allowed everywhere to accommodate townhouses and small apartment buildings, and at least 150 feet of height allowed at each planned West End Transitway stop. Thank you, and please allow abundant housing in Alexandria West so that people living in unhealthy conditions can have other options. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies. | |||
| 65 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 1C - Building Heights | To truly meet the goal of providing for housing affordability, three key changes are needed in the draft recommendations: allow more building height, allow greater density, and allow for incremental growth across the entire Plan Area. These changes will legalize a larger supply of both market rate and dedicated affordable units to stabilize rents and prevent displacement, and encourage transit-oriented and walkable neighborhoods in the Plan Area. Allow for greater building heights throughout the plan area Allow for building heights of 150 feet near all planned BRT stops. This height is already allowed in much of the area, and should be standardized to along the transitway to allow for transit-oriented development Allow for at least 50 feet of height in all plan areas. This height is sufficient for modern townhomes & garden apartments, and is the threshold at which a developer can provide affordable homes in return for additional bonus height. Allow for one increment of height beyond what currently exists or is allowed in all areas. All neighborhoods should share in the benefits of added housing supply, and be open to accepting new Alexandrians at different levels of income. No neighborhood should be entirely sheltered from growth. Allow for greater density throughout the plan area. Area 1 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 5.0. This complements our recommended height limit of 150 feet to accommodate transit-oriented, walkable development instead of towers sitting in the middle of giant parking lots. Area 2 should allow Floor Area Ratios of 3.0. This is sufficient for garden apartments, which should be encouraged throughout the Plan Area as a more affordable and walkable housing form. Allow for incremental growth in all neighborhoods, not just areas where density is already concentrated Area 3 should be re-envisioned to accommodate incremental growth and to welcome some of the new Alexandrians that will arrive or grow up here over the Plan’s effective life. No neighborhood should be prevented from growing and changing over long stretches of time. | The Plan timeframe is 20-25 years. As part of the process, staff is proposing new heights of 85 to 100 feet and density up to 3.0 in the Focus Area. The Plan achieves the amount of the development forecasted for AlexWest and balances the need for new housing with the Plans existing development, concentrating the majority of new heights along the planned BRT route. Lastly, the City does not currently have any zone in the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate a base FAR of 5.0. Area 3 is subject to existing city policies, including policies developed and approved through Zoning for Housing. | |||
| 66 |
| Comment Form | 1A- Land Uses General 1E - Parking 2A - Housing General 3A - Mobility General 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network 3D - Transit | Dear City of Alexandria, I am Dane Lauritzen, a resident of Alexandria. I generally support the redevelopment proposed in the Alexandria West Plan. I believe the plan represents a good starting point for development of a walkable, bikeable, and transit-oriented mixed use development in Alexandria. I believe that such a development will help improve general access to housing, boost economic activity, and help address climate change. However, I believe that we can improve upon the development and provide a more integrated long-term plan that proactively addresses housing need, transit, and community. In the short time that I have lived in Alexandria, I've seen a rapid rise in housing that prices out many of my friends and relatives. My brother, for instance, indicated that price was a major factor that made living in Alexandria infeasible. We should broaden the housiing mandate, and provide greater commitments to affordable and market housing in this redevelopment. I also see how climate change is drastically affecting the world, increasing climate catastrophes via harsher storms, fires, and heat waves. Alexandria should move more proactively in committing to the transit for the West End redevelopment plan. For this project to be successful, I believe that the City must give stronger commitment to support the use of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. With this in mind, these are my more specific concerns for the Alexandria West Plan: PARKING: the plan indicates that any construction on a current parking lot will be "consistent" with the zoning ordinance. The City should more proactively commit to reducing the parking requirements for this redevelopment. The area is planned to be a multi-modal transit hub. Parking requirements impair this goal, and impede the idea of this area as walkable, mixed-use, and local. LAND USE: there are significant holes in access to amenities in the West Plan. In particular, those neighborhoods around Chambliss and Armstead lack any local retail for those communities. There are also smaller gaps in servies north of Neighborhood 7 and east of Neighborhood 4. While those areas are lower density in the plan, there should still be a ready access to some retail for the residents in those neighborhoods to access. At the very least, a small portion of each of the neighborhoods should allow some limited retail that suits the neighborhood and provides close amenities to those residents. MOBILITY -- TRANSIT: The West Plan identifies several lmultimodal corridors, but is vague regarding how the City plans to support and encourage use of those transit corridors to connect the West End to Falls Church, Arlington, and Old Town. Even if not initially connected along the whole route, the City should commit to dedicated bus lane support for the multi-modal transit corridors during the redevelopment. We have seen the difficulty in Duke Street with tproviding dedicated lanes along a corridor. The redevelopment provides a ready chance for the City to help build a good transit system and work to ensure that the riders are not stuck in traffic during their travels to and from the West End. MOBILITY -- BICYCLE: The current plan includes a number of sharrows north of Neighborhood 7. These sharrows appear to be the primary connection for bicyclists looking to connect north towards Ballston, W&OD, and Falls Church. Sharrows are significantly more dangerous than protected bike lanes or separated trails. I'd strongly urge the City, at least in its plan, to avoid this use of sharrows in the bicycle transit map. Actively giving bicyclists the space and protection they deserve will improve the safety and bthe bicyclist and encourage nervous riders to try out bicycling, scooting, or e-biking. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this feedback. I look forward to seeing the new walkable community that is planned for redevelopment. The Eisenhower plan is turning out nicely, and I think the Alexandria West P | The plan does not recommend different parking requirements than are in the zoning ordinance. The goal of the required retail areas is to prioritize a concentration of retail uses. Concentrating retail not only to provides neighborhood amenities to residents but also helps retail businesses better access customers, especially ones the rely on foot traffic. The areas of the plan that include these concentrations of retail uses are expected to be areas with significant (or increased) development interest, including residential development. The West End Transit way is a separate process that has been approved by City Council and which has entered the implementation phase. You can read more about that here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/transportation-planning/west-end-transitway. The final phase of the WET implementation, which is not yet funded, includes the dedication of transit lanes along parts of Van Dorn and Beauregard. In service of facilitating access to the West End Transit way for current and future residents, the plan requires that developers mitigate any impacts their development might have on multimodal access, including but not limited to the WET stations. Sharrows are only indicated in the Bike Network Map on streets that are low-traffic streets where a network connection is desirable but a fully separated and/or protected bike facility is either not possible to provide or not needed. | |||
| 67 |
| 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | Good morning, I ask City planners to take a hard look at the plan to put a multiuse path on N Beauregard that would be on the opposite side of the street from the multi-use trail on Walter Reed Drive. | Response in progress | ||||
| 68 | 3A - Mobility General | I can’t believe I’m saying forget the trail, but it would be better to just spend the money making sure Walter-Reed-Trail-side users who want to continue onto Beauregard can safely cross Route 7. Get rid of the slip lane and free right turn, and give pedestrians/cyclists a marked, signalized, dedicated crossing. That’s more important for true non-vehicle connectivity, and between counties at that. Right now, that crossing is extraordinarily unsafe. And no, don’t disallow pedestrian crossing. Such a rule would be ignored and just get people hurt. | Response in progress | |||||
| 69 | 3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network | To ask pedestrians, cyclists and other non-car-drivers to cross Beauregard at VA-Rt 7 is: 1) Unsafe. This is a fast, busy vehicle intersection. Points of conflict need to be minimized if a multi-use trail continuation is being built, and transferring users to the other side of the road pretty much maximizes points of conflict. 2) Counter to how people move. I bike frequently between the W&OD and Echols Ave. While on Beauregard going down the hill, I want to be in the road. I’m going at traffic speed. While on Beauregard going up the hill is when I want separation from cars. In addition: I’d have to re-cross almost immediately, as I live on the same side of Beauregard as the Walter Reed trail. Same for anyone going to NVCC. They say do it well or do it twice. Before you proceed, consider requiring your engineers to try to walk or bike the way you want trail users to. You can’t easily make people follow road rules that don’t make practical sense, and in the case of non-drivers, you’d be penalizing them with injury or worse for not following what you think they should do for reasons no casual user will understand. | Response in progress | |||||