AlexWest Draft Plan Recs: Community Comments
Date ReceivedSourceDraft RecommendationCommunity CommentStaff Response
 Collaboration powered by Smartsheet   |   Report Abuse
1
3/5/2024
StoryMap1A- Land Uses GeneralFirst, 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.Response in progress
2
3/5/2024
StoryMap1C - Building HeightsSecond (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.Response in progress
3
3/5/2024
StoryMap2A - Housing GeneralSecond, 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?Response in progress
4
3/5/2024
StoryMap3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkThird, 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.Response in progress
5
3/5/2024
StoryMap4A - Public Parks + Open Space GeneralLastly, 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.Response in progress
6
3/6/2024
Email1C - Building HeightsWithin 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, 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 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?Response in progress
7
3/6/2024
Email3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkIt states proposed Sharrows, what are Sharrows?Response in progress
8
3/6/2024
Email3C - Safety + MobilityIt 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?Response in progress
9
3/6/2024
Email1D - DesignIt 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?
Response in progress
10
3/6/2024
Email1A- Land Uses GeneralUnder 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?Response in progress
11
3/7/2024
Email1A- Land Uses GeneralWhat 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.Response in progress
12
3/7/2024
Feedback Session2C - Tenant ProtectionsSouthern Towers utility fee is unfair. Does the Plan have pathways to accountability?Response in progress
13
3/7/2024
Feedback Session2A - Housing General10 percent for committed affordable units is great. Aligned with ACT and TWU vision for AlexWest Plan. Plan should provide more deeply affordable unitsResponse in progress
14
3/7/2024
Feedback Session2B - PartnershipsHow are you making sure the Plan is providing deeply affordable units?Response in progress
15
3/7/2024
Feedback Session2A - Housing General"Range of Housing" types. What does that mean? Members/families need more than 1 BR units.Response in progress
16
3/7/2024
Feedback Session3C - Safety + MobilityAre you improving the Seminary and Beauregard intersection?Response in progress
17
3/7/2024
Feedback Session1A- Land Uses GeneralWho's going to pay for construction [if development occurs] at Southern Towers?Response in progress
18
3/7/2024
Feedback Session2A - Housing GeneralWhat type of housing does the third of bonus provide? Is that in addition to the 10 percent of CAUs?Response in progress
19
3/7/2024
Feedback SessionIs there a contact with the City to assist with relocation?Response in progress
20
3/7/2024
Feedback SessionWhat is my status on the Section 8 waitlist?Response in progress
21
3/7/2024
Feedback Session3A - Mobility General[Does the Plan] provide a safe crossing [like an overpass] from Southern Towers across to Mark Center Av?Response in progress
22
3/7/2024
Feedback Session3C - Safety + MobilityTraffic is really bad. Infrastructure doesn’t work well (timing of lights, accidents, speed).Response in progress
23
3/7/2024
Feedback Session3C - Safety + Mobility395 exit to Southern Towers is dangerous. (lots of accidents)Response in progress
24
3/8/2024
StoryMap3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network25. 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.Response in progress
25
3/8/2024
StoryMap3C - Safety + Mobility32. 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 crosswalksResponse in progress
26
3/8/2024
Comment Form3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkI 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.Response in progress
27
3/8/2024
Comment FormI am writing to express my opposition to all proposed changes to the Alexandria West Planning.Response in progress
28
3/8/2024
StoryMap3A - Mobility GeneralRemoving 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.Response in progress
29
3/8/2024
StoryMap3A - Mobility GeneralHow 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?Response in progress
30
3/9/2024
Comment FormI fully support these draft plans. They look great. Kudos to you all and good luck.Response in progress
31
3/9/2024
Email2A - Housing GeneralThank 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?
Response in progress
32
3/10/2024
Comment FormLeave the West End alone. We don't want to become another over-populated conjested area with no parking.Response in progress
33
3/11/2024
Email1A- 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?Response in progress
34
3/11/2024
Comment Form2A - Housing GeneralAs 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.Response in progress
35
3/11/2024
StoryMap3A - Mobility GeneralI'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.Response in progress
36
3/11/2024
StoryMap4A - Public Parks + Open Space GeneralI'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.Response in progress
37
3/14/2024
Feedback Session2A - Housing GeneralWho gets to be in new housing? What about those making less than 60K/year?Response in progress
38
3/14/2024
Feedback Session2B - PartnershipsHow many affordable units at 40% AMI are in the Plan?Response in progress
39
3/14/2024
Feedback Session2C - Tenant ProtectionsExisting apartments have to be renovated. There is mold, pests, etc. (translation)Response in progress
40
3/14/2024
Feedback Session3C - Safety + MobilityMore lighting is needed in the area, there are areas that are too dark.Response in progress
41
3/14/2024
Feedback Session4A - Public Parks + Open Space GeneralParks should have areas to BBQ/grill. We are not allowed to grill on apartment patios. (translation)Response in progress
42
3/14/2024
Feedback Session2A - Housing GeneralIt's important that the Plan assures that the community stay here. Currently, there is nothing in the Plan that assures it.Response in progress
43
3/14/2024
Feedback Session4A - Public Parks + Open Space GeneralMore activities are teens; younger kids have the Rec Center. There are safety issues in the area andResponse in progress
44
3/15/2024
StoryMap3C - Safety + MobilityThank 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.Response in progress
45
3/15/2024
StoryMap1B- RetailIs 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.Response in progress
46
3/15/2024
StoryMap2A - Housing GeneralWith 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?Response in progress
47
3/20/2024
Email3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle Network"We appreciate you walking us through Staff’s Alex West SAP recommendations for The Rutherford property (the “Property”) shown in the excerpt below .As discussed, we respectfully request the Planned Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections (“Connections”) be removed from the Property for several reasons. 1. The Property was recently entitled for a multifamily building DSUP plan that does not include the Connections. The DSUP plan is ready for FSP release."
There are private resident amenities (court and dog park) and garage and loading access ways in the Connection areas. There is not enough area for the Connections.
There is steep grade/topography making Connections difficult to build/access/use.
The Property owner has resident safety concerns if Connections are permitted along the northern Property boundary.
"In the future, after the DSUP redevelopment of Property, should it be mutually agreeable, the Property owner supports pedestrian access alternatives that make it easier to access the Winkler Preserve.

With regard to the Hilton property, upon future redevelopment, the property owner supports pedestrian passage to make it easier to access major plan nodes.
However, as currently shown, the midblock pedestrian connection is shown near the hotel loading area and would cause safety issues.

We are happy to discuss this further should you have follow-up questions."
Response in progress
48
3/22/2024
StoryMap3C - Safety + MobilityEliminating 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.Response in progress
49
3/23/2024
Comment Form2A - 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 streetsResponse in progress
50
3/23/2024
Comment Form2A - Housing GeneralAll 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.Response in progress
51
3/24/2024
Comment Form3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkI 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.Response in progress
52
3/27/2024
StoryMap1A- 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.
Response in progress
53
3/27/2024
Email3B - 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.
"
Response in progress
54
3/27/2024
Comment Form1A- 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.
Response in progress
55
3/28/2024
Comment Form1A- Land Uses GeneralThank 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.Response in progress
56
3/28/2024
Comment Form3A - 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.Response in progress
57
3/28/2024
Comment Form1A- 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.Response in progress
58
3/28/2024
StoryMap3C - Safety + MobilityThe 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.Response in progress
59
3/28/2024
WEBA Roundtable1A- 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
Response in progress
60
3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkTrails are good but if woodchip or gravel - these are not stroller friendly. NOVA Parks has great materials that also detain stormwater.Response in progress
61
4A - Public Parks + Open Space GeneralPark maintenance is needed. Plan should look at proffers for continued maintenanceResponse in progress
62
3A - Mobility GeneralDesign 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).Response in progress
63
4C - Public Art + Open Space ProgrammingPublic 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)Response in progress
64
3/29/2024
Comment Form1A- 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.
Response in progress
65
3/29/2024
Comment Form1A- 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.
Response in progress
66
3/31/2024
Comment Form1A- 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.Response in progress
67
3/31/2024
Comment Form1A- 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 PResponse in progress
68
3/31/2024
Email3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkGood 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
69
3A - Mobility GeneralI 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
70
3B - Pedestrian + Bicycle NetworkTo 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