| 1 | | City Council Town Hall | | I understand that one of the arguments of those opposed to rezoning that those changes will reduce the ability of the citizens to receive notice of proposed development projects such as notice of request for SUPs or increased developments by right – that does not include required notice to advance owners. Is this correct? If so, please provide details as to the specific proposals and/or new restrictions. | Currently, public hearings are not required for single unit dwellings in single family zones, unless they are on a substandard lot or need a parking reduction (which is highly unusual). Should the single-family proposal be approved, 2-4 unit dwellings would be held to the same standard as single family homes are today. That is, they would be reviewed administratively. However, grading plans will continue to be required for single unit dwellings, and would be for the proposed 2-4 unit dwellings where 2,500 sf of ground disturbance occurs – which will be the case for most of these buildings. Planning & Zoning notifies adjacent property owners when a grading plan is submitted. |
| 2 | | Email | | Greetings. I have read through the materials on the city's website but am still puzzled about this proposal. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about these questions.
1. Under current zoning regulations, is it possible for a developer to seek a zoning variance to permit multiple units in a structure, or to change the set-back requirements, on a "single-family" lot?
2. Assuming the answer is yes, how frequently are such applications made each year?
3. If the proposed changes became law, would there be procedures available through the zoning commission for a resident to prevent multiple units in a structure, or to increase the set-back requirements based on special circumstances/characteristics?
4. The mayor seemed to suggest in an interview on WAMU that the proposal was not intended to allow developers to tear down existing structures to build multi-unit dwellings on existing lots but only to broaden the scope of permissible uses with respect to existing structures. I see nothing in the proposed text that supports such a distinction or that would prohibit a developer from buying up properties and re-scaling the structures in a neighborhood. Can you clarify?
5. Parking is a never-ending problem in my neighborhood (and from what I read, across the city). The proposal's "solution" to the problem seems to be to exacerbate it by reducing the requirements for parking with respect to any new usage. Is this another aspect of the City's effort to make the use of cars less attractive vis a vis public transportation?
6. What data have you considered from other communities that have made similar changes to their zoning restrictions? Minneapolis did this in 2019 I think; what has been their experience? How many multi-unit dwellings have been built/adapted since? From what I have read, the number of units affected by the change has been decimal dust. The materials on the website seem to anticipate an impact on 6 properties per year; am I reading this correctly?
I thank you in advance for your time and consideration | Currently, a property owner can apply for a variance requesting multiple units in a structure in a single family zone, but it would not be supported because it doesn't meet the City's variance standards. A property owner can apply for a variance regarding setbacks, but those are only supported in very unique circumstances. These processes would not change should the current proposals be approved. Last year, the City received 3 variance requests citywide. The definition of variance helps clarify when it can be granted: https://library.municode.com/va/alexandria/codes/zoning?nodeId=ARTIIDE_2-201.1VA
Lot consolidations anywhere in the city are not subject to City review or regulations and are arranged through legal channels as registered with the City Courts Land Records division. Currently in single family zones, one unit dwellings are allowed (single family home) on a lot, as long as the lot complies with the minimum lot size required in the zone. With the proposed changes, a one to four unit dwelling could be constructed on a lot, also as long as the lot complies with the minimum lot size required in the zone. The building would be subject to the same lot and bulk requirements - setbacks, FAR, and height - as they are today, resulting in a building that would look similar to a new single family dwelling now. Fee simple townhouses would not be permitted anywhere that they aren't currently allowed.
The consultant, who addressed the financial feasibility of redeveloping single family properties with up to 4 multi-units, estimated that approximately 66 properties could redevelop over the course of 10 years. This estimated number represents a statistical figure and does not refer to specific properties. The consultant arrived at this figure through an analysis that took into account the City's high land values, redevelopment costs, potential sales prices, and the percentage home sales rate over the last five years. The report and executive summary are posted on the website.
You mentioned you read through materials on the website - in case you missed it, take a look at this document related to the parking proposals - it also provides a link to the Alexandria Mobility Plan which speaks to the City's overall transportation-related goals: |
| 3 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I appreciate the City’s effort to address housing inequities. This is a long-term issue and will take many solutions and years to address. A quick overhaul will not work, and I fear some components of this proposal will have the opposite result by leading to more expensive multifamily units and more issues for the city’s overtaxed residents already suffering from an aging infrastructure and schools. As a resident of over 20 years in Alexandria, I have seen much residential growth and little business growth. Thus, the housing tax burden is substantial and taken on by many in our rapidly ageing community. It is important to note that it is an ageing population that will be retiring and considering selling soon. Thus, it makes sense to let the market work and not alter it with this proposal for the following reasons. This proposal will alter that market and I believe motivate those retirees to sell to developers for the highest dollar and not develop smaller units on their property. Pragmatic residents at or near retirement age will sell to a developer and instead of 150-178 units, there could be hundreds more high-end townhomes – not affordable units- leading to a wholesale change of the neighborhoods to all multifamily units that will not help the neighbors or low-income people. Thus, the estimates of multifamily units are too low. See Page 25. I do not believe this is the intent of the proposal, but it must be considered before making these changes. Has it been considered that our neighbors retiring and banding together to sell multiple adjoining lots to developers is in their interest? To assume this would not happen is naïve, this proposal will lead to wholesale change of a community that we love. I believe this is an unintended consequence that would lead to high profits for those selling and expensive developments of townhomes that will still price buyers out even more than now. Therefore, the suggestions on page 25 seem unworkable and need to be taken off the table. On page 27, there are parking proposals for multifamily units, while for the reasons noted above there should not be a wholesale shift to multifamily units, option 4 appears to make the most sense. Other considerations might include limiting the number of cars registered to an address and city stickers for new city zones not currently zoned. Thanks for your consideration of these points as you consider major changes to how we live in Alexandria, which is my community that I have lived in and value for over 20 years. | Thank you for your thoughtful comments. This initiative is one of many steps the City has taken and will continue to take to address the housing crisis. There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria and far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city. Additionally, housing production (market-rate) has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. The intent is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox.
Lot consolidations anywhere in the city are not subject to City review or regulations and are arranged through legal channels as registered with the City Courts Land Records division. Currently in single family zones, one unit dwellings are allowed (single family home) on a lot, as long as the lot complies with the minimum lot size required in the zone. With the proposed changes, a one to four unit dwelling could be constructed on a lot, also as long as the lot complies with the minimum lot size required in the zone. The building would be subject to the same lot and bulk requirements - setbacks, FAR, and height - as they are today, resulting in a building that would look similar to a new single family dwelling now. Fee simple townhouses would not be permitted anywhere that they aren't currently allowed.
If you haven't already, you might find it helpful to view the analyses posted on the website - in particular the Feasibility Analysis under the 'Expanding Housing Opportunities in Single Family Zones' proposal: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Z4H-Feasibility-Analysis-Single-Family-Zoning-Final-20231018.pdf; Executive Summary https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Z4H-WZHA-Report-Exec-Summary-20231019.pdf |
| 4 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | It seems that proposed text amendment for townhouses eliminates the sideyard setback. What impact will that have on current townhouses? Will and end unit townhouse be able to be expanded all the way to the lot line? If so, I oppose that change. | The proposal is that end unit townhouses on lots less than 25 feet wide would not have a side yard setback requirement. No other townhouse lot configuration would be affected. New townhouse development would be subject to site plan requirements regarding site design, open space, and access to rear alleys/parking areas. |
| 5 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Six generations of my family have lived in Alexandria. The changes I've seen in the city are appalling (crime, scooters, street changes, ADU's, fire and police shortages). I am against the new zoning for housing/housing for all initiative. I am a lifetime Democrat but will not vote for the current administration again. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 6 | | Online feedback form | | I don't agree that this effort will provide much additional affordable housing in the City of Alexandria. When considering the cost of any type of residence the total cost includes the cost of land and improvements. When allowable density is increased, the value of the land greatly increases. Over the last three decades, the scarcity of land has already increased its percentage of the total cost of a housing unit. With the increase in allowable density, all land will become more expensive and will increase the cost of purchasing any type of housing in the city. Additionally, now residents will not only be competing with other residential purchasers, residents will be competing against well capitalized developers. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. Zoning for Housing is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria and far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city. Additionally, housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone.
And you are correct - these recommendations alone will not solve the housing affordability issue. The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the city's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 7 | | Online feedback form | | It's time for the City to stop talking to us as though we are 5 years old! Tell us about each addendum: what did the old one state and how is it proposed to change? Why is this a good thing? Stop hiding the fact that you are giving up all control to the developers. How many of you will make money when the developers earn huge profits from gentrifying our City? Why do you think that this will bring in tax revenue? It is not doing so in any other parts of the USA. This is a form of discrimination for existing residents because they will be forced to move out of Alexandria. I thought you wanted to help those who need affordable housing, not force them out. Explain. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. Zoning for Housing is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria and far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city. Additionally, housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone.
The proposals and text amendments along with summary explanations can be found on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all |
| 8 | | Online feedback form | | I am an Alexandria resident who strongly supports any effort to rezone the City for denser housing developments. In general, I support anything that adds housing units and increases density. More specifically, I support raising the permissible building height citywide, pursuing option 2 of the plan to upzone the single family neighborhoods (R20, R12, R8, R5, and R2-5), eliminating setback and parking requirements, and prioritizing public transit access. While care should be taken to preserve the historic character of Old Town, the area is desperately in need of revitalization to ensure that its charm reaches everyone, not only the wealthy few. This can be achieved by evaluating architectural plans for proposed buildings before issuing permits, maintaining tree cover, and other means. It does not require keeping Old Town restrictively zoned. To make the proposed changes would be a huge benefit to both current and future residents of Alexandria, and I would enthusiastically vote for any future city council candidates who proudly and vociferously championed these amendments to the city code. I hope the voice of the loud minority who opposes these changes will not stand in the way of these important actions. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 9 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | It is misleading to use past racism to plant an idea that some groups of people living in COA today are immune and segregated from the local diversity. It is also disingenuous to use that as a justification to radically rezone all of Alexandria. It simply is not true! If you do anything: live, work, shop, volunteer and/or are educated through the ACPS school system then you are immersed in the rich diversity that makes up the COA. In fact, the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Spring Outreach Questionnaire ranked the characteristics that were important as: safety and multimodal, diversity ranked 8th and at the bottom because we already are a diverse population and we do are not looking at color and gender. I live in the R8 SFH area. I am against adding 2,3 &4 MFU. My neighborhood is surrounded by a multitude of housing options (low income, affordable, City housing, townhomes, apts and condos) and all of it is diversified. If you can afford to buy anything in the neighborhood you are welcomed. It is expensive for all of us and not just some. Alexandria is expensive and none of the building that has occurred (ie: Potomac Yards) over the last 10-15 years has brought prices or taxes down. This idea of rezoning and allowing 2, 3 & 4 multi-family units will not bring down prices. It will expand the tax base and benefit builders. In turn, there will be more traffic, less parking and a burdened placed on the infra-structure. What is the plan to address these very really infrastructure needs of parking, congestion, police, firefighters, teachers and flooding mitigation and updated sewer and water systems?
The plan grossly under estimates the need for adequate parking. As was stated in the planning it will be easier, quicker and cheaper if they do not have to deal with this; however, it is unrealistic and irresponsible for the City to not take appropriate, deliberate action on allocating sufficient parking. I shopped at the Aldi and CVS on Monroe over the weekend, as a customer I could not find parking due to the events going on at the soccer fields. The City failed to factor in and allow appropriate parking for the addition of these fields; soon there will be an upgrade to Simpson Field as well. I imagine they expect the businesses to police their lots. This is irresponsible of the City to burdeon the business owners for their failings. We have so few businesses in the City that help to off set the tax burdeon placed on home owners we need to help them be successful. The Real Estate Tax use to be 60% home owners and 40% businesses; however, now it is 80%/20%. Is this the reason the City is push to add so much new housing? Is this a smart strategy that is fiscally and financially responsible? | Zoning for Housing is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria and far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city. Additionally, housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. Overall, the goal is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city.
You may find it helpful to read through the documentation posted on the Housing for All section of the website - Housing for All is the companion program to to the Zoning for Housing piece, and explores the extent of past discriminatory housing policies and their continued impact, especially on people of color and/or low-income. In addition to the need to provide more housing units in a manner that considers choice, type, tenure, price points and dispersion – there is a need to redress how segregated laws and policies of the past have influenced land use patterns of today, creating vestiges of concentrated affordable housing and/or housing of inferior and declining conditions and neighborhoods without sufficient infrastructure and services. Housing for All helps to promote individual and collective understanding of these past laws and policies on the current day Alexandria housing market and neighborhoods and the moral imperative to correcting them. (https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/housing-for-all)
Background on and goals of the proposed parking options related to the single-family initiative can be found on the website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20231016.pdf
This document posted on the project website provides information on how net new units estimated under these proposals over the next 10 years are supported by infrastructure: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 10 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | In the past 3 years, several condo and apartment unit structures have been built. Has those hundred of units reduced average market costs or rents? no. I don’t think increasing density will sway market prices. Our infrastructure cannot take the increase in population of tens of thousand housing units. How much additional debt will those units increase the multi-year budget shortfall when those units add burden of capital improvements and public school costs? | The intent of the Zoning for Housing initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate housing) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. Accessibility - There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria; Affordability - Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability - Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. Overall, the goal is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city.
If you haven't yet had an opportunity, this document posted on the project website provides information on how net new units estimated under these proposals over the next 10 years are supported by infrastructure: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 11 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am an Alexandria resident who strongly supports any effort to rezone the City for denser housing developments. In general, I support anything that adds housing units and increases density. More specifically, I support raising the permissible building height citywide, pursuing option 2 of the plan to upzone the single family neighborhoods (R20, R12, R8, R5, and R2-5), eliminating setback and parking requirements, and prioritizing public transit access. While care should be taken to preserve the historic character of Old Town, the area is desperately in need of revitalization to ensure that its charm reaches everyone, not only the wealthy few. This can be achieved by evaluating architectural plans for proposed buildings before issuing permits, maintaining tree cover, and other means. It does not require keeping Old Town restrictively zoned. To make the proposed changes would be a huge benefit to both current and future residents of Alexandria, and I would enthusiastically vote for any future city council candidates who proudly and vociferously championed these amendments to the city code. I hope the voice of the loud minority who opposes these changes will not stand in the way of these important actions. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 12 | | Email | | When the zoning authority makes a decision to approve the development of a multi-family dwelling in what was previously zoned as single family only, what avenues for appealing this decision will current residents in the neighborhood have to file an appeal to reconsider that approval?
In addition, before making a rezoning decision, will there be any impact studies or assessments publicly available which show the impact on such factors as neighborhood congestion or property values. | The recommendations relative to the Single Family initiative do not propose to change any of the bulk, height, setback requirements. The proposal as outlined and described is to create opportunities for more housing in single family zones using the current allowable envelops. Individual property rights allow property owners to utilize their property in a manner that they choose as long as they are in compliance with laws and regulations. In terms of infrastructure, please review information on the webpage that speaks to infrastructure related analysis that has been undertaken relative to Single Family and Multi-family proposals. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 13 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Please do not incentivize demolitions via your zoning decisions. The greenest building is one that has already been built. Encouraging rehabilitation is the more environmentally sound option. Don’t incentivize throwing away all the energy that went into making existing building materials and constructing existing buildings. Seek out developers who know rehabilitation and create affordable housing by utilizing federal tax credits - including the low-income housing tax credit. Be the eco-city we claim to be! | Part of the Zoning for Housing analysis included assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. |
| 14 | | Hybrid Community Meeting/Email | | Very dissapointed to hear that neighborhood character will be enshrined in the city's master plan. But here's a question: there is an 15ish story apartment building across the street from the townhouse I live in. Do you plan to treat neighborhood character symmetrically and let this be evidence for greater density?
I am confused about the following master plan amendment: “references to low density will continue to refer to development configuration that limits overall height and lot coverage compatible with the existing neighborhood”. I’m guessing this is for consistency with allowing multiple units in single-family zones, and so it clarifies that density refers to the building envelope rather than number of people. Is that correct? This still seems to only consider neighborhood context as a justification for lower density, when in fact it is fairly common to see tall buildings near short buildings and it really ought to go both ways.
Just to make my broader position clear: while I am really happy that we are taking action to relax zoning restrictions, there is more that needs to be done. I think this text, while a net improvement, still leaves an extreme commitment to low density development by privileging existing lot coverage and height maximums. This is not consistent with the idea of zoning for housing. Land is scarce, and it is just not feasible to meaningfully increase the housing supply (and reduce housing costs) without increasing the density of the built environment and allowing typologies that economize on land. This is clear based on the small number of projected new multi-family units from the changes to single-family zones. This text would preclude future zoning changes allowing even “gentle” density increases like cottage courts, townhouses, or mid-size apartment buildings.
Thanks again, and apologies for the mini-rant, but I do think think it is important that the planning department hears from people in favor of more change. | In the older 1992 small area plans, there are statements related to neighborhood character that some view were meant to be exclusionary – so the proposed master plan amendment is underscoring the City's position that equitable and inclusive access to housing is a priority (per City Council Resolution 2974).
The proposed amendment related to density is also in reference to some of the older 1992 small area plans that contain policy statements that densities in single family residential neighborhoods should not be increased. Staff believes that our housing and planning policies have evolved since 1992 such that the overall goal of supporting and protecting residential neighborhoods is no longer dependent on strict adherence to one dwelling unit per lot.
You may not have had an opportunity to read through the draft recommendations in full, but some do include phased approaches and recommendations for future consideration. In particular, the Historic Development Patterns recommendations include a Phase 2 (for future study): simplifying the number of zones; change or eliminating minimum lot size requirements; creating more standardization of uses across zones; and study increasing flexibility of bulk and area regulations. The Townhouse Zones recommendation also include a Phase 2 (for future study): replace open space requirement with a maximum lot coverage requirement; eliminate lot size minimums; apply RM zone FAR maximum to all townhouse zones. |
| 15 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am strongly opposed to the single family zoning plan and feel it will have a very negative impact on our community. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 16 | | email | | Dear Members of the City Council, Mayor and Vice Mayor,
I am a tax-paying homeowner who has been unable to attend your meetings on this topic - even virtually (live).
(DON'T REZONE!)
My comments are as follow:
1. Density: More density will not correct the low income housing problem. Lower costs of housing - in conjunction with higher incomes - are needed. Increasing density without lowering costs is not a solution. How will you lower housing costs when non-occupant owners control rents on the properties they acquire in the rezoned areas? Alexandria has already added much density on the west end, yet this hasn't helped at all with lowering costs.
2. Housing costs: Raising income levels to levels sufficient to afford existing housing would help, BUT you (members of Council) - and we, as citizens of the city - have no direct control over that. What can be done is when city council is contemplating offering incentives and tax breaks to businesses operating in or relocating their businesses to the city (e.g., Amazon), you could - and should - demand that they commit to paying actual living wages, commensurate with the costs of living here in this city. And you should be requiring that for all of their employees - and not just HQ-2 administrative types. Warehouse and delivery workers also need living wages and proper working conditions. Any incentives offered by city council (from the coffers of resident taxpayers) to businesses must also require that their subcontractors commit to paying realistic living wages and the city must institute systems to ensure they abide by stipulations.
3. Infrastructure improvements: history shows council actions have reduced - not improved - infrastructure for existing density, and I have seen nothing in this proposed rezoning which will do so (fix the infrastructure to support more density). "Road diets" have impeded traffic flow, reduced available parking, and have not resulted in people ditching their cars for bicycles or public transit; Reduced road capacity coupled with 25-MPH speed limits across the city have only added to daily stress on people. Any tickets generated by speed cameras will further reduce individuals' finances needed for housing costs and will add more daily trauma for all, most especially for those already living on the edge.
4. Crime: Crime is partially driven by trauma, so if you want to fix some of the crime in this city, it would help if you didn't add further complications to our lives! Adding low-income residential housing density will just transfer the low-income problems to yet more neighborhoods in the city.
5. Historical integrity: Alexandria has a long history of interest in preserving its historical architectural integrity, which is what has made living here desirable and it promotes tourism in the city. Preservation of historical integrity is not only important in Old Town, but should be a concern throughout the city. Rezoning completely changes the character of the neighborhoods affected by it. And, it CANNOT BE RESTORED once lost! ("Pave paradise and put up a parking lot!") | The Zoning for Housing is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria and far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city. Additionally, housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone.
And you are correct - these recommendations alone will not solve the housing affordability issue. The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the city's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 17 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Won’t the elimination/reduction of parking requirements mainly burden working-class people who need personal vehicles for work? i.e., Delivery drivers, building trades, etc. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 18 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It’s been stated or at least implied that the townhouse changes only affect Old Town. The text amendments appear to apply to all townhouse zones. Does this affect all the city? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 19 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Sam said the elimination of units per acre and minimum lot size only impacts zones that allow multifamily units. Does this include single family zones now that they will allow 4-unit buildings? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 20 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why eliminate the side yards for townhouses on lots less than 25”? What happens if townhouses are developed on adjacent properties? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 21 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I think the plan grossly underestimates the need for parking period and its impact on the neighbors, community, and city as a whole. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 22 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Has there been any consideration to eliminate parking minimums altogether? (Richmond, VA did so this summer) | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 23 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can faith-based organizations or non-profits build housing on their property? Has this been considered? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 24 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why do we need to mandate parking at all? Developers will build it anyway because they want to sell their projects. The government forcing them to build more parking, forces all of us to pay for parking even if we don’t need it. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 25 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | As younger and future generations become less car reliant, would the city consider further reducing parking minimums to allow the market to respond to parking demand more dynamically? I live in a duplex with space for 2+ cars, and among both households there’s only 1 car rarely used. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 26 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is anyone looking into a parking study? Parking is already difficult in these areas. How are we protecting those who do have to park on the street? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 27 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why limited to 4-units on a site? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 28 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I have been to City Council Meeting that agreed green space must be on the ground. When did this change to open space? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 29 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are you sure that your proposed changes are legal? City Charters, etc. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 30 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The parking change will allow extra spots. This should be made clear. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 31 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How will multi-unit dwellings be managed in single-family detached units? Units/3 acres or Units/square mile? What keeps the single-family zones on typical larger lots from being demolished and rebuilt for developer’s profit? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 32 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | When COG put out these goals, DC had already met them. Except for Alexandria, the other counties refused them. Why is Alexandria shoving this forward when we are the dense city in the state? What’s the rush? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 33 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Would the Historic Development amendments make garden apartments legal in those areas? Why not legalize those more affordable structures everywhere? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 34 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What about garden condos – is the city also rezoning those to expand? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 35 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Regarding historic zoning patterns changes being considered: Are there any limitations to the zones being considered? Are you only interested in re-zoning R13, R2-5, etc.? Do you have priorities/priority zones identified? Are height requirements or setback requirements being considered? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 36 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Does the city collect Real Estate Tax for all ADU’s (Auxiliary and Accessory)? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 37 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It seems like there are multiple current industrial zones that would be great as mixed-use buildings and add affordable units. Would the new zone changes apply to renovations of existing industrial buildings? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 38 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Thank you for proposing the definition changes of “family”. Many low-income individuals and persons with disabilities need the option to love with non-related people for affordability as well as to allow for living assistance such as personal aides in he latter without that assistance, the person could not live independently. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 39 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why not allow housing as by-right permitted use in Industrial Zones? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 40 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Would the city consider allowing duplexes or multi-unit dwellings in all areas zoned residential either now or in the future? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 41 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Approximately how long does it take for an RMF zone to be approved? Will the proposed amendments change this? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 42 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The RMF area was not identified. How can you pass these amendments and zoning changes without a clear definition of these locations? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 43 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can we share an idea for a possible structure in Del Rey? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 44 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It’s my understanding that opposition to certain city’s initial proposals, e.g., bonus heights tended to come from specific geographic areas of the city. That opposition led to those initial proposals being withdrawn. Since the opposition was so clustered, would the city consider reviving those proposals in areas outside of the opposing neighborhoods? Perhaps in a few select SAP’s? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 45 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Some of the new ADU’s have become Airbnb. How can you prevent ADU’s from becoming businesses? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 46 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why was the “boarding house” provision in SF zones changed to “reserved”? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 47 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are Rooming Houses and Boarding Houses no longer businesses? Are Airbnb’s businesses? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 48 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How are the 120 days per year for ADU’s being monitored? What are the consequences? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 49 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Green Space: Since the city states that more green space and more trees are needed, why are you eliminating setbacks which remove existing trees? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 50 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How can you allow rooftop greenery to be equivalent to greenery/trees on the ground? Trees and grass are vital to our health. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 51 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | These changes seem modest and an important first step. Why was the bonus height amendment scrapped? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 52 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In the snapshot that was posted, under expanding Housing Opportunity for SF zones, it states that existing minimum lot sizes, setbacks, etc. would remain unchanged. However, in the text amendment under R2-5 lot sizes for duplexes and lot width and frontage for semidetached units are proposed to be changed. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 53 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why did the city choose not to propose changes to Floor Area Ration single-family zones? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 54 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Do the people who live in single-family houses want multiplexes? If not, who does? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 55 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | A few sessions ago, the city shared some interesting statistics that reflected a trend of young people having trouble finding housing in the city. Can you talk about how the city’s proposals do or do not help reverse that trend? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 56 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Since 2012, 11,000 rental units have been added to the city; Alexandria is no longer affordable now. What strategy will be in place to build the 2030 Goal of 2,600 affordable housing? Will they be taxed equal to fee simply housing? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 57 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How many units have been approved but not yet built outside the transit-oriented zone? There are currently 40,820 units approved but not yet built in the transit-oriented zone, so how many others are in the rest of the city? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 58 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why is this zoning revision so rushed? 1990’s zoning revisions developed over 3 years. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 59 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is in Phase II? Why don’t we have a vote on both phases next year so residents can understand the entire plan? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 60 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why continue to recommend/require the 30% SUP for affordable units since, as so far permitted are so highly insufficient? It may add 8-12 units, but also adds 20-30 more market safe units equal to the lack of diversity of neighborhoods. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 61 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Let the small area plans review these changes for an impact analysis of these changes. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 62 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | CLA has studies to prove that this plan, i.e., upzoning will not make any accommodation more affordable. Why is the city selling it like this. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 63 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The proposals are good. Can we do more? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 64 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | 8 of 9 proposals will raise housing prices. Why are you proposing them? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 65 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I would like to thank the city planning staff for your patient informative and helpful answers on a complicated topic. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 66 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Removing the phrase “at no higher than their current density” contradicts not charging FAR requirements that was just discussed in the zoning code presentation. Which is it? Has there been a parking study? Please post that study. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 67 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I’m a big support of Zoning for Housing, but I’ve heard concerns about parking changes. What would you say to those with concerns? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 68 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What will these changes do to the developer’s “love” of DSUP’s? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 69 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Since most of all residential zoning codes are changing, how many of the 83,000 dwelling units in the city will have their zoning code changed? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 70 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | If a townhouse lot is larger than a RM lot, rather than similar, would that lot still get the same treatment as RM and similar lots? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 71 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In the historic zone, please explain requirements to conform to current guidelines and small area waterfront plan. Example: 301 N Fairfax Street | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 72 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Please explain 2 of the new text amendments to the audience. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 73 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Since these zoning changes and amendments are so complex, why do we need to address them all at once instead of one at a time? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 74 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can you share the objectives you have for phase 2? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 75 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How will the city manage run off to stormwater and maintain the tree canopy with permeable landscapes? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion. |
| 76 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am opposed to having existing single family lots changed to multiple unit lots. Parking, city services, crowding, the nature and feel of the neighborhood are among the issues I have with this change in zoning. There are already areas where multi-unit dwellings are available and those should be utilized for this purpose. Having a choice of types of (housing) neighborhoods are a draw for people wanting to live (purchase or rent) in Alexandria. Crowding people in is not desirable for anyone. Please stay with the current zoning. | The recommendation is not to eliminate single-family zoning, but single-family only zoning. These reforms are meant to expand housing production but also to offer wider typology choices, to create more affordability and to begin breaking down barriers to entry to areas that are expensive for many households. If you haven't already, you may find it help to review this document posted on the project website related to how net new units under this initiative would be supported by infrastructure - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 77 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | In a single family zone with new propose rules, can two adjacent building lots be combined so that the adjacent set backs are absorbed? | Lot consolidations are permitted now, under current zoning, but are rare. Property owners typically are not interested in purchasing the lot next door nor is it often that multiple properties come up for sale at the same time. If a scenario like you are suggesting were to occur, it more than likely would be cost prohibitive for a developer and the City's development review process would trigger community input. |
| 78 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | NYC is the most densely-populated city in the US, in fact its density is more than twice that of its closest competitor. Yet NYC manages to maintain significant neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes. If New York, with its density, can find a way to value and preserve diversity in housing options, why can't Alexandria? | To be clear, the recommendation isn't to eliminate single-family zones, but single-family 'only' zones. These reforms are meant to expand housing production but also to offer wider typology choices, to create more affordability and to begin breaking down barriers to entry to areas that are expensive for many households. |
| 79 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | How will this initiative be paired with thoughtful historic preservation along with existing land covenants that might restrict more than one single family home per plot? Also what are the qualifications for receiving a permit to develop land in this way? And what is the minimum lot size and well as maximum number of units per parcel. I can see this initiative being taken to the max by developers and unsuspecting neighborhoods being changed forever. Thank you. | The recommendations are not impacting our current historic preservation protections. One of the recommendations is to allow up to 4 units within the current development envelope in zones that are currently limited to single family detached dwellings. Please refer to the recommendations posted on the project website for details on the parameters: https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations |
| 80 | | email | | Please slow down on the Housing for All initiative. Way too many changes way too fast! I am very skeptical about the data about how many multiplexes will be built. The actual number of ADUs built are already way more than your original predictions. I think the predictions for the number of new multiplexes is equally off base. Also, the potential elimination of parking requirements near transit hubs is completely unrealistic for people's needs. And limiting parking requirements to two spaces for four units outside of transit hubs is also unreasonable and impractical. We're already struggling for parking at our end of town, where many contractors have to park their vans/trucks in our neighborhood because they don't have the space in the denser areas where they live. Most people have to have a vehicle even with good public transportation. Plus, you will not have the space in schools for all these additional students - which there absolutely will be. Where will the new schools be? You need to release that information before you make all these changes. All of this is being done in the name of affordable housing, but most of the new housing will be at the higher end. Developers will outbid regular people and will have to build more expensive units to recoup their investment. I am not opposed to zoning changes, but I strongly urge you to slow down and consider each of these proposals one at a time. | Thank you for your comments regarding Zoning for Housing/Housing for All. You include a couple points in your communication.
In response to your comments on the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy approved by City Council in January 2021, please know that the policy does anticipate approximately 15 units per year. To-date, the City has processed 53 units. It is because there was a pent up interest at the start of this program, but, by and large, as the 2023 numbers show, applications have tapered off. One can track the number of applications approved each year on the ADU webpage. https://www.alexandriava.gov/zoning/accessory-dwelling-units-in-alexandria
In response to your concerns relative to parking in neighborhoods, please know the City of Alexandria is continuing to work to right-size parking facilities, recognizing that within urban enriched spaces, people are opting to use multi-modal options. As part of that, the City is also working to unbundle the cost of parking from housing to reduce the cost burden of parking on non-vehicle owners and limit its role in contributing to traffic, congestion and impacts on roads. There is information on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage with more detail on the parking proposal, including related research links, and you can access it here: Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf (alexandriava.gov)
Finally, there is also information on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage related to the number of units anticipated overall from this effort and the relationship infrastructure and school generation. The majority (2,600) of these net new units will be assessed for their effect on the City’s infrastructure systems and public facilities at the development review stage. The 178 units in single family neighborhoods are not of a magnitude to cause measurable effects on local or citywide systems. For example, the proposal for single family zoning would have no effect on stormwater, as the development envelope (including allowable footprint) will not change and there is already a process for reviewing these smaller projects for stormwater. The increase in utilization of sewer, transportation, and open space networks of 178 additional units is well within existing and planned capacities. The student generation of 178 multifamily units is 15 over the 10 year period. That information can be found here: Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf (alexandriava.gov) |
| 81 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | 1. Are "alley lots" or units that front on an alley allowed in Alexandria? 2. Removal of requirement of open space at ground level: If more rooftop decks are used to meet open space requirements, does this negatively impact storm-water runoff and site drainage? What about natural tree canopy and animal habitat / Eco-City? 3.) In the multi-unit and town house zones, the open space requirement was changed from 800SF to 35% of the lot. What are the standard lot sizes in these zones to better compare how much 35% is to 800 SF? 4.) How are 2 units each with an ADU on a single lot defined and reviewed differently than 4 units on a single lot in a residential zone? 5.) I oppose the removal of the zone transition setback between residential and commercial / industrial uses. 6.) What is the defined enhanced transit area as outlined in the non multi unit residential zones? There are specific maps referenced for multi unit but not in the 1/2/3/4 unit zone. 7. Are there examples of newer garden style apartments being developed within the City? Carl Moritz asked the Planning Commission what they thought a garden apartment is. I think the a garden apartment is a moderate sized residential building that is surrounded by greenspace and not a building that is built to the maximum FAR/ Setback with no open space at ground level. 8. I support the discussion about studying the removal of FAR requirements, but would suggest implementing either a maximum building / pervious surface coverage % or maximum building size square footage. | 1. New alley lots require special subdivison approval to create. Existing alley lots require specail use permit approval to develop if vacant; 2. The existing open space requirement really only serves to provide recreation/usable space. It is not a lot coverage requirement. There is no current requirement for areas used as open space to be pervious, contain trees, provide animal habitat, etc.; 3. In most areas of the city outside Old Town, the standard lot size aligns relatively closely to the minimum lot sizes prescribed in the multi-unit and townhouse zones. For example, the RB zoned lots are typically about 1,980 square feet; 4. An ADU generally must be one-third of the size of the main house. ADUs require a separate administrative permit through planning and zoning before an applicant goes for grading plan (if necessary) and building permit approvals. Multi-unit dwellings with up to four units would follow an approval path that ADUs currrently follow.; 6. The enhanced transit area is the same for all unit types/zones. The map can be found here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Enhanced-Transi-Area-Map-Aug2023.pdf ; 7. A smaller-scale apartment building was approved for 226 and 228 W Glebe Rd in 2020. The staff report can be found here: http://alexandria.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=a1d23185-0973-42c9-9c3e-bf0494be1f3d.pdf |
| 82 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | What other zoning and policy changes is the city considering to ensure that the people who teach our children, serve our meals, deliver our mail, fight our fires, and clean our houses can afford to live in this lovely city? It would be terrible if Alexandria became only a wealthy suburb of large, environmentally unsustainable homes. | With the exception of a carve out for arts-related professions, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (the primary source of equity funding for all new affordable rental housing construction and preservation projects across the country) does not support the prioritization or targeting of affordable housing for specific professions. The City offers downpayment and closing cost assistance through its Employee Homeownership Assistance Program (alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#ClosingCostandDownpaymentAssistance); in addition one portion of the City's SPARC allocation is set aside for City employees, including ACSP staff, police and firefighters (SPARC funding reduces mortgage rates for income eligible homebuyers by one percentage point: alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#SPARCFundsforMortgageInterestRateReductions). Affordable rental and for-sale units created in market-rate developments through the use of density and/or height or through our partnerships with affordable housing developers are actively marketed to City employees and City residents via enews, the City's website, and to the extent possible to employers. Affordable for-sale units are priced to be affordable at approximately 70-100% AMI which broadens their eligibility to a greater range of city workers. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 83 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Thank you so much for the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All updates! We strongly support the City's efforts to increase the housing inventory in our community and to increase flexibility by making these updates. There is a dearth of "starter homes" and we would love to become first-time homebuyers in Alexandria - these updates and reforms would make that much more feasible. Thank you for giving "missing middle housing" much-needed attention! | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 84 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I propose the idea of Virginia Theological Seminary and Episcopal High School considering the possibility of allocating a portion of their land along Quaker Lane for the development of affordable housing. This suggestion arises from the pressing issue of the severe lack of affordable housing in Alexandria. These esteemed institutions already make valuable contributions to the community, such as providing financial reparations, offering educational programs and special presentations, and even hosting meetings and sporting events on their campuses. However, the impact they could have on the community would be significantly amplified if they were to provide land for housing. It is worth noting that both institutions; Virginia Theological Seminary and Episcopal High School are exempt from paying taxes to the city. This exemption encompasses a substantial 210 acres of untaxed land. The magnitude of this financial loss to the city over the years is truly remarkable. Considering the dire need for affordable housing, it would be a remarkable gesture if these institutions were willing to offer a small portion of their land along Quaker Lane for this purpose. Such an act would undoubtedly make a profound difference in the community and address a critical issue that Alexandria currently faces. | Thank you for your comments. The City would welcome discussions with these institutions should they consider including affordable housing on their properties. |
| 85 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I vehemently oppose the proposal for many reasons, but particularly the part that would permit multi-family homes to be built in single zone areas. Our city has failed to do any proper due diligence about the environmental impact of increasing footprints on sewers and ground water, or on schools and roads. Our high school is already over crowded. Furthermore, the city's transportation assumptions are fundamentally flawed because you don't tickets MD cars that are in the area and that don't pay city taxes. Meaning, you have NO IDEA how many people actually currently live in Alexandria and have cars that park here, because you assume that all of the MD cars parked here are "visitors." (false). I will never vote for any council person and will actively campaign against any person that approves this proposal as it shows a dereliction of duty to your residents WHO DON"T WANT this. You are acting only on behalf of developers and companies (Amazon) who have failed to live up to their end of the deal. | Thank you for sharing your persepctive. The City plans for growth through developing long-range forecasts with regional partners including population, household, and employment forecasts. These forecasts are evaluated concurrently with the implementation of the City's Master Plan. Citywide infrastructure plans are updated to ensure that forecasted growth can be accommodated. Major new development projects are also assessed for their impact. The potential increase in use of the transportation network, water and sewer systems, open space network, and public school system resulting from the Zoning for Housing recommendations is extremely minor and accounted for in the Master Plan and other planning efforts. Please refer to the project website where a document is posted addressing the estimated number of net new units and how they are supported by infrastructure: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 86 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I think it’s great we are adding more housing! | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 87 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am 100% opposed to changing the zoning requirements to allow multi-unit housing in zone R-2-5. This will dramatically change the look and feel of the neighborhood and the percentage of greenspace with a very small expected increase in "affordable"housing. At a time when everyone is worried about global warming and people seeking neighborhoods with ample green space, this proposal will increase our density and decrease our greenspace. The city has allowed developers to tear down block after block of affordable housing along the Route 1 Coordidor throughout the city. I would like to know how that has increased the affordable housing pool. I would like to understand the cities plan for even grader. vehicle density that this proposal would bring about. I would also. like to understand how this proposal would increase the carbon into the environment. I would also like to better understand the impact of this on our tax base. Property owners in Alexandria are currently among the most highly taxed, with real property tax increasing every year. This is unattainable. How will this proposal impact our property taxes? And lastly, how the city would actually ensure that it becomes affordable housing. Is there a plan to tie the cost of the housing to median cost of housing in Alexandria or make it available to important city employees like teachers, fire fighters and police officers who we want to have the ability to live in our city? A specific plan for requiring these houses to actually be affordable must accompany any change to our zoning. I am strongly opposed to this proposal. The city council has a lot of work to do before bringing this to a vote. | The Zoning for Housing initiative's goals are to expand housing production in general (including market rate), housing choice, as well as address affordability and past and current barriers to equitable housing access. If you are refering to the Heritage at Old Town redevelopment, the project preserves the long-term affordability of 140 HUD (federally)- subsidized housing units and an additional 55 units of committed affordable housing that can serve the
housing needs of area residents, including residents of the “market-rate affordable” units in the existing Heritage development.The staff report can provide more information https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4796595&GUID=E80DEA70-1A20-4FA2-902E-70172FB0BE4B. You might also find it help to read these two documents posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf.
With the exception of a carve out for arts-related professions, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (the primary source of equity funding for all new affordable rental housing construction and preservation projects across the country) does not support the prioritization or targeting of affordable housing for specific professions. The City offers downpayment and closing cost assistance through its Employee Homeownership Assistance Program (alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#ClosingCostandDownpaymentAssistance); in addition one portion of the City's SPARC allocation is set aside for City employees, including ACSP staff, police and firefighters (SPARC funding reduces mortgage rates for income eligible homebuyers by one percentage point: alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#SPARCFundsforMortgageInterestRateReductions). Affordable rental and for-sale units created in market-rate developments through the use of density and/or height or through our partnerships with affordable housing developers are actively marketed to City employees and City residents via enews, the City's website, and to the extent possible to employers. Affordable for-sale units are priced to be affordable at approximately 70-100% AMI which broadens their eligibility to a greater range of city workers. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 88 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | 1. While the stated intent is to help the ‘missing middle’, the developers so far aren’t using this option to provide lower cost housing and mayor and his minions will not hold the feet of their developer buddies to the fire to do so. 2. This raises a policy coherence issue. The mayor consistently pushes for less volume on Alexandria roads. Yet, his insatiable desire for increased density land use (I.e., pro developer), continually drives up congestion on local roads, which in turn drives up pollution levels. | The intent of the Zoning for Housing initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access - Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in
Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. You may find it help to read this document posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf |
| 89 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | The City of Alexandria has gotten too congested in recent years. Building multi-units where single family homes once stood will make it even worse. Because I work from home, I often run to Bradlee shopping center for lunch. What used to be a quick 10-20 minute trip takes way longer because of new four-level apartment buildings built in recent years and because of construction on Braddock Road. Also, the new apartment on Menokin has led to more cars parked on the street and more traffic through that neighborhood. Please stop the congestion. The City of Alexandria is a small town, a small town where my family has lived for four generations unlike the many transplants who have relocated here. I often wonder if they're behind the changes, in an attempt to make the city like their hometowns. | The intent of the Zoning for Housing initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access - Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in
Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. You may find it help to read this document posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf |
| 90 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I strongly favor of the housing zoning changes. I am sorry to see mis-information popping up on flyers, emails etc. Folks need to read! I think the city is offering about 10 various ways to increase affordable housing in Alexandria (including converting empty office space). Only one of them deals with Single Family Homes, and for that option, they predict OVER TEN YEARS, only 66 home owners will be affected and can broaden what can be on the parcel THEY CHOSE to sell. I live in an R2-5 (larger single family home) on East Alexandria Avenue. I am surrounded by quadraplexes, duplexes etc from the 1950s and 1970s. It has not "hurt" our neighborhood. It allows families with smaller children, and a diverse range of people live here. Small cute gardens are everywhere. Playgrounds have popped up. And this broadens the base of our taxes, lessening the burden on current home-owners. Here is the link to see all the ways the city hopes to make Alexandria more housing affordable: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 91 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | We're currently in a single-family zone. The homeowner next door rented their house to a company that then leased it to an affiliated group of 8 (at least) unrelated individuals. Is this is violation of single-family zoning? | If that's the case, the number of unrelated people currently violates the single family definition but it's an extremely difficult rule to enforce. https://library.municode.com/va/alexandria/codes/zoning?nodeId=ARTIIDE_2-143FA
The intent of removing the definition of family in the Zoning Ordinance is to remove local government from defining or regulating what constitutes a 'family'. |
| 92 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | We are not opposed to affordable housing but not at the expense of the character of our single family home neighborhoods. It is also unrealistic to think that all new residents will use public transportation and not need parking. The newest project on Glebe has way more units that parking and each unit will have up to at least 2 vehicles. The city council/planning dept need to start thinking more realistically about how many parking spots will continue to be required in neighborhoods and even ones on Glebe. A person at the new Glebe apartments will still need to take a bus to the Potomac Yards Street Metro. | Thank you for your commennts. You may find it helpful to read this document posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf |
| 93 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I support efforts to provide housing for all, but do hope before development proceeds that there is research done for where it will go. With narrow streets filled with cars and limited green space for our rec sports - we cannot expand without planning Please also consider the overcrowding in our public schools and struggles to staff the teaching demand. There are a lot of factors that need examination before building more. | Thank you for your comments. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read this document posted on the project site: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf
With the exception of a carve out for arts-related professions, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (the primary source of equity funding for all new affordable rental housing construction and preservation projects across the country) does not support the prioritization or targeting of affordable housing for specific professions. The City offers downpayment and closing cost assistance through its Employee Homeownership Assistance Program (alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#ClosingCostandDownpaymentAssistance); in addition one portion of the City's SPARC allocation is set aside for City employees, including ACSP staff, police and firefighters (SPARC funding reduces mortgage rates for income eligible homebuyers by one percentage point: alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#SPARCFundsforMortgageInterestRateReductions). Affordable rental and for-sale units created in market-rate developments through the use of density and/or height or through our partnerships with affordable housing developers are actively marketed to City employees and City residents via enews, the City's website, and to the extent possible to employers. Affordable for-sale units are priced to be affordable at approximately 70-100% AMI which broadens their eligibility to a greater range of city workers. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 94 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | A couple of comments regarding my neighborhood, but overall the density is maxed out already. 1. The streets are quite narrow and already crowded with parking. I can’t imagine doubling the amount of parking. 2. Schools, especially the high school are at max capacity. 3. Green space, especially fields, are limited. The city would need to increase green space and sporting fields, but where is there space? 4. And finally, this is not going to settle the affordability issue. There is a recently built ADU, garage and apartment above, that is being rented for $3000 a month. Not exactly affordable. | Thank you for your comments. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read this document posted on the project site: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf
And you are correct - these efforts alone will not solve the housing affordability issue. The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the city's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 95 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I oppose the proposed zoning change from 1 to 4 units. It will destroy the character of our neighborhoods. The area is too densely populated already. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 96 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Putting multi family homes or apt buildings in our neighborhood is a terrible idea. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 97 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | My husband and I bought our first (and only) home in Alexandria in 1985 and raised three children here. We’ve loved living in Alexandria. But we cannot support the Mayor and council’s move to change the existing single family zoning to allow construction of up to four units on a single lot. Even without the increased density from allowing multi-family dwellings on lots that have always been zoned for si gel family houses, the City has become increasingly crowded and necessary infrastructure has not kept pace with the increasing population and traffic. Moreover, the proposed zoning change — which is intended to create a supply of affordable housing in Alexandria — will not advance that goal. Four houses are currently being constructed on a lot near us which used to have a single home on it. The developer paid $2.5 Million for the lot before scraping off the existing house and paying to construct the new four-plex. I will be shocked if each of the new units is priced below $1 million. They will likely be even more. They will not be affordable housing for middle class buyers, but their presence will further exacerbate the density problems. And they are being built in an area of the City that regularly floods after rainstorms. I urge the Council to shelve the proposed zoning amendment. It won’t achieve your stated goal and will make the City increasingly unlivable. | The intent of the Zoning for Housing initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate housing) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. You may find it help to read these documents posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf.
And you are correct - these efforts alone will not solve the housing affordability issue. The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the city's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 98 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am dumbfounded. Why in the world would you alter single family zones? Why does anyone think this is a good idea? Once you make this change it's for good-there is no going back. Why can't people aspire to live in single family homes? Do you actually think this will be more "affordable"? Or "equitable?" Why does every single Democrat in the City Council of Alexandria think that building more and more and more is a good idea? What happens to all the beautiful trees in Beverley Hills? Will you demolish Montecello Park too - a major stopover for migrating birds? Where is common sense among the Council? How can anyone think this is a good idea? How have developers completely taken over the minds of the City Council? I am just dumbfounded by this. I can't understand how this will benefit anyone except developers. I can only assume it's for your own political aspirations. I so wish we had people in office who thought of the citizens of the city of Alexandria and not themselves. I hope you answer all my questions. | The intent of the Zoning for Housing initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate housing) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. Overall, the goal is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. You may find it help to read these documents posted on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 99 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Please leave the zoning as is. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 100 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Fools rush in with widespread social reforms and later have to reconsider the effects of their actions. Use the scientific method: test out on a small scale with controlled variables. Will your recommended policy really provide affordable housing on the level you claim is needed? What will be the social effects in a historic preservation area? Let's see some evidence to support that your overgeneralized good intentions will actually work. | This initiative began in 2019 and has included the adoption of three zoning reforms: Accessory Dwelling Units Policy; Auxiliary Dwellings Policy; and Co-Living Policy.
This continuation of the initiative is three-fold: It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate housing) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. Overall, the goal is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. You may find it help to read the studies and information posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all |
| 101 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | This is untenable our neighborhood will ressemble clarendon or Rosslyn. We are not old Town. Please no. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 102 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | What studies have been done, or considered concerning the effects of these changes on climate change from the increase of vehicles, reducing green space, and most likely reducing tree canopy. In addition, the added strain on our infrastructure including water/sewer, electricity, etc. Changing a single family home into a four unit housing will increase the number of vehicles from 2 to upwards of 8 vehicles. Given the tight parking we already have, where will these vehicles park? Has it been considered what this increase will also do to traffic congestion as well as carbon emissions? In addition, why reduce Alexandria’s single family home choices when they are sought after? Homes in our neighborhood do not sit on the market, they sell quickly and sometimes within days of coming available. People want choices, people want single family homes, why reduce this choice? Thank you! | Thank you for your questions. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read these documents posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 103 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | Trying to get home on Duke Street is already extremely frustrating. Adding more people and more cars into the area will only cause the current people to move. | If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read these documents posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 104 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Alexandria has such a small amount of SFH zoning relative to the size of the City. Leave it be. We need housing diversity, which should include areas of SFH zoning. | That is exactly the goal of this initiative: create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city.
It is a comprehensive proposal of zoning reforms with the goal of expanding housing production (including market rate housing) and affordability, and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access - Accessibility: There is unequal access to housing opportunities in Alexandria; Affordability: Far too many Alexandrians cannot afford a place to live in our city; Availability: Housing production has not kept pace with increasing demand, reducing housing options for everyone. |
| 105 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I oppose allowing up to 4 units within current development envelope in zones that are currently limited to single family detached dwellings. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 106 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I strongly object to these rezoning plans to increase housing density in Alexandria. In my opinion, it is a short-sighted policy to implement such drastic plans to destroy Alexandria's local neighborhoods while the neighboring localities are taking more measured incremental steps to address issues. Further, many residents have grown frustrated with how the City does not appear to seriously weigh feedback from constituents on many policy matters. Please explain how the City will objectively measure and incorporate into the final decision the feedback provided by individual residents as well as the many community associations (Brookville-Seminary Valley Civic Association, Inc.; Cameron Station Civic Association; Clover-College Park Civic Association; Fairlington Citizens Association; Founders Park Community Association; Holmes Run Civic Association; Lynhaven Citzens Association; North Old Town Independent Citizens' Association; North Ridge Citizens’ Association; Old Town Civic Association; Parkfairfax Condominium Unit Owners Association; Porto Vecchio Condominium Association; Rosemont Citizens Association; Seminary Civic Association; Seminary Hill Association; Seminary Ridge Civic Association; Seminary West Civic Association; Strawberry Hill Civic Association; Wakefield Tarleton Civic Association; and West Old Town Citizens Association). | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians, those who are members of civic associations and those who are not, have informed staff recommendations. |
| 107 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Keep single family homes intact in Alexandria. Increase canopy tree coverage requirements for all renovations and new development. 25% green coverage does not make up for loss of green space/urban forests/permeable surface/wetlands etc.... | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 108 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | My concern is replacing “single family” with a number of occupants and the impact this could have on large families. Would this rule change result in a family being required to move following the birth of an unexpected child? (Eg, a family of 7 is surprised with twins, but the legal occupancy for the residence is 8 people) | The intent of removing the definition of family in the Zoning Ordinance is to remove local government from defining or regulating what constitutes a 'family'. In the scenario you describe, the City of Alexandria would not have an opinion. |
| 109 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I oppose changing the zoning codes to allow 4 unit structures in currently single residential lots. The road systems in Alexandria can not handle the addition of that many additional residents. Additionally, people move to Alexandria for the type of community it is; without the level of density one finds in Arlington. Adding 4 unit to what are currently one unit residential lots will not equate to lower income housing just more traffic, etc… I do not oppose the addition of ADUs if the lot size is sufficient to accommodate one. | Thank you for your comments. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read these documents posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 110 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | A 4 unit building would be inappropriate size-wise and density-wise on my street. Parking would be another fraught issue. Keep higher density housing in current high density zones and don’t try to remake suburban neighborhoods into urban zones | Thank you for your comments. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read these documents posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 111 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Given the size of our community and the limits on our infrastructure, our family does not support the proposed changes to single family zoning. | Thank you for your comments. If you haven't already, you may find it helpful to read these documents posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf, https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf. |
| 112 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am against the city allowing development of multi-unit development in residential zoned areas. I think it would ruin the appeal of Alexandria as a desirable place to live and completely ruin neighborhoods. There are other ways and other city owned properties on which developments of multi-unit developments can be built. I also think this opens up a huge opportunity for developers to make more money and I do not believe what would be built would end up being lower cost housing. Please do not pass this resolution. Alexandria just came in high on desirable places to live. The city council runs the risk of ruining that designation. If anything we need more green space and parks and not more density. | Zoning for Housing is proposing recommendations for nine initiatives to increase housing production, affordability and accessibility. Expanding housing choice in single-family only zones is just one of the nine. Overall, the intent is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the city. |
| 113 | | email | | We [Lynhaven Civic Association] overall see the work as positive and hope the City moves ahead with the proposals with possible technical changes to address concerns.
1. Our neighborhood is predominately in the RB zone. ; 2. Based on comments I have heard, our residents like the contextual front setback requirements and 35% open space requirement. ; 3. We did not discuss the proposed parking changes, so I don't have a sense of what our neighborhood residents are thinking of that. It would not change current conditions where some of our residents don't have off-street parking. One factor to consider here is whether there needs to be a parallel change in City policy on allowing on-street E-vehicle charging where no off-street parking is provided for.; 4. We also reviewed the proposal to eliminate the side-yard setback requirements for lots 25 feet or less wide -
• Rowhouse lots in Lynhaven range from typically 16 feet wide for interior rowhouse lots, to typically 24 feet wide for the end unit lots in the rowhouses (providing a break for light and air flow), and typically 45 feet wide for lots on a street corner,
• Setting a 25 foot limit for eliminating side setback would allow end unit owners to build up to their lot line. If neighboring end lot owners both build out to the lot line, then the opening would be eliminated. This would create a long, 10 house at least, face along the front and back lots with no break. This seems more like what would be allowed along the north side of East Reed in the CDD # 7 area, not what is the pattern in Lynhaven.
• This may not be common due to the expense of firewalls if a building is located at the lot line, but may be done. It may even be more likely if an owner is doing a full gut renovation.
• Is this an unintended consequence (possibly unique to Lynhaven, but I have not researched this more) of picking 25 feet as the lot width standard? Can this be adjusted to ensure that we don't by right allow a continuous row of houses along an entire block, with no breaks for light and air flow?
5. Regarding the proposal to remove zone transition setback requirements when commercial buildings are proposed on land adjacent to land zoned residential - Would this change the setback requirements for the properties in CDD# 24 west of Richmond Highway and north of East Glebe? The setbacks, and other limits were part of the negotiations between our community (and I am sure others) and the City when CDD# 24 was put in place. Neighbors were concerned about privacy with residents in tall buildings looking directly down into their yards and houses. I believe our neighborhood would not like these setbacks lessened. | Thank you for your comments and questions - we appreciate that you see this work as positive and hope that your community will stay engaged and will continue to let us know your thoughts.
Per questions #4 and #5:
Re #4: Lots 25 feet or less in width have narrow buildable areas when side setbacks are required. Elimination of the setback requirement for lots 25 feet or less in width would give these property owners the ability to construct modest additions to expand their living spaces. Because there are other regulations (floor area ratio and open space) that limit the size and location of additions, it is unlikely that enough of the lots in Lynhaven could accommodate large enough additions to create a continuous row of houses along an entire block.
Re #5: The Oakville Triangle Coordinated Development District (CDD #24) has its own set up setbacks which were developed and approved with the CDD. Among the setbacks were those addressing any transition issues between zones and uses, similar to how Section 7-900 of the Zoning Ordinance reads. Furthermore, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment to remove the zone transition setback requirements through the provisions of Section 7-900 would not have any impacts to any future development within the boundary of CDD #24, as any site within the CDD must adhere to the CDD conditions and standards for all setback requirements.
Thank you for your comments and please stay engaged. |
| 114 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | My wife and I are residents of North Ridge. Broadly, I oppose the city government's efforts to impose zoning changes and definition changes to purportedly "broaden access to traditionally single-family neighborhoods." The residents of neighborhoods zoned R8 (among others) purchased their properties because they had certain characteristics--among them, less-dense housing and less traffic. The proposed "Expanding Housing Opportunities in Single Family Zones" will not only deprive those residents of the benefit of their bargain, but will do so all for a measly "an estimated 150 [additional] units." It is not the government's job to play puppet-master of the free, local real estate market. The Council needs to understand that over time, the invisible hand will guide housing availability, just as it has done for hundreds of years in every other community across Virginia and the United States. The Council risks not only losing votes (and will most certainly lose mine), but also risks upsetting the balance of factors that its residents relied upon in making one of the most important decisions of their lives: where to buy a home. Stick to keeping the public safe, streets paved, parks clean, and budget balanced. Let the market handle itself. | Thank you for your comments and your views on the single family proposal. We appreciate your comments and agree with you and with those who live there that North Ridge is a great neighborhood. It is a neighborhood valued it is by its residents and by the City. Please know that this proposal seeks to broaden access to single family neighborhoods that some Alexandrians have not been able to access in the past, as they work hard like others to enjoy life in neighborhoods of choice. As such the proposal would as you say broaden access to single family neighborhoods in a modest way. It does not change the zoning. |
| 115 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Has the city conducted any parking studies of the number of cars per single "unit" or semi-detached / duplex dwelling? Being within the travel distance to a metro or bus rapid transit corridor is not enough justification to assume parking shouldn't be required. Those homeowners that can afford to buy or rent in Del Ray have at least one car and in many cases, 2 -3 cars. Eliminating parking and forcing people to park on already overcrowded streets is not the solution. When multi-unit structures are allowed to be built, that puts even more pressure on our streets.
What is to stop a developer from consolidating lots and building multi-unit dwellings that are out of scale to the adjacent houses? Even though they would comply with FAR, height and set-back requirements, they would overpower the street scape. Such structures are not in scale nor do they comply with the historical development patterns. We need to be able to have some protection over the redevelopment that is occurring. Land Use Attorneys and developers will use any loophole not in the zoning ordinance and homeowners are powerless to maintain the sense of their neighborhood.
Some of the Planning Commissioners stated during the 10/3/23 Work Session that the Bonus Height Text Amendment should be put back on the table for consideration. Will the Zoning For Housing Staff revisit their position that it should be withdrawn from consideration?
Can you please post pdfs of the slides with the questions and answers that was presented at the Planning Commission Work Session on 10/3/23 | Please refer to the "Summary of Proposed Parking Options" posted on the project site. This document also provides a link to the Alexandria Mobility Plan which has further detail (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-SFZ-Parking-Options-20230926.pdf).
Lot consolidations are rare. Property owners typically are not interested in purchasing the lot next door nor is it often that multiple properties come up for sale at the same time. If a scenario like you are suggesting were to occur, it more than likely would be cost prohibitive for a developer and the City's development review process would trigger community input.
On Bonus Height, staff is still gathering comments on this initiative. At this time we have not internally discussed changing our position.
Yes, the presentation and work session video are posted on the project website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#PreviousCommunityMeetingsandEvents |
| 116 | | Email | 22304 | What is the price point and land requirement (acre or sqft.) at which a developer would choose to build a multi unit building in a current single-family house area?
Where in Alexandria would such lots with price points exist? Rosemont? Beverly Hills? Del Ray? Etc. I am requesting a map showing locations/lots that meet these requirements. I would also like an image showing how a two unit, three unit, four unit and six unit building would fill such a lot. I would like an image showing how a 3000sqft house would fill the same lot. I would assume the Planning Commission and City Council would need this information in order to make a fact based decision. | The redevelopment potential for a property relates to a profit percentage rather than to a specific price point or land area. This is outlined in the W-ZHA feasibility study posted on the website (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-Single-Family-Zoning-Feasbility-Analysis-20230911.pdf). The feasibility consultant report states that a for-sale project was considered feasible if a developer could purchase the property, redevelop it, and sell it for a price that affords a 13% profit on development cost. A rental project was considered feasible if it produced a yield-on-cost of at least 5.5%. The yield-on-cost is the project’s net operating income divided by its total development cost. If considering redevelopment, developers will look to purchase lower valued sites. The consultant’s analysis defined a lower valued site as those whose value is up to 91% of the median value in the zone. The study analyzed redevelopment potential by zone as opposed to by neighborhood. Lower valued properties according to this definition exist in all single-family zones. This analysis does not target or identify any particular property. It was conducted using past sales data and real estate valuations in Alexandria’s single-family zones, and only represents a mathematical statistical analysis based on the single-family zones.
While we do not have a map that shows the locations of parcels that meet these criteria, and would come to market over the next 10 years, the table does show the estimated number per zone. Staff is working on illustrations related to two to four unit dwellings as these are recommended by staff. We will share them with the community as soon as possible. Our illustrations will show the maximum footprint that a single-family dwelling would occupy. This would be the exact same footprint that a two to four unit dwelling could occupy. Since each zone allows a proportional building size depending on the lot square footage it might not provide the exact comparison you are looking for. For example, smaller lots might not allow a 3,000 sf house and larger homes would be allowed on a large lot. The new home building trends indicate that new homes in the city are built with the maximum space supported by the lot and these are built to the outer setback limit areas. We do expect that the illustrations will be helpful to your query. |
| 117 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I would like to express support for new zoning that allows for the creation of new and genuinely affordable housing. I am a working parent, homeowner, and proud Alexandrian resident. I rented for many years and suffered from the lack of affordable housing in northern Virginia. Being able to live closer to work and school, reducing the time spent commuting (and emissions), and increasing time with family and friends will improve the quality of life for people in our community. Please continue with plans to rezone our neighborhoods and allow them to continue to thrive as socioeconomically diverse and multicultural communities. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 118 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | We are very much against the plan to increase single family propeties to multi-family dwellings. It will change the character of our neighborhood, and more is not better. The city does not need this type of exponential growth - the infrastructure is not in place to handle it and will will erode the quality of life now in place. Just say no! Taxes continue to increase, we are getting less in the way of services. Work on cutting items to balance the budget rather than increasing taxes. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. If you haven't already, take a look at this document posted on the website - "Net New Units and How They are Supported by Infrastructure" (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf) which may address some of your concerns. |
| 119 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | A slide titled "Expansion of Transit-Oriented Development" that was presented by Alexandria staff at the Sept. 28 engagement session has this footnote: "Many of the small area plans approved since 2000 - allow for over 50,000 additional units (above existing) , of which about 15,000 have their required approvals but are not yet built". Please explain these numbers; 50,000 additional housing units seems unimaginable. | The City’s Master Plan (https://www.alexandriava.gov/small-area-plans/basic-page/city-alexandria-master-plan) is comprised of 20 small area plans covering neighborhoods throughout Alexandria, as well as topical chapters of citywide relevancy such as Transportation, Historic Preservation, Open Space and Urban Design. Many of the small area plans approved since 2000 follow a principle of locating higher density development in the vicinity of high-capacity transit, including Metro and bus rapid transit. (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Recent-Small-Area-Plans-Map-October-2023.pdf
These small area plans establish a 25-30 year framework to guide future planning and development in the respective areas of the city. They each estimate a certain threshold of redevelopment should property owners elect to redevelop according to Plan recommendations. Additional residential units are estimated as part of each Plan, as are the impacts on such issues as transportation, schools, the environment, and how to address them.
Alexandria currently has approximately 80,000 housing units and, yes, small area plans adopted since around 2000 allow for over an estimated 50,000 additional units if property owners choose to redevelop. Our forecast of housing construction in the city is about 11,000 units over the next decade. |
| 120 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | If single family zoning is changed to allow multifamily (2-3-4) units, would this apply in those zones: "Remove dwelling units per acre limitations in multifamily zones"? | No, this wouldn't apply to single family zones. |
| 121 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | My husband and I strongly oppose adding "bonus height" to City of Alexandria building structures in areas that have a height limit. The lower height limit is one of the main features that make Alexandria beautiful. Tall buildings are not in keeping with area. PLEASE do not allow developers to keep adding height to the buildings. The density problem is also an issue. This City Council has done terrible things in this regard. It's a true shame. Affordable housing is great and welcome. However, it doesn't have to be in buildings that exceed the height limit. Nor do you have to keep packing in tall, expensive apartment buildings that make Alexandria look like everyplace else. We stretched our budget to move here. We pay very high taxes and City Council just keeps packing in the buildings and making them taller and the area more crowded and congested. PLEASE stop. Thank you for your attention. | If you haven't already, please review the recommendations posted on the webiste. Staff is not recommending moving forward with the Bonus Height initiative. (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-Fact-Sheets-20230905.pdf) |
| 122 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | "..staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots." Do you hear what you are saying? On what planet is "allow more than one housing unit on single family lots" NOT abolishing single family zoning? | The recommendation is not to eliminate single-family zoning, but single-family only zoning. These reforms are meant to expand housing production but also they are meant to offer wider typology choices, to create more affordability and to begin breaking down barriers to entry to areas that are expensive for many households. |
| 123 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | To Whom It May Concern, I am writing about the Zoning for Housing initiative. I have lived in Alexandria for most of my 47 years of life. Once I saved up enough money post-college, I bought my first house off Duke Street on Underhill – a duplex with my own driveway and a great front and back yard. My husband and I now own a house in North Ridge near George Mason Elementary School. I would like to make more affordable housing available to Alexandria residents. Unfortunately, the current Zoning for Housing proposal will not achieve that goal. The proposal will help developers make money. I am confused why the Planning Commission thinks the current proposal will increase the amount of affordable housing. Recently, a house on our street was purchased by a developer for $880,000. The developer remodeled the interior of the house (no additions) and sold it for $1.43 million. If that developer wanted to tear down the house and build a duplex it would cost at least $1 million. Add $880,000 to $1 million and the developer needs to make $1.8 million to break even. Each duplex would cost the new owner $900,000. If the developer spends more on construction or wants to make a profit – one unit will cost a new owner $1 million. A $1 million duplex is NOT affordable housing. If the new laws allowed the developer to build a 4 unit residence, the units would need to cost more than $450,000 each for the developer to make a profit. Those are still not affordable units. I am sure developers will want higher than single digit profits for their newly created multi-units – resulting in even higher prices for individuals. Better solutions to the affordable housing issue are available. If the Dillon rule is the biggest obstacle, let’s focus the power of our city on eliminating that rule in Richmond. Can we give low-income residents rent vouchers that are funded through taxes on developers? Increasing affordable housing units in Alexandria should focus on areas like Potomac Yard that already have apartments and access to the Metro. Allowing single family homes to be torn down and replaced with multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods without mass transit will just make parking and traffic a larger problem. Please pause and look at the numbers – see how developers are the only winners. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. In addition to facilitating the development of affordable housing, the Zoning for Housing initiative is also focused on expanding market-rate housing production as well as addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. The 2013 Housing Master Plan identified “inclusionary zoning” as a potential new tool for the City. For the planned Housing Master Plan update, the City will study if the current limitations on inclusionary zoning in Virginia should be modified to make it a more effective housing production tool to meet Alexandria’s housing supply goals related to economic development. It is also anticipated that the City will seek legislative authority to make voluntary monetary contributions from developers for housing (used to support affordable housing development) mandatory because of the important linkage between housing supply and economic development. |
| 124 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Simply accepting whatever housing demand is occurring in NoVA and Arlington and Alexandria is not right. Alexandria does not have to keep building more and more and more density just because there is more and more demand. In fairness of debate and voices for citizens to fully consider these issues, what opposing voices are the City bringing in to present? I cannot think of any that the City and its Planning office have brought forward. "It no longer makes sense to do setbacks"? People in 1940 were not stupid, they saw density and didn't want any more. Isn't it extremely arrogant to just say "in no longer makes sense" when you are proposing to transform the "historic" Del Ray neighborhood? Tell you what, when historic Old Town levels 2 square blocks for a huge 6 story condo with a ground level 7-Eleven, you can put the same elsewhere in the City. "Single Family Homes are out of reach of most folks"? Apparently not since the demand and prices continue rising. There are obviously plenty of people within reach. Again, why do you just assume that Alexandria must build more and more density? Isn't it simply a new initiative by a very politically Progressive ideology? | The need for affordable housing is based on census data for current households. Because this region has many draws in terms of employment and amenities, it will continue to attract new workers and residents - it's prudent to plan. All comments regarding this initiative, for and against, are posted on the project website with approximately 600 received to date. The Historic Development Patterns proposal does not recommend eliminating all setbacks; only one form of setbacks is being recommended for elimination under this proposal. The median priced home in Alexandria is nearly $800,000 which is out of reach for many Alexandria households, which is why Zoning for Housing is proposing tools for a variety of housing choice and types, tenure and price. Please refer to the project website for details on the proposals - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations. |
| 125 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why won’t you change lot coverage and setback requirements? That seems like it would be huge for improving housing availability | One form of setbacks is being proposed under the Historic Development Patterns proposal; this proposal as well as that of the Townhouse analysis recommends future phases of study including changing or eliminating minimum lot size requirements; creating more standardization of uses across zones; and increasing flexibility of bulk and area regulations. Please refer to the website for details on these recommendations -https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations |
| 126 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In townhouse analysis, would current ones be grandfathered? Would there be a minimum floor square footage for each unit in a, say, four-plex in what is now R8? | Existing townhouses would not be affected. The recommendation is to allow up to 4 units within current development envelope in zones that are currently limited to single family detached dwellings. |
| 127 | | Email | | How would proposed zoning changes, such as allowing fourplexes in single family zones affect properties with designated 100 year old buildings? | The Zoning for Housing recommendations would not change any of the protections now provided to designated 100 year old buildings. |
| 128 | | Email | | If and when this proposal passes, i. which are of the city are impacted? ii. What is the minimum lot size required to qualify for the proposed change in zoning? iii. What is the time table to reach the final decision. | Thanks for your questions – you can find details of the proposed recommendations including the project schedule on the project website (alexandriava.gov/Zoning). Recommendations are compiled in this document (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-Fact-Sheets-20230905.pdf) or you can choose information about individual initiatives here (https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations). Don’t hesitate to let me know if you have further questions. |
| 129 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | If one were to look at the “Flood Action” map on the city website https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/2023-06-31%20FINAL%20SW-CIP-Schedule%20%281%29.pdf one would see that many of the sewer infrastructure issues are not even close to being improved. Then add the sewer viewer. https://geo.alexandriava.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=sewerviewer and finally add the watershed maps of our city https://media.alexandriava.gov/docs-archives/tes/oeq/info/watershedsparcels.pdf. How can the city plan and implement, as an example along the Holmes Run Watershed area, all of the construction projects including adding density to single family zones, The Inova Landmark project (Alexandria West), Beauregard Corridor redevelopment, Eisenhower West, the Vulcan site, etc, and think that our 70-100 systems can handle it. Adding density to our single family zones is only going to add to what is going to be a big problem. | The City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan adopted in October 2021 is a Plan to address future wastewater flows, to identify when and where future infrastructure improvements are needed to accommodate growth, and to continue to serve the wastewater needs of City residents and businesses. It uses growth forecasts through 2045 and post 2045 (post build out conditions). This Plan also addresses regulatory drivers such as the 2017 Combined Sewer Overflow legislation. And, it also includes a review of Sanitary Sewer fees. https://media.alexandriava.gov/docs-archives/tes/sewers/alexandria-sanitary-sewer-master-plan-final-report-10-22-2021=1=.pdf |
| 130 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | I strongly object to the rezoning of R 2-5,R-5, R-8, R12, R-20 single family zones to allow multi-family homes to be built in those residential areas. What makes Alexandria livable for me is the sense of neighborhood and community that we have in our single family neighborhood. I believe that Injecting multi-unit housing into our long-established neighborhoods will be destructive to that sense of community and shared values and will encourage a more transient population thereby compromising the safety of our neighborhoods and diminish the quality of life for current residents. It will create more traffic than we already have and cut down the amount of green space in our city. We know that when a developer builds anything, they take the forest with them. This used to be an environmentally conscious city. What the heck has happened here? Density and tax revenue over quality of life? Where are the environmental studies, the traffic studies, infrastructure studies, etc. You are talking about adding stress to neighborhoods whose infrastructure is now 70-100 years old. All of that on top of the other construction the city is planning.We just had a water main break yesterday. Let’s see the impact studies. Please publish them so they may be evaluated. | The Single-family Zoning Reform proposal does not change existing regulatory provisions relating to bulk and height. The proposal is to accommodate 2-4 units on the same lot under the existing regulations. These reforms are meant to expand housing production but also they are meant to offer wider typology choices, to create more affordability and to begin breaking down barriers to entry to areas that are expensive for many households. |
| 131 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am against changing the zoning laws concerning single family homes. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 132 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The city is behaving irresponsibly. We have no infrastructure (schools, sewers) to support increased density. In addition, top end earners do not want to live next to a duplex. They will flee, taking tax dollars with them, leaving a poorer base behind and one that is more dependent on public services and schools creating a downward spiral. In addition, the city’s transportation studies are fundamental flawed because you don’t actually have any mechanism for tracking who lives In the city and has a car, because there is no enforcement (no stickers, 30 days in the same spot before a maryland car is considered a problem). Without knowing who actually has a car, your projections are flawed. There is no money for more high schools. Also, increasing the footprint will increase closing (less permeable land) and decrease trees, and add density all of which hurt our environment. Stop building!!! | Thank you for your comments. Please refer to the project website where a document is posted addressing the estimated number of net new units and how they are supported by infrastructure: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 133 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | ARHA will provide hundreds of new affordable housing units in the next 8-10 years. Are those units calculated into the City's new affordable housing goal of 2,250 through the adoption of Resolution R27-2019? | Thanks for the question - yes they are. |
| 134 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | From what I understand, this allows developers to buy up every single-family home in the city, raze it, and put up significantly denser housing with no recourse from residents. Developers have significantly deeper pockets than the average family trying to buy a home, and will lead to an end of such single family homes. This will destroy the very character of the city that attracts people to it. | The consultant, who addressed the financial feasibility of redeveloping single family properties with up to 4 multi-units, estimated that approximately 66 properties could redevelop over the course of 10 years. This estimated number represents a statistical figure and does not refer to specific properties. The consultant arrived at this figure through an analysis that took into account the City's high land values, redevelopment costs, potential sales prices, and the percentage home sales rate over the last five years. |
| 135 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | I strongly object to the rezoning, proposal, up-zoning, or whatever “technically” the mayor and his council want to call it — of R 2-5,R-5, R-8, R12, R-20 single family zones. What makes my neighborhood in Alexandria livable for my family is the established diversity we have that is evolving with each home being sold to long term owners. A quiet neighborhood tucked into the city, less traffic to deal with so we can walk, bike ride, and allow our children outside (— until we get to try to cross N. Beauregard where our biking path has been under construction for years!! And the weekday traffic is horrendous.) We picked living here as a quiet getaway at the end of the day or weekend. Do you want to compromise our quality of life for our residents? Honesty, what is the goal with this proposal? - More affordable housing or housing for people who really need- which you have stated it would NOT be , or just more smaller units that can be taxed per family/group? Where are the environmental studies, the traffic studies, infrastructure studies, etc. that are required by the Commonwealth of Virginia before making these kinds of changes? Publish the studies, And lets see what it is really about. | The City wholeheartedly agrees on the importance of strong neighborhoods and we want to make sure all areas of the City offer quality housing, amenities, and a safe and green environment. Our Small Area Plans are one way to promote more housing and the City is working with those communities to do that. However, based on Census data, there are large numbers of existing City households, renters and homeowners, who are cost burdened. While they work hard, like others in our City, after paying rent/mortgage and utilities they have little left for other life necessities. This causes a disadvantage for the household and for the City and businesses, which is why we undertake a multi-faceted approach to housing production and affordability. As we increase supply across the City, we will offer more opportunities, across the City, to meet the needs of existing and future residents.
Also, please refer to the project website where a document is posted addressing the estimated number of net new units and how they are supported by infrastructure: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 136 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I do not support the current proposal to change city zoning. A wide sweeping change that takes away sing-family housing zoning will take away too much from the character of our city in long term in light of short term issues. And the city is not able to grow to meet all housing demand - there is just not enough bare land. At some juncture, we must accept other solutions, such as rent control, in order to alleviate the issue. Turning alexandria into all condo housing will never be the answer, and using a one size fits all approach of taking away this zoning feature that allows for neighborhoods to keep their current character is not the solution. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 137 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The notion that the zoning for a single family house can be wiped out is something that should be made so easily. It seems to me that this should only be done when 75% of the owners in that area agree to such a wipe out. It seems to me that we are losing the heritage of what was once Alexandria. To the rich and to the developers appears to be our battle cry. Let us not do that | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 138 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | In general, I do not support the government's housing equity agenda. 66 new buildings and 150 new living units over 10 years hardly seems to justify the loss of beauty, livability, and income tax loss (some will move as the zones begin to change in appearance) in current single family zones. I disagree with the elimination of the word family in single family zone. This move is not sufficiently rationalized and is anti-family. Finally, I don't think the plan adequately considers the significant housing developments underway in the City such as the hundreds of units added in Potomac Yard and the route 1 corridor, the West End, and Arlandria. I would suggest that we give the City time to absorb these developments, school children, and traffic before moving against those of us living in single family zones. I fundamentally disagree with the housing equity agenda as it runs contrary to a market economy (the most effectivve mechanism for allocating resources), presupposes that everyone should have the same dwelling, and removes the opportunity for people that achieve financial success (and pay taxes) to purchase a single family home with car and a garden (the American Dream). I implore you to defer and rethink this plan from the perspective of ALL citizens of the City of Alexandria. If I wanted to live in a place that looked like Arlington, I would live in Arlington. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 139 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | I am concerned about the current discussion to change the zoning of single-family home neighborhoods. This plan has been advertised as a way to create more affordable housing, but I don't feel that the City has adequately explained how this will happen. I saw in one presentation that you only expect this zoning change to create ~150 new units over 10 years. I can't imagine that so few units would have any appreciable impact on home prices in Alexandria. Do you have studies or data showing that this zoning change will actually make the city more affordable for low/middle income residents? I see many downsides to the zoning change but little to no upside. | Please refer to the analyses and background documents posted on under each intiative on the website. Several of the recommendations include options for further study that the City may consider moving forward. https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations |
| 140 | | Online feedback form | 22395 | Please do not let developpers destroy our city. Please! | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 141 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | 2023 Housing/Housing for All proposals - opposed to this vision for our City. There are already so many problems left unaddressed (flooding, infrastructure insufficiency, to name a few) effecting the quality of life; these are issues that are more important to current, tax-paying residents. We do NOT need more development, especially increased DENSITY, which would further negatively effect residents. The proposed changes prioritize density over the well-being of current residents, benefiting commercial developers at the expense of community livability, neighborhood scale, and the capacity of our infrastructure and schools to support increased density. The city must consider a more balanced plan that includes the concerns and needs of private citizens alongside housing development. | Thank you your comments. Please refer to the "Zoning for Housing: Net New Units and How They Are Supported by Infrastructure" document posted on the website which addresses some of your concerns. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 142 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I TOTALLY oppose the elimination of single-family zoning. This is an egregious concept that will adversely affect our neighborhoods and communities. One of the endearing qualities that attract people to this area is the sense of community that single family zoning provides. It is the single family zoning that provides the autonomous responsibilty for maintaining the charm, and attractiveness of our neighborhoods. I fear an exodus of long time residents should the zoning change. Non-single family zoning does not belong here! It will ruin our lovely dynamic. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-familoy zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 143 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I have lived in the city for over 25 years in the same house. I have seen the city become , what most of us would consider, overdeveloped without accounting for infrastructure and schools. (You may say you have considered it, but as a teacher in ACPS for 18 years of that time, I believe you have not.) Overcrowding is real and will get worse with the change in zoning. You addressed equity in your plan. Equity is everyone gets what they need to succeed, not everyone gets what they want when they want it at the expense of overcrowding. I lived on the west side of town in a high-rise apartment working day school and night school to save for this house. Now, in the spirit of equity, you would like to tromp on my rights to live as I planned and allow a developer to pay big money for a house next door to me and develop up to a six apartments. The developer doesn't have to live with the consequences but I will. We are already crowded with parking from Lloyd apartments on our street. We need space, not more people. And really, how many of those apartments would go to a low income family? Or would five out of six be as unaffordable as the rest of the new apartments and townhouses in the City? And really, would you like to have bought a house in a single family neighborhood and find out that 6 units with unlimited "families" are being built next to you? As it is now, I back up to Lloyd Apartments. Most days I get to "enjoy" the smell of weed while I sit on my deck at dinner time or I work out in the yard. Don't make this worse. Do not pass this. We don't have the infrastructure nor the ability to educate students in the way they should be educated. This is a mistake. Do not take your lead from Arlington. We are Alexandria and we are different. Thank you for your consideration. | Thank you your comments. Please refer to the "Zoning for Housing: Net New Units and How They Are Supported by Infrastructure" document posted on the website which addresses some of your concerns. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 144 | | Online feedback form | 22424 | As a 20 year resident of historic Old Town, we DONOT WANT Zoning changes to our small already crowded historic town. Who wants to come visit Crystal City like Old Town? Tourism is bread and butter of Old Town. This will drastically change private citizens ability to compete with development corporations Mayor Wilson, your rezoning will ruin our city. We beg you to stop. Shall we sue you and take it yo Richmond? It may come to that. We are prepared to fight rezoning of historic Old Town. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 145 | | Online feedback form | 22301-2446 | Can the City provide a more specific statistic for the percentage of land used for single-family housing in Alexandria? I’ve heard the City and the press use “34%” but that number includes land used for schools, parks, churches, and more non-housing uses. Can you provide the percentage of land used specifically for single-family housing? Thank you. | As you note, single-family zoning allows a limited number of non-residential uses, notably churches, schools and parks. Staff has been careful to state that the 34% figure refers to the amount of land zoned for single family housing. Staff has not conducted the analysis to determine the acreage devoted to those uses in single family zones. |
| 146 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | PLEASE!!! Do NOT eliminate single family zoning! We want Alexandria to stay a lovely, suburban town, NOT another Big City!!! Thank you. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 147 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Please please please RETAIN the curent zoning for single-family homes. The City seems hell bent on eradicating some of Alexandria's greatest charms--its tree-lined neighborhoods filled with pleasant single-family homes. Developers are raping this city -- one just cut down all 37 trees on Mike Oliver's former house. Some of those trees abutted, and were part of the old-growth forest at Montecello Park. Justin Wilson will go down as the Mayor who forever transformed Alexandria from charming tree-lined town to sterile urban jungle. PLEASE PLEASE for once be responsive to voters' wishes: Put the brakes on growth. We're already the densest city in the state. NO MORE GROWTH!!!! | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 148 | | Online feedback form | 2205 | DO NOT eliminate single family housing zoning. Our single family neighborhoods should not be subject to developers whims instead of keeping our homes as homes for residents and not make them developers delights. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 149 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Please leave zoning as it currently is--no changes!! | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 150 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am AGAINST eliminating single family zoning. The developers are completely changing the character of Alexandria. Enough!!! | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. |
| 151 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I strongly oppose allowing multi-family housing in areas currently zone for single family housing. Many of us chose our homes precisely because we wanted some space and privacy. This plan would infringe on that. In addition, for many people, the single family home is their largest investment. Doing anything that would reduce the value of those homes will cause some homeowners to be unable to afford retirement. They, too, will become "housing cost burdened." People have a choice of where to live. If they want to pay more to live in Alexandria, it's not up to the rest of us to subsidize them. Rents are lower the farther you go from DC. If someone wants to pay less rent, all they have to do is move. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 152 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | The City of Alexandria's 2023 Zoning for Housing/Housing for All plan, as currently proposed, appears to prioritize developer interests at the expense of private citizens and threatens to overburden our already overwhelmed infrastructure and public schools. While addressing housing affordability is crucial, it should not come at the cost of the well-being and interests of current and potential residents, who rely on efficient services and functional schools to sustain our community's livability. Transportation is one example, our streets pose a significant danger to bikers, bus riders, and cars due to the increased risk of accidents, including falls and collisions, caused by uneven surfaces, potholes, and the City’s inadequate maintenance. The zoning proposals prioritize developer investment over the interests of private citizens. For example, the proposed elimination of single-family zoning will accelerate unbalanced competition between private buyers and commercial developers. The proposed zoning changes increase density at the expense of our current residents for the profit of commercial developers. The changes should consider true livability, scale of neighborhoods, and ensure our infrastructure and schools can adequately support the increased density. A more balanced approach that considers the needs and concerns of private citizens alongside housing development is imperative to ensure the long-term prosperity and harmony of our city. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish single-family zoning but is proposing to allow more than one housing unit on single family lots. Building more than one unit would be optional, and our analysis indicates that approximately 66 property owners might make that choice over the next 10 years. While this doesn't create many units, or affect many locations, it allows our current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. Please refer to the "Zoning for Housing: Net New Units and How They Are Supported by Infrastructure" document posted on the website which addresses some of your concerns. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf |
| 153 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | I strongly object to the rezoning of R 2-5,R-5, R-8, R12, R-20 single family zones. That you consider rezoning as just another tool in your toolbox for creating more housing options is unconscionable. Is that your best justification for compromising our long-established neighborhoods? The city has many other opportunities to create single family housing. Rezoning will have neither an impact on creating meaningful affordable housing options nor will it create housing for those that really need it. Unlike your predecessors in 1992 who put quality of life for its residents first, it seems that this Mayor and Council puts it last. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 154 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | There are no public comments posted on this site from the September 14 Zoning meeting nor the Town Hall on September 25th as they relate to zoning. Could you please post the questions posed by our residents from those meetings. | The comment board has been updated to include responses to most recent comments. Thank you! |
| 155 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I was looking through our zoning code and noticed that there used to be a much more permissive zone for apartment buildings, RD, which was removed from the code in 1965. It allowed twice as much density as our current high-density zone (100 units per acre, vs. 54.45 in today's RC zone) and did not put a limit on floor area ration, which RC caps at 1.25. Why was the RD zone removed in 1965? Is there a reason it couldn't be used anywhere in the City today? | The RD zone requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre, which is somewhat rare in the city, and the ordinance prohibits any land being zoned RD after March 1965 per the recommendation of a Zoning Committee in 1964/65. Staff will make efforts to track down any documentation related to this committee work. |
| 156 | | Online feedback form | | I am opposed to ending single family zoning. I believe this process has moved too quickly - especially for the level of change that is being proposed. There is not enough consideration given to consequences of the increased density - the strain on the schools, the loss of green space. In Beverley Hills, our storm/sewer infrastructure is already stressed during heavy rains. If you add more concrete structures and take away permeable surfaces (wasn't the city incentivizing permeable surfaces?), it will make our flooding worse. And, parking issues will be further exacerbated given the possibility that developers will only be required to provide .5 parking space per unit. This is especially true on this end of town where our public transportation is minimal. I agree that we need to create more affordable housing, but these changes will likely create mostly higher-end housing. Please, please let's move more slowly and see how the similar changes already enacted in neighboring communities play out before we commit to some irreversible mistakes. | Thank you for sharing your persepctive. The City plans for growth through developing long-range forecasts with regional partners including population, household, and employment forecasts. These forecasts are evaluated concurrently with the implementation of the City's Master Plan. Citywide infrastructure plans are updated to ensure that forecasted growth can be accommodated. Major new development projects are also assessed for their impact. The potential increase in use of the transportation network, water and sewer systems, open space network, and public school system resulting from the Zoning for Housing recommendations is extremely minor and accounted for in the Master Plan and other planning efforts. |
| 157 | | Online feedback form | | I am majorly in support! I am a 31 year old pregnant homeowner and I want this area to become dense, walkable, and have a variety of affordable housing that meet the needs of our whole community. Updating zoning can make our city even more charming, desirable, and livable than it was before. People complain about traffic but we aren't going to become less dense - ever. The only way to make this area more livable is to make it so more people can walk to do things nearby which will then get people off the roads. We have to build Alexandria for the future and the younger generations are all massively in favor of the proposed changes. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 158 | | Online feedback form | | Q: How will the permitting process work for new construction multifamily dwelling in areas previously zoned for SFH? Will there be an annual cap or any other restrictions on qquantity of these type of new builds? Is the city prorperly staffed to deal with litigious neighbors? Comment: A noble effort that must go farther than what's been released to date. We will not see meaningful action towards more affordable housing if we only add a paltry number of units and must push for more neighborhoods with a variety of housing types. We must also rethink setbacks, height restrictions, and parking requirements to ensure that we are not arbitrarily constraning the supply of housing. | Thank you for your comments. Any future project would follow the City's standard development review process and an annual cap has not been recommended (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Development-Review-Process-Brochure_0.pdf). |
| 159 | | Online feedback form | | Home ownership/having skin in the game is a great plan for ANY community BUT NOT good if the new owner doesn't have GOOD credit,willing to spend everything you have on repairs as they come up and generally being RESPONSIBLE. If this isn't the case from the start..the city is selling a bad narrative for any community not just the owner. If someone wants to be a homeowner ..the city should have them attend classes on responsible ownership so ALL involved(home owner and City -helping to finance it WITH tax payer money) are CLEAR on what's EXPECTED. Repairs, supplies , insurance, Pest treatments and other expences are REQUIRED in addition to home payments. | Thank you for sharing your perspective. The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the City. The recommendations are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. |
| 160 | | Online feedback form | | I attended the Sept. 14th community meeting and there seems to be no IMPACT studdies on Traffic, environmental effect, parking , school system and others. Also ,the majority of children in our schools are Hispanic.Why is the City impressing Racial inequalities of Black people? Is this a back door to REPERATIONS of Blacks as you declair unfair housing in the past. This would have been at least 40-50 years ago or more.Today, all people can apply for home loans regardless of COLOR. | The City plans for growth through developing long-range forecasts with regional partners including population, household, and employment forecasts. These forecasts are evaluated concurrently with the implementation of the City's Master Plan. Citywide infrastructure plans are updated to ensure that forecasted growth can be accommodated. Major new development projects are also assessed for their impact. The potential increase in use of the transportation network, water and sewer systems, open space network, and public school system resulting from the Zoning for Housing recommendations is extremely minor and accounted for in the Master Plan and other planning efforts. |
| 161 | | Online feedback form | | I STRONGLY oppose changing the current zoning from single family units in North Ridge to multi -dwelling units on a single lot. I STRONGLY oppose changing the parking requirements to limit the number of on street parking options available for a single family unit based on distance from transit. That is ridiculous. This is NOT the answer to finding more affordable housing in the city of Alexandria. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 162 | | Online feedback form | | A Family can be anyone a person considers to be their family. To delete or substitute the word "FAMILY" from the zoning ordinance takes the HUMANITY out of the code We are NOT "units"-we are people, citizens, tax payers and deserve the respect from the city officials that represent us. This suggested change to the state requirement is offensive. I do NOT support the INCREASE in density. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 163 | | Online feedback form | | For any NEW units built there will not be ENOUGH parking unless street parking is allowed. Bike lanes take up much space now. Has there been a study on additional traffic expected and additional parking? | Thank you for your comments. Potential traffic impacts are part of the development review process. Staff has also evaluated impacts on infrastructure as part of this process which will be uploaded shortly to the webpage. Please stay engaged! |
| 164 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can the city control whether a developer builds luxury units at a high price? If not, what prevents builders from constructing expensive units only to maximize their profits? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 165 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | SFH - Where are the 66 properties located (part of Alex or zone so far)? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 166 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | If I build a 4-unit apartment building on my current single family property site, can the new structure have more square feet of living space that’s currently allowed? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 167 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Please explain how eliminating SFH (single family home) zoning will not increase neighborhood traffic noise, congestion, and disfigure the architectural/environmental integrity of existing historic/vintage SFH neighborhoods? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 168 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The 3 most affordable single (semidetached) homes sold last week were nearly or above half a million dollars. How can the city build upon this good starting point to more meaningful expand available housing stock? Without available housing, we can’t have affordability and are pricing out all but the wealthiest. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 169 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can the city control what the developer builds? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 170 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why can’t you allow more units than just 4 plexes in current single family zoning areas? If it’s because you’re not changing the allowable footprint, are there particular changes that you could make to make more units possible? This seems a lost opportunity. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 171 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can we please get Dari/Pashto interpretation at meetings too? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 172 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The townhouse recommendations appear to modify regulations that city staff have frequently granted exceptions to. Do you have an estimate for how many staff hours will be saved by the changes? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 173 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The industrial zone recommendation appears to be intended to complement existing plans. Would you summarize those existing plans? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 174 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What zoning changes would be needed to make neighborhoods like Del Ray and Rosemont legal to build where they stand today? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 175 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Thank you for lending this effort! Less than half of ACPS employees live within our city limits. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 176 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Bonus Height – Further Study: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission got rid of the bonus height recommendation because of other zoning ordinances. Did the Commission consider adjusting the text of these other ordinances so they’re more “compatible”? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 177 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Bonus Height – So, the staff is no longer recommending Bonus Height, but could Planning Commissioners or City Council members add it back? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 178 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In abandoning the bonus density expansion rather than improving it we are choosing to have fewer affordable units. How is this consistent with Housing for All? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 179 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It seems like setback height and FAR rules really limit opportunities for multiplexes in formerly SFH-lots. Why was changing these limits not even on the table? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 180 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Similar note: I live in a townhouse neighborhood and it’s great; strange that this is not allowed city wide. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 181 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why not simply rezone industrial areas to allow housing now? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 182 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why do we need a study on eliminating parking min. for TOD? Arlington’s transit corridor is the model for TOD: Why not just copy what they do? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 183 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can you explain more about what makes expanded bonus height not valuable to developers? Could it be modified in a way that would make it more viable? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 184 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | As an example, why is the area around Van Dorn Metro so underdeveloped? How do we promote TOD? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 185 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | A lot of recommendations are for more study (i.e., parking areas within a ½ mile of a station). Given our dire need for housing, do these studies add significantly to our policy direction? Or are we letting perfect get in the way of good policies now? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 186 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What in these proposals guarantees that a developer will build 3-bedroom units or units with even more bedrooms at purchase prices that 60% or 80% AMI can afford? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 187 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What would it take to relax height and FAR in Single Family areas? If you could get more units, why not try? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 188 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Parking – How will a 0.5 parking space requirement be rounded? Up to 1 or down to 0? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 189 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | RMF – I am interested in the 40,000 not yet built units in the transit-oriented development. Can RMF also be used there to get affordable housing for bonus density? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 190 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | For the RMF zones, how is the medium to high density defined? What are the “special situations” you mention? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 191 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are the properties pictured in the office-to-residential conversion slide apartments or condos? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 192 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | You just said bonus height initiative would not likely be used; is it or is it not off the table? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 193 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Given Alexandria population (150,000 +) has decreased to 146K, per latest census; when will the number of housing units being recommended be re-evaluated? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 194 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | When you use the number 34%-Single Family Housing in the city, why do you not caveat that number with the percentage that includes properties containing churches/synagogues, cemeteries, and schools? The 34% number is very deceiving and/or disingenuous when the actual percentage is close to 11-14%. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 195 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In last week’s meeting, you said 66 houses were identified for redevelopment as multiple family homes. How can we find out if our home is one of the 66? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 196 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | SFH – How did you determine that 66 SF parcels would be redeveloped? Where exactly are these parcels and what makes them likely to be redeveloped? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 197 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is your analysis that predicts 66 units will be redeveloped posted on the Zoning for Housing website? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 198 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will the 66 units you expect to be redeveloped, the less expensive houses that are the most affordable options for people seeking to buy a detached single-family house? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 199 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Since the fact sheet for townhouses says that all 38 townhouses that were not compliant with zoning were approved anyway, how can people be confident that variances will not be granted to greatly increase density and FAR? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 200 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is it likely that office to residential conversion will ask for additional density to create opportunities far off units? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 201 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What was the mayor’s objective in driving around the city and photographing (10 photos) 2-4 level vintage residential apartment/condo buildings and posting them on Facebook along with the price of single-family dwellings next door? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 202 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are there HOA covenants that would override new replaced zoning reforms? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 203 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Property Tax – Housing Cost: Property Value Assessments and Tax Assessments have a substantive impact on housing cost and affordability, yet this tool to reduce cost is off the table not part of Z4H. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 204 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I really love the convenience of nearby restaurants and stores. Mixed use zoning and walkable communities. However, Alexandria doesn’t seem to have a mixed-use zone. Any thoughts of having a formal mixed-use zone? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 205 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can you clarify the current restrictions in place due to the definition of “family” in the zoning ordinance prohibit adults from living with roommates in a single-family house? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 206 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | To delete or substitute the word “Family” from the zoning ordinance takes Humanity out of the code. We are not “units”, and the “Single Family” home should stand as is. We are citizens and taxpayers and deserve respect from the city. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 207 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We must figure out a way to tolerate each other’s existence. People are not “pollution”. If you do not support this, propose a solution. Housing is way too expensive. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 208 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | ARHA - How much will this cost taxpayers in added property tax and loss of services as the new construction will be recuring money (assistance) from ARHA? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 209 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Having other uses “sprinkled” in residential areas is not unique to single-family zones. | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 210 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How much public engagement was there before exclusionary zoning laws were enacted? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 211 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can I expect a developer to harass me to sell my property? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 212 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Displacement – A lot of these recommendations seem to provide solutions that won’t help the affordable housing issue for a long time. Many people will be displaced by then. Are there any immediate solutions? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 213 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Industrial – Doesn’t the city need some industrial uses to provide necessary services to residents? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 214 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will the sports field behind the Land Rover dealership be eliminated for a residential high-rise building? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 215 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Was there an impact study done on: traffice, parking, as there are more bike lanes | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 216 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will any of the “units” be part of the RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) Program? (Similar to Section 8 only privatized). What Incentives are given to builders? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 217 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Outreach – How are you getting the word out to neighbors in the single-family neighborhoods on the zoning changes? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 218 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can we please allow people to ask questions orally in future meetings? | Please refer to the meeting video for this discussion |
| 219 | | Online feedback form | | I think that the recent recommendations are a great step in the right direction. Expanding new housing types in single family zones, promoting transit oriented development, and reducing things like minimum parking, minimum lot size, and setback requirements are a great way to increase homeowner freedom, increase affordability, and jumpstart walkability. Despite being a good first step, I personally feel that the changes do not go far enough. Specifically, I am disappointed that the changes to single family zones keep most previous requirements for parking, lot size, and setback. Less than 200 predicted homes in these areas is underwhelming, and will not do enough to expand housing supply and increase affordability. Despite this, I hope that Alexandria moves forward with these changes and does not allow NIMBYs to bully them into submission. There are thousands of under-represented residents of Alexandria who are staring down the barrel of a severe housing and environmental crisis. Single family zoning and car-oriented development have brought us into this crisis, and it's important that we move away from this. Please don't let perfection get in the way of progress! Homeowners have a right to their own property, but should not have the right to bully others away from having homes too. Fingers crossed that the city council can move forward! | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 220 | | Online feedback form | | Residents are already stressed with parking options when they rely on street parking in Old Town Alexandria. We should not relax parking requirements for developers just to encourage development. This stresses residents and visitors. We're at a breaking point. 4 household units ads at minimum 8 cars to the street. In many of the streets in Old Town, 8 cars take up an entire side of the street!! Parking restriction removal might encourage some developers due to additional profits but it has detrimental impact on parking for residents and visitors. | Thanks you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 221 | | Online feedback form | | We all know based upon data that the more transportation lanes one provides - the more traffic this encourages rather than reduce traffic. My question is will this also apply to building more housing? As we increase the number of units won’t this encourage more folks to move to Alexandria thus meaning we never actually succeed in reducing the cost of housing since we will never get to an adequate supply? | The number of people who work in Alexandria must commute if they are not living here. Encouraging housing in or near Enhanced Transit Areas and near Metro stations can help manage less cars, congestion and commute time. For development projects, a traffic analsyis would gauge and address any impacts. |
| 222 | | Online feedback form | | I strongly support Zoning for Housing. The need is so great for more housing that we owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and future residents to act to broaden available housing. We can have a nice city and also accommodate more housing. I specifically support the revisions for townhouses and Options 2 and 3 for single family zones. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 223 | | Online feedback form | | I am vehemently opposed to changing the zoning for single family homes. These areas, targeted by the Planning Committee, are long established neighborhoods. When you have neighborhoods, you have stability. Filling up any of these neighborhoods will impact the lives of people who worked hard and chose that life as opposed to those who choose to live in condos or townhouses. The City has ample opportunity to build single family houses in any of the areas that currently have no homes, including the site of the soon to be old Inova hospital, Eisenhower West and Beauregard Corridor. They can choose to make more single family houses. There is still land left in our City to do it. | The City wholeheartedly agrees on the importance of strong neighborhoods and we want to make sure all areas of the City offer quality housing, amenities, and a safe and green environment. Our Small Area Plans are one way to promote more housing and the City is working with those communities to do that. However, based on Census data, there are large numbers of existing City households, renters and homeowners, who are cost burdened. While they work hard, like others in our City, after paying rent/mortgage and utilities they have little left for other life necessities. This causes a disadvantage for the household and for the City and businesses, which is why we undertake a multi-faceted approach to housing production and affordability. As we increase supply across the City, we will offer more opportunities, across the City, to meet the needs of existing and future residents. |
| 224 | | Online feedback form | | At the Sept 5 joint Planning Commission-Council work session it was stated that State occupancy law would apply to residences in Alexandria. What are the Virginia occupancy limits? Citation? | Section 404.5 of the Virginia Maintenance Code addresses the maximum number of individuals in a dwelling. https://up.codes/viewer/virginia/va-maintenance-code-2018/chapter/4/light-ventilation-and-occupancy-limitations#404.5 |
| 225 | | Online feedback form | | I do not agree with this initiative. We can provide equity without destroying the neighborhoods that are functioning well. Flooding the market with new housing forces down the property values of the people who own homes and built this community, forces out families that love the lifestyle that Alexandria currently offers, destroys community unity by undermining its organic development, and creates the conditions that foster overcrowding and related social challenges. People who live here don't want to live like New Yorkers. They like its slower pace, not living on top of each other, parks and other green space. Do not destroy Alexandria to force free for all development that profits no one except developers. Here's an idea. Take all of these empty buildings and redevelop them into housing opportunities for the masses that you want to give a home. But leave our wonderful neighborhoods alone, lest you loose the characteristics that made this place one of the top cities in the country to live. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 226 | | Online feedback form | | Just want to clarify how the new ADU rules would interact with the SFH zone changes - is it possible this change would create a Duplex + ADU (3 units) or Fourplex + ADU (5 units) on some lots in some areas? | ADUs will continue to be allowed only on lots with single, two-unit, and townhouse dwellings. |
| 227 | | Joint Work Session | | Why discard the bonus height amendment rather than changing the setback requirements or increasing heights? | As noted in the Bonus Height Zoning Text Amendment Fact Sheet, staff has through analysis identified regulatory and financial impediments which impact its feasibility. Exploration of further changes to the Zoning Ordinance might address the regulatory impediments but in the meantime staff is no longer recommending it. A decision to potentially eliminate it would need to be part of the consideration stage of this process. |
| 228 | | Joint Work Session | | Is neighborhood compatibility more valuable than providing more abundant and affordable housing options? How was this determination made? | The recommendations attempt to balance the compatibility concerns of some community members with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. |
| 229 | | Joint Work Session | | The current regulations on physical buildings (FAR, setbacks, height limits) are strict and binding in most cases. If the goal of zoning for housing is to zone for housing, why was changing these limits not considered? | Several of the recommendations include options for further study that the City may consider moving forward. Please refer to the fact sheets for details. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-Fact-Sheets-20230905.pdf |
| 230 | | Joint Work Session | | How did you determine your estimates for the impact of increasing the current single family housing density recommendations on number of additional multiple units that you expect will be built (the 66 number)? What is the source/calculation for the estimate provided? Similarly, how did you determine that student population estimates will increase — despite recent trends showing a decrease in student numbers. Thanks. | The forecast assumes that redevelopment will occur on lower-priced properties for sale in the market. A lower-priced property is defined as one that is 91% of the median price. 2022 sales were used as a proxy for future sales and sale values. A proportion of these lower-priced properties sold in the market are assumed to be redeveloped to multi-family units. The consultant’s analysis assumes that 5% of the lower valued properties in the R8, R12, R20 zones could be redeveloped and 10% in the R2-5 and R-5 zones. The redevelopment rate was forecast over a 10 year period. Using this calculus, an estimated 66 parcels will be redeveloped to multi-family over the next 10 years.
The City and ACPS work closely to regularly update student enrollment projections (https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/StudentEnrollmentProjections_2023.pdf) and our analysis of the number of students “generated” by different housing types - 88% of ACPS students live in households 30 years of age or older. Newer market-rate multifamily development houses the lowest percentage of ACPS students, with only 3% of ACPS students living in apartment or condo buildings built within the last 30 years (for reference: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ACPSStudentGenerationRatesUpdateJune2023.pdf). |
| 231 | | Joint Work Session | | Has there been analysis of climate change impacts of increased density and reduced parking requirements on the City? | The availability of more housing units and density within an established land area reduces the numbers of dwellings that might otherwise be constructed in undeveloped green space in suburban or exurban areas, resulting in preservation of open space. Traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced when individuals can live closer to their places of employment and entertainment, rather than in areas at a distance from urban centers. Minimizing parking requirements for residential properties translates to fewer cars on the road, also contributing to a reduction in traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. |
| 232 | | Joint Work Session | | If single family zoning is abolished, will there be a limit on the number of individuals that can live in each unit? | Section 404.5 of the Virginia Maintenance Code addresses the maximum number of individuals in a dwelling. https://up.codes/viewer/virginia/va-maintenance-code-2018/chapter/4/light-ventilation-and-occupancy-limitations#404.5 |
| 233 | | Joint Work Session | | Regarding bonus height density, which ordinances limited/disincentivized full use of bonus height density, and did the Commission look into ways these ordinances could be amended so they're more "compatible" and can allow more incentive for bonus height density to be used as a tool to increase housing? | The affordable housing requirement for projects seeking optional increases in bonus density and/or height through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process are set forth in Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sec 7-700 requires that one third of the density permitted through the density or height increase be provided as committed affordable housing. The City’s ability to require affordable housing in exchange for density is limited by the authority granted to us by the State Legislature pursuant to 15.2-2304. |
| 234 | | Joint Work Session | | I’d love for you to point to studies that show that people who live near public transportation do not have cars. All my experience shows me that is not the case, so I’d be happy to see studies that show my experience is not common. | The trend is to plan for more multi-modal communities to reduce the use and number of cars, thus reducing congestion, greenhouse emissions and safety issues. Building communities near shopping, amenities and work, with safe instrastructure gives people options for walking, taking uber/lyts, and public transit as opposed to incurring expenses related to multi- personal vehicles, gas prices and more. |
| 235 | | Online feedback form | | Converting an office building to residential does not increase building density but does increase population density. Why can you not use density regulations to require affordable housing? | The affordable housing requirement for projects seeking optional increases in bonus density and/or height through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process are set forth in Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sec 7-700 requires that one third of the density permitted through the density or height increase be provided as committed affordable housing. The City’s ability to require affordable housing in exchange for density is limited by the authority granted to us by the State Legislature pursuant to 15.2-2304. |
| 236 | | Hybrid Community Meeting/Email | | There seems to be significant issues with our zoning maps...or at least that is how I see it. Open to being corrected! Specifically, from my reading of some of our zoning maps, it appears to me a wide variety of current apartment complexes (and some condominium complexes) that exist today could not be rebuilt, in exactly the same configuration, without modifying existing zoning maps. This has significant implications given these types of dwellings provide some of the most affordable rental units AND owner occupied units in our city.
Please see attached Alexandria_Square_Zoning_Map_2023.pdf. I currently own a unit in the Alexandria Square Condominium complex, which is primarily small apartment-style units and some larger duplexes. Today, my current duplex (redacted) as well as the apartment style 8 unit buildings of 307 Duncan Ave, 305 Duncan Ave and 1707 DeWitt Ave are all zoned R2-5. This is the "Single- and two-family zone" which is "established to provide and maintain land areas for low density residential neighborhoods of single-family and two-family homes on 5,000 square foot lots" (link). No provision in R2-5 zoning allows for the construction of the apartment style units that exist today and it is questionable whether the current duplex I occupy at 309 Duncan Ave even meets the lot size, width or frontage requirements. Likewise on the other side of Duncan Ave and north of DeWitt Ave, the rest of the Alexandria Square Condominium complex is zoned RB where "medium density residential neighborhoods in which single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings are permitted." Here again, RB zoning allows for single-family, two-family and townhouse...but with a density not to exceed "22 dwelling units an acre" (link) which, by my back of the hand calculation, the parcel of Alexandria Square Condominium in the RB zoning block far exceeds. Am I missing something fundamental? Was an exception to policy / zoning made for Alexandria Square? I thought there might be and I searched for any amendments to the zoning maps for this part of Del Ray and the only thing I can see is Ordinance No. 5446 requesting a very, very, very minor rezoning of a group of two townhouses on E. Bellefonte Ave. This curious request for rezoning aside, I see no zoning exceptions or amendments in the Del Ray area for the last 15+ years. Am I looking in the wrong place?
Other areas I've noticed with similar discrepancies include the The Gardens Del Ray Apartment complex on E. Mason Ave...currently zoned RA but far exceeding the "27 dwelling units per acre" maximum allowable density for that zone. There certainly may be others should I look further...Again, not here to throw stones at the City's planning and zoning department, I understand these condominiums and apartments are quite old, probably predating zoning itself as a professional discipline. But as the city embarks on it's Zoning for Housing / Housing for All journey I cannot help but observe that if my current duplex on Duncan were to vanish tomorrow and I wanted to build it exactly as it stands today I would not be able to do so given its current zoning...to say nothing of the more dense 8 unit buildings of 307 Duncan Ave, 305 Duncan Ave and 1707 DeWitt Ave. Now imagine I wanted to rebuild on my current lot with even a moderate increase in density...say a set of brand new recently developed townhouses like those just a block away (201, 203, 205 and 207 Duncan Ave). I would not be able to...because for some reason those lots are zoned CL...commercial...where, compared to R2-5, RB and other residential zoning...there are a lot more possibilities. I guess when it comes down to it, much of our city's zoning that I walk by and drive past on a daily basis seems somewhat...arbitrary.
Thank you for making it through this wall of text. I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my comments. | What you are noticing is that older residential buildings like you describe are now "non-compliant" with the existing zoning ordinance. Over the years, the City's zoning ordinance has become more restrictive - so you are correct that these buildings would not be allowable today in your neighborhood. However, that issue is one that this initiative is trying to address. Take a look at the Historic Development Patterns proposal and recommmendations as well as those for the Townhouse and Single Family zone proposals. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Z4H-Fact-Sheets-20230905.pdf |
| 237 | | Online feedback form | | I wanted to express my support for zoning for higher density throughout Alexandria. More housing is better for everyone, making our communities more inclusive and more affordable. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged! |
| 238 | | Online feedback form | | I would like to see housing that is affordable for the police, teachers & firefighters who work in the city of Alexandria but I don’t see anything that would drive that in your plans or any definition of “affordable “. The bigger problem is that the Alexandria infrastructure CAN BARELY HANDLE the population we have already let alone more & the loss of even more green space that rain water can be absorbed by. You continue to let homes take more & more of the lot. You take down city trees and don’t replace them. I don’t think this plan has been thought through or planned out so that Alexandria keeps what makes it special. Fix the infrastructure & green space issues first! | With the exception of a carve out for arts-related professions, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (the primary source of equity funding for all new affordable rental housing construction and preservation projects across the country) does not support the prioritization or targeting of affordable housing for specific professions. The City offers downpayment and closing cost assistance through its Employee Homeownership Assistance Program (alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#ClosingCostandDownpaymentAssistance); in addition one portion of the City's SPARC allocation is set aside for City employees, including ACSP staff, police and firefighters (SPARC funding reduces mortgage rates for income eligible homebuyers by one percentage point: alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources#SPARCFundsforMortgageInterestRateReductions). Affordable rental and for-sale units created in market-rate developments through the use of density and/or height or through our partnerships with affordable housing developers are actively marketed to City employees and City residents via enews, the City's website, and to the extent possible to employers. Affordable for-sale units are priced to be affordable at approximately 70-100% AMI which broadens their eligibility to a greater range of City workers.
Part of the Zoning for Housing analysis includes assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We also consider growth forecasts concurrently with the City's infrastructure plans as well as with new development. Also, please refer to the City's Urban Forest Management website for information on tree canopy - https://www.alexandriava.gov/Trees |
| 239 | | Email | | At previously held community meetings regarding the zoning for housing changes, staff informed attendees that changes would be made to the draft proposals to incorporate community feedback. I am curious when the final proposals will be issued as there isn't a date listed in the posted timeline. As co-chair of the Del Ray Citizens Association Land Use Committee, it is important for us to know when the final proposals will be issued so a meeting can be scheduled for our Association to vote on them. | Thank you for your comment. Recent information has been shared with the public with a specific date of September 5 as to when the draft recommendaitons will be released. You can also access this information on the City Calendar. The forum for September 5 will be a Joint Work Session of the City Council and the Planning Commission, 5-7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall. The first public hearing will be held on November 1 so you may want to consider scheduling your meeting between those dates. Please know that a number of opportunities for community input will occur between those dates as well and we hope you will encourage members of your association to participate in them and as opportunities to stay engaged. |
| 240 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | While I strongly support affordable housing, it has to be done consistent with the land use and architectural environs in which new development is approved. I fear that well-monied developers like Hoffman will always get their zoning variances in order to overbuild architecturally inappropriate large scale housing in the Old and Historic District, turning the City's historic patrimony into an Old Town North architectural desert. What is planned to exert control on the rapacious financial goals of some developers that will end up forever changing our historic districts for the worse? And why can these developers win extra height in exchange for a ridiculously low 4% set-aside for affordable housing? | Thank you for your comments. Zoning for Housing is not recommending changes to any policies under the Historic District regulations. Please stay engaged. |
| 241 | | Email | | It seems to me that at the core of the City’s proposal is the assumption that increased density will solve the affordability problem. And yet, locales with high density (e.g., New York City, Tokyo, and others) all seem to have an affordability problem. What is the scientific basis for the assertion that higher density (by reducing single-family houses or by “bonus height” will bring about affordability? | The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the City. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 242 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Last year when the City first proposed the Bonus Height Text Amendment, the City admitted it did not have all the answers and would get back to us. While being told that the height density would NOT be able to be requested on all of Mt. Vernon Avenue (that only 1-2 properties would even qualify), we still haven't gotten an answer on what properties WOULD qualify to apply. In looking at the map, it still shows ALL of Mt. Vernon Avenue. Based on set backs or whatever the requirements would be, WHAT properties on Mt. Vernon could request the added height density? | Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session and will address your question. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 243 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I object to this proposal for various reasons, including the following key points: 1. There is a significant concern regarding water stress in an area already grappling with PFAs (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and recurrent electricity disruptions. Expanding zoning without thoroughly evaluating the potential implications on water supply, especially in a region already contending with water contamination and regular power outages, could exacerbate existing challenges and create new, unforeseen problems. Therefore, it is imperative to approach any changes to zoning regulations with caution and a comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences on the community and its resources. 2. Protection of Property Rights: Implementing a one-size-fits-all zoning policy for all projects could potentially violate the property rights of individual owners. It is crucial that property owners retain the freedom to utilize and develop their lands according to the pre-existing zoning regulations that were in effect when they invested in their properties. Overriding current regulations with a universal zoning policy could destabilize property rights and generate uncertainty among property holders. 3. Preservation of Neighborhood Identity: Alexandria is a mosaic of diverse neighborhoods, each possessing its own distinctive identity and atmosphere. A blanket zoning policy could result in the homogenization of neighborhoods, thereby eradicating the unique traits that draw inhabitants and contribute to the city's allure. It is of utmost importance to maintain the diversity and individuality of our neighborhoods. 4. Pressure on Infrastructure and Services: Broadening zoning to permit all kinds of development without adequate planning and assessment of infrastructure capabilities could overburden existing systems. A surge in population density, without corresponding enhancements to transportation, education, healthcare, and other vital services, may result in overcrowding, diminished quality of life, and an inability to satisfy the demands of the populace. | Thank you for your comments. A couple of notes: Zoning for Housing is is primarily looking at options that would expand options for property owners, not reduce them. So, for example, in the case of property owners in neighborhoods that only allow the construction of single-family detached houses, Zoning for Housing is not proposing to restrict a property owner's ability to build a single family detached house but is evaluating whether it makes sense to allow them to build more than one housing unit on their property. A program that expands, rather than restricts, options for property owners does not infringe on the rights of those property owners. Also, Part of the analysis will include assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session and will address your question. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 244 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I strongly support any efforts to increase housing supply within Alexandria, particularly near transit and within existing walkable neighborhoods. Quality housing is incredibly expensive in Alexandria and the only way to begin solving that problem is to rapidly develop additional housing units. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 245 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I fully support the city's initiative to look into zoning and make housing more affordable. Alexandria is not overcrowded -- it just needs to have thoughtful land-use that prioritizes spaces for people to live, work, and play, rather than use valuable space for expensive car infrastructure. Rethinking our zoning to increase the housing supply is an important part of this issue. As a renter, I would love to be able to buy a house in Alexandria. Unfortunately, my only available options are to buy a single family home that is far away from transit and way too big for my needs, or a luxury condo in a high-rise complex. It would be amazing if the city could consider rezoning areas near the transit hubs so that there are smaller, "missing middle" houses such as townhomes and multifamily units. At the same time, it would also be great to rethink commercial zoning to incentivize small businesses to be closer to where people live (think of a small neighborhood grocery store) so that residents are not dependent on a car every time they would like to go anywhere. Not only is car infrastructure expensive and taking up valuable space that could be used to build housing and widen the local tax base, but also enabling people to live car-free would help to ease some of the traffic concerns that have been raised. | Thank you for your comments. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple community events and other avenues to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 246 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | The NIMBY idea that we can address the city's infrastructure backlog/future needs without development-funded upgrades and taxes is ignorant at best and bad faith at worst. | Thank you for your comment. Please stay engaged! |
| 247 | | Online feedback form | | What impact does affordable housing have on the City's tax revenue? | Staff can explore this information and report back findings. |
| 248 | | Online feedback form | | What are the developer profit margins on development projects? | There may be general data that is publicly accessible in response to this question. Staff can explore and report what might be generated through that effort. |
| 249 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | New landlords would rather give a few months of free rent than lower the rent prices. How can the City subsidize the rental units to make them affordable? | The City facilitates and incentivizes the production and preservation of committed affordable rental units through a range of approaches, including through optional density/height bonuses and other zoning tools, creative public-private-nonprofit partnerships that leverage private, state and federal resources, and the provision of City gap financing. Direct rental subsidy programs raise a number of challenges, the primary one being the cost of funding such a program long-term on a large scale. The City's current rental subsidy programs comprise the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher program which is administered by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority [the waitlist for this program is closed]; the Office of Housing's Pilot Rental Subsidy Program which deeps the affordability of 10% of committed affordable rental units funded through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program [we currently have 36 units supported through this City funded grant program]; and the Department of Community and Human Service's Rental Subsidy Program which provides a rental subsidy for very low income seniors and persons with disabilities (the program can support up to 141 individuals). The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 250 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We are trying to solve a wage and income problem with housing policy. | Thank you for your comment. |
| 251 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Lately there's been an alarming number of healthy, mature trees the City has removed for questionable reasons. The city likes to portray itself as "green". What is the City's plans for preserving the required/necessary tree canopy? | Please refer to the City's Urban Forest Management website - https://www.alexandriava.gov/Trees |
| 252 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can you discuss the changes to zoning in Alexandria that were enacted in the 1990s and their effect on housing supply and affordability? Is rolling back the 1992 down-zoning under consideration? | There is not an effort to rewrite the 1992 Zoning Ordinance through Zoning for Housing/Housing for All. These changes are focused on housing regulations and as noted only 5 will include draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments as noted in the September 5, 2023 Release Document for Zoning for Housing/Housing for Hall found on the webpage through this link https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all |
| 253 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How much more public funding is needed for the city to prevent additional displacement of <50% AMI residents since it seems too expensive for the market to ensure those units get built/preserved? | There is not data that speaks directly to your question but with 15,500 renters who are cost burdened and another 3,500 homeowners who are similarly challenged, the cost would be great. That is why it takes a multi-faceted approach to address housing -- expanding production, establishing new regulatory incentives and programs to expand options, and programs which offer indirect and direct financial support to bring down costs. |
| 254 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | This is my 4th or 5th meeting and I still can't discern what income level you consider for "affordable housing"? Also, please confirm that we currently have no laws that discriminate based on race or national origin. Please discuss the impact of the higher interest rate on apartment developers and the concerns regarding bank liquidity. | Please refer to this fact sheet and presentation from the Office of Housing - https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022HousingAffordabilityQuickFacts.pdf; https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Z4H-Event-McIlvaine-Presentation-Housing-Needs-March2023.pdf |
| 255 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Where did you get the "housing burdened" figure for Alexandria? Ms. Morrison - graph of rental rates, low income is 80% of median - what is that affordability rental rate? Of the 5900 new units in the last five years, how many are affordable units? | Per the American Community Survey 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates, approximately 15,500 Alexandria renter households with incomes up to $75,000 are estimated to be housing cost burdened, defined as spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. More information can be found on https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#HousingCostsandNeedinAlexandria and on https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing. |
| 256 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the City doing to protect retirees on a fixed income? Taxes are rising and many of us will not be able to stay in our homes. | The City has tax relief programs for qualifying property owners, including senior citizens. Please contact Tax Relief, Revenue Division, Department of Finance, 301 King Street, Room 1700, or https://www.alexandriava.gov/TaxRelief; 703.746.4800 |
| 257 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I would love to see more small and shared housing options to suport intergenerational living - how can zoning changes help us be closer to young adult kids and aging parents. | In 2021, as part of the Zoning for Housing initiative, the City adopted an Accessory Dwelling Units policy that addresses exactly what you're referencing. For more information, visit https://www.alexandriava.gov/zoning/accessory-dwelling-units-in-alexandria |
| 258 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What zoning changes would generate the qreatest amount of committed affordable housing? | Please refer to the presentations and meeting video on the project website https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#PreviousCommunityMeetingsandEvents |
| 259 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why rush Housing for All process and AlexWest SAP??? When there are not any housing programs and resources to preserve existing families if development were to happen now. We need a voucher program that's locally funded or more money in the housing budget. Is all the funding from HUD to the City restricted based off of immigration status? | The City's Office of Housing manages several programs and has resources for residents in Alexandria - please visit https://alexandriava.gov/Housing or email housing@alexandriava.gov. Also please refer to the meeting video on the project website https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#PreviousCommunityMeetingsandEvents |
| 260 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What median income (1 person household) is the target resident for affordable housing? | Targeted income levels for Committed Affordable Units (CAUs) vary by program and are based on a percentage of the area median income (AMI). The 2023 AMIs can be accessed at: alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Background, under 2023 Area Median Income.
Committed affordable rental units serve households with incomes up to 60% AMI. The majority of affordable rental set-aside units generated as a result of market-rate rental development (through density and/or height incentives and/or rezonings) is affordable at this level. Workforce committed affordable rental units serve households earning between 61% and 80% AMI. Committed affordable homeownership units typically serve households with incomes between 70% and 100% AMI. Affordable for-sale set-aside units generated as a result of market-rate for-sale (condo) development is affordable at this level. |
| 261 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What financial responsibility are you expecting from taxpayers living in Alexandria to support these programs? How are you wanting to redefine families? | Please refer to the Expanding Housing in Single Family Zones initiative - this explains the proposal for redefining "Family" in the Zoning Ordinance - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations |
| 262 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can we get new funding for working class affordable housing? | The City facilitates and incentivizes the production and preservation of committed affordable rental units through a range of approaches, including through optional density/height bonuses and other zoning tools, creative public-private-nonprofit partnerships that leverage private, state and federal resources, and the provision of City gap financing. Direct rental subsidy programs raise a number of challenges, the primary one being the cost of funding such a program long-term on a large scale. The City's current rental subsidy programs comprise the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher program which is administered by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority [the waitlist for this program is closed]; the Office of Housing's Pilot Rental Subsidy Program which deeps the affordability of 10% of committed affordable rental units funded through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program [we currently have 36 units supported through this City funded grant program]; and the Department of Community and Human Service's Rental Subsidy Program which provides a rental subsidy for very low income seniors and persons with disabilities (the program can support up to 141 individuals). The Office of Housing will be undertaking an update to the Housing Master Plan in 2024-2025 and is committed to continuing to study what tools, incentives, best practices, programs and policies can help expand housing opportunity and affordability for Alexandria's residents and workers. |
| 263 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | This neighborhood - Carlyle - is subject to an onerous design review board process. Is the City considering streamlining this (eliminating the DRB and giving its power to City staff) as part of permitting reform to allow faster office to residential conversions. There are a lot of empty storefronts here. | The scope of the Zoning for Housing initiative does not include an evaluation of Boards and Commissions. |
| 264 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the City's plan for sustained growth if we do not reform zoning to accommodate demographic trends? | The City plans for growth through developing long-range forecasts with regional partners including population, household, and employment forecasts. These forecasts are evaluated concurrently with the implementation of the City's Master Plan. Citywide infrastructure plans are updated to ensure that forecasted growth can be accommodated. Major new development projects are also assessed for their impact. |
| 265 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can you explain the concept of transit oriented development and how/whether the City is taking the principles of TOD into account throughout this process? | Please refer to the Transit Oriented Development proposal on the project webpage - https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations |
| 266 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is the City looking at reducing property taxes to assist homeowners to be able to afford to stay in their homes? | The City has tax relief programs for qualifying property owners. Please contact Tax Relief, Revenue Division, Department of Finance, 301 King Street, Room 1700, or https://www.alexandriava.gov/TaxRelief; 703.746.4800 |
| 267 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What percentage of the office conversion was for low income families? As a senior who has lived in Alexandria in my home for the last 26 years, I feel that I am being pushed out because I cannot afford the high property tax. | Thank you for raising this concern. The City has a Real Estate Tax Relief and Assistance Program for Elderly and Disabled Persons. Information including how to apply can be found on https://www.alexandriava.gov/taxes/real-estate-tax-relief-and-assistance-program-for-elderly-and-disabled-persons or by calling 703.746.4800. |
| 268 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | If single family zoning is eliminated, and developers use single family lots for multi-family housing units, won’t supply and demand dictate that the prices of single family homes will increase and become less affordable for families looking for single family homes? Won’t they be forced to stay in smaller, multi-family homes or move away from Alexandria in search of affordable single family housing? | The prices for a single family detached house in Alexandria have accelerated rapidly previous to these proposals. Ms Morrison's data shows a 25% increase in prices under current regulations. We are looking for ways to provide housing types accessible to people of moderate incomes, which does require a change to our zoning ordinance. Ms. Morrison's data shows that typically small scale housing doesn't suddenly cause a neighborhood to turn over. Someone can't afford to tear down an $800,000 house to build 4 apartments. We won't see a whole scale loss of existing single family units - it's more of a question of a future growth with more housing typtes such as duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, or small multifamily. |
| 269 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The floor area ratio limit for the RB zone is 0.75. The actual floor area ratio for RB zoned houses in the Parker Gray area is 0.95. Is something going to be done to fix the density requirements to reflect the reality of the zone? I conducted a study of all houses in the nine blocks between Pendleton, N Columbus, Queen, and N Henry, taking their square footage versus the lot square footage to get an approximate floor area ratio. This didn’t take the FAR deductions like stairwells into account but in practice, the average FAR for that area is 0.95, well above the FAR limit provided in the code. Land value in the same area also varies from $122/sqft to $705/sqft but thats a whole other conversation | Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session and will address your question. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 270 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How can Housing for All provide the choices we want, yet protect the unique character of "Main Street" neighborhoods like Mt. Vernon in Del Ray and King Street in Old Town? I favor choices that Housing for All is trying to provide, but also do not want these "Main Streets" to turn into something like Ballston. | Thank you for sharing your point of view. We are looking for opportunities to increase the diversity of housing choices in Alexandria without transforming its essential character. Please stay engaged. |
| 271 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We do not seem to have real leverage over developers who will always be driven to maximize profits. Is the City working with other jurisdictions at the Commonwealth to change that? | The vast majority of housing that is produced is built by private developers and we need to work within that system. However, we should look for every opporunity to strengthen the tools we have to find other pathways to provide affordable housing whether through funding opportunities or changes in laws at state level. |
| 272 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How would Zoning for Housing affect the city’s historic districts? Would the districts continue to be protected? | The recommendations are not impacting our current historic preservation protections. |
| 273 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | As a lifelong Alexandrian now in my 40s, I’ve seen my prospects of moving from renter to buyer in Alexandria dwindle as prices increased. Are we focusing just on 5-over1s, or also on duplexes and townhomes that may help alleviate mid-market pressure? | The initiative includes the study of several potential zoning reforms throughout the city - they can be found on the project website (https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all). Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 274 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | could this lead to houses in neighborhoods/ entire nieghborhoods to be basically destroyed knowing they will be sold to developers to make buildings? | Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session and will address your question. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 275 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Haven’t heard parking mentioned tonight, I hope that is being emphasized in this quest for addtl housing options/occupancy. | Yes parking is being evaluated as part of the intiative. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session and will address your question. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 276 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The more you convert single families into multifamily, it decreases their limited availability and quantity. Whomever are left holding single family units would benefit tremendously and increase the income equality. Are all Council People owners of single family units that are never going to be converted into multifamily a conflict? | Thank you for your comment. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 277 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will Z4A also address neighborhood walkability and amenities for things like neighborhood corner stores and small businesses that serve their immediate communities? | The initiative includes the study of potential zoning reforms throughout the city - industrial zones, transit oriented development areas, coordinated development districts and others. Part of the analysis will including assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods.Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune in to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 278 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Has the population of Alexandria declined? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 279 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What are the projected housing needs between now and 2034? Where are the gaps? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 280 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why is the city not taking time to perform studies on: | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 281 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I understand the city is working hard to ensure we aren’t working too hard. Are we taking inspiration/lessons from domestic or foreign cities? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 282 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is coming out on the 5th? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 283 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How is Alexandria planning to ensure affordability for residents beyond housing? If groceries, etc., are too expensive, how can people live even if they are housed? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 284 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In Spring ’22 Bonus Height Amendment was deferred by Planning Commission and staff was told to give more details by Fall. A year later, we still don’t have that. When will we be getting that information? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 285 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the rush to change the zoning now? (We have time to change or discuss change by section of the city separately as each has different needs) | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 286 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | You pursued study and want community engagement on the remaining nine proposed initiatives. Since it is the most significant initiative of the council this term, why must this be wrapped up by November? Based on community input, will you consider pushing back the November end date for approving these changes? Will these proposals, if enacted, have any detrimental consequences? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 287 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In past meetings the term “crisis of housing” has been used. What is your definition of “crisis”? If the population is now declining by 3% annually since the 2020 census, how can there be a crisis? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 288 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We’ve already seen in the few decades that more housing does not decrease prices/rent, particularly in the Del Ray/Rosemont/Warwick areas. How does the city plan to support their claim that more housing will decrease prices/rent? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 289 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In the presentation by Ms. Morrison, there was a chart showing average rents in Alexandria. Were the average rent amounts for existing units computed including subsidized affordable units, or were the averages computed on market rate units only? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 290 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What’s the projected need for most vulnerable housing? What can Zoning do to help with this? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 291 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can the city legally hold developers accountable to keep housing prices/rents affordable, accessible, and available for all income ranges? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 292 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We speak a lot of affordability and accessibility, but how can you preserve existing working-class families when there are limited resources/funding that leads to risk of displacement? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 293 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can added housing supplies close to transit and bs reduce greenhouse gases? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 294 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I have attended several of these sessions, and I still haven’t received an answer to this question: What protections with are being considered as part of the Z4H plan to ensure preservation of historic commercial buildings? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 295 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the city doing to first implement the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the push for housing density before they’re added to the market? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 296 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The city holds meetings and allows questions, which are answered, but the answers generally lead to follow-on questions but there’s no opportunity/time for follow-on questions or real conversations. Will the city change their format of meetings to truly have a meaningful exchange? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 297 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | A perspective: Alexandria is a city with a beautiful history, and I’d like the city to consider zoning policies that helps us to preserve the historical character of our neighborhoods from the year 1550, a point in history when Alexandria was livable, and our infrastructure was no overburdened by European settlers. | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 298 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The schedule looks extremely reasonable. | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 299 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | For the record, I am extremely comfortable with the timeline as it stands. (That’s all…you all are doing a great job). | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 300 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Thank you for addressing this urgent problem in our community so comprehensively! I’m very excited about the Transit Oriented Development and Historical Development pattern initiatives. Please keep going! | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 301 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can we have these meetings at a venue with bike parking in the future? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 302 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The city considers housing as “affordable” if a person at a 60% median Alexandria income ($96,000) can afford it. If you have acknowledged that 15,500 + 3,500 households with incomes of up to $75,000 are cost burdened, what has the city done or what will the city do to alleviate that specific issue? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 303 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | If the city is on track to meet housing commitment goals, why the push for higher density? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 304 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why don’t you answer all the questions instead of picking what you want to answer? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 305 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I appreciate Dr. Moon’s focus on Alexandria. With that in mind, please clarify that the AMI of $152,000 is for the DC Metro area. Isn’t the AMI for Alexandria (family of 4) just under $106,000? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 306 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Ms. Morrison’s apartment cost chart had a large difference between the past 2018 construction and the 50% AMI. The “all” apartments cost was much closer to 50% AMI affordability. Therefore, can we assume that older apartments are much more affordable than any new apartments that would be built today? Since Alexandria is already built out, and new apartments would be replacing older ones, won’t we be trading more affordable apartments for less affordable ones? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 307 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Achieving the regions/housing targets is one of the COG climate plans/strategies because it significantly reduces how much people drive. Will Alexandria examine how its Zoning for Housing proposals support the City’s climate goals? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 308 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Can city leaders speak to specific goals for accessible housing citywide please? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 309 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In previous meetings it was established that restrictive covenants of the previous 150 years in Alexandria are no longer legal and have not been legal since 1948. In past meetings Mr. Moritz has stated that “segregation has gotten worse in the past decade or two” of the large-scale projects that have been developed in the past 2 decades, CDCs like Potomac Yards, Cameron Station, Eisenhower East. Isn’t it true that it is city planning that caused segregation by encouraging developments which exclude people of color due to lack of income to buy or rent in these areas? (Alexandria is just becoming more white) | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 310 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What was the original justification or rationale for single family zoning in Alexandria? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 311 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In discussions about zoning changes is the city looking at farm-based codes or small-scale (“incremental”) development? These would likely help mitigate any negative sentiments opposing change. | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 312 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Has Alexandria’s population decreased and what is it expected to do in the future? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 313 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It was shown tonight that new construction does NOT provide more affordable housing as rents are $3,000+. Thus, removing zoning for single family will only increase density and NOT provide more affordable housing. Doesn’t this just line the developers’ pockets, create more density and ruin neighborhoods as well as add to overcrowding of our schools and put more stress on our infrastructure? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 314 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The Bonus Height Amendment has the potential to transfer Del Ray into a dense city scape with 70” towers along Mt. Vernon Avenue. This would totally change Del Ray and would inevitably increase density (more people) market rate housing. The existing tax base will be diminished, and city services already stretched will be broken. What is your plan to address these problems? What happens to the historic neighborhood we love? | Please view the meeting video for this discussion |
| 315 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | This initiative is a great start that I fully support. Overly strict zoning and requirements such as height restrictions, setback requirements, and minimum parking are disastrous policies that over time have made housing extremely segregated and unaffordable. Alexandria is a city full of many different people, not a museum or an investment opportunity. We can't continue to bully everyone out of housing because a group of wealthy homeowners (who were lucky enough to buy decades ago) want to selfishly increase the value of their homes or complain about "character". I want to add that Alexandria should also work to improve its public transit and micromobility options (safe sidewalks and bike lanes). Giving residents safe alternatives to driving which take up less space will greatly reduce traffic concerns that come from increased density. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 316 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | What mechanisms are anticipated or proposed that will ensure that new housing targeted as affordable will remain affordable for the long term as in 30 years or more? Thank you | Committed affordable homeownership units are resale restricted through covenants recorded in Land Records; the units have equity sharing requirements. Committed affordable rental units are subject to regular monitoring and are enforced through the development conditions approved by City Council. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 317 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I support increased affordable housing and the addition of multifamily homes. However, this must be done in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. We can't just throw up apartments on a one acre lot on a street that is designed for 30 house and now have the traffic of 120 cars. Additionally, where will these kids attend school? Where will the cars park? How will green space be incorporated? What are the environmental impacts? How about flooding of basements? The GREAT Alexandria Equalizer is no matter if your house is 250K or 1250K, you will have water in your basement. We need to examine the power infrastructure? Every time the wind blows, so does a transformer. Do we have enough power? And if we do, where is the comprehensive plan to put the electric wire UNDERGROUND? What is the public transportation plan to address an increase of multifamily homes with in Alexandria? I think all of these are solveable problems, but we need to have a PLAN before we let a contractor break ground. I would also like to see current commercially zoned buildings not at capacity be refurbished BEFORE we start buliding. There are many buildings no where near capacity and as telework continues this is a fantastic opportunity for transformation of properties. Finally, while the Alexandria codes are more restrictive than Arlington's with the size of structure that can be built on a plat of land (demo/renovation) they are STILL very liberal. Just take a look at some of the renovations post pandemic and they are really encroaching on neighbors. | Thank you for your comments. The initiative includes the study of potential zoning reforms throughout the city - industrial zones, transit oriented development areas, coordinated development districts and others. Part of the analysis will including assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods.Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 318 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I support the goals of the Zoning for Housing initiative and I think increasing the density of housing and diversifying available housing types is the way to go. That said, I am concerned about how new and old residents can get around. Are there any proposals to increase/improve transit links, particularly between Del Ray and Old Town? I'd love to see a tram come back to Commonwealth Avenue, for example. | The City's commitment to the Regional Housing Initiative includes locating a majority units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. Part of the analysis includes assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 319 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | The idea of opening up zoning restrictions on housing is amazing. In order to keep the character of neighbors in the city, will height requirements and design standards still be intact to respect those characteristics of specific neighborhoods. My concern is if the height requirements are increased too much it will dominate the streets due to lack of setbacks and the narrow streets, thus removing charm of neighborhoods. | Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods.Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 320 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | We are opposed to the City’s plans to allow multi-family dwellings in areas currently designated as single family. We live in the diverse West End where the population density is already very high. In fact, the number of single family houses in our neighborhood is dwarfed by the number of apartment complexes (both garden and high rise), condos, townhouses and duplexes. The City is challenged to provide services for us as it stands (as evidenced by the years-long closure of the jogging path through Dora Kelley Park) and this initiative would only cause City services to deteriorate further. The contention that this initiative would provide low cost housing is a fallacy. My Aunt lives in South Arlington and has seen the results of Arlington’s version of this initiative firsthand. Within the past year, builders have obtained permits for 2 lots in her neighborhood. Each lot (no larger than a third of an acre) contained 1 single family home prior to the builder purchasing it. They built 2 single family houses on one lot and are building 1 very large single family house on the second lot. The first 2 sold for just under $1 million and we have every expectation that the third will exceed that price. How is this affordable? We agree with a previous commenter’s suggestion that a better solution would be for the City to provide more affordable mortgage options to potential home buyers. This would give them the “leg up” that they need to buy a home without depreciating the value of existing homes by turning family friendly neighborhoods into social experiments. | The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the City. Recommendations, which will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session, are intended to serve as another potential tool in the City's Housing Master Plan toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, which includes the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. Please tune in on September 5 to learn more including how you can provide further input on the recommendations. |
| 321 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Is it true that this project is considering zoning changes that allow for townhouses to be be split into multi-family homes? | If you haven't had an opportunity to review the proposals, you can find descriptions on the project website: https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiatives. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune in to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 322 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The City is adding new large scale housing and changing codes to allow property owners to additional housing, but only in targeted areas of the City. How will these areas be serviced with needed facilities and amenities without solely relying on large national chains and big box stores? How will small businesses be supported to create genuine communities? | The initiative includes the study of potential zoning reforms throughout the city - industrial zones, transit oriented development areas, coordinated development districts and others. Part of the analysis will including assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods.Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 323 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | What is the City doing to encourage and ensure FAMILY housing. That is, housing options for 3, 4, or 5 people. There seem to be too many new options of only 1 or sometimes 2 bedroom apartments and not enough family options. | The intent of the initiative is to create a diversity of housing types that will be available to a diverse range of household types at various price points in various parts of the City. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 324 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | Why would Alexandria even consider increasing density since it ranks as being the most densely populated city in the state of Virginia? The infrastructure cannot sustain increasing density and the quality of life will decrease. We should instead be focusing on how to improve the quality of life of the current residents of Alexandria. | Part of the analysis includes assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatibility concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. Staff recommendations for each proposal will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council - Planning Commission work session. Please tune to learn more including how you can provide additional input. |
| 325 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | What I want to see is less shootings occurring around my neighborhood. Places like the housing on 1200 block of Madison where crime is occurring at a regular basis need to be changed, whether that is removing those who do not work or getting rid of blocks like that entirely. Integration of communities is great but the people that are integrated need to be functional members of society. There are plenty of people who make between 40-80k a year who can’t afford to live in this city those are the people that need to be given priority and who deserve public housing in this city. That’s who I want this city to prioritize. | Thank you for your comments. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 326 | | Online feedback form | 22303 | I absolutely love this and am all for upzoning for middle density and removal of parking requirements. Get people out of sitting in traffic and into nice walkable middle density | Thank you for your comments. Recommendations will be introduced on September 5 during a joint City Council-Planning Commission Work session. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 327 | | Online feedback form | | What is the City's plan to address the significant roadblocks to development that the BAR represents, especially in historic districts? E.g., some projects have been blocked/postponed because of issues such as material choice for windows. It doesn't seem fair that a group of unelected members with subjective and capricious taste can have such a broad diktat over development in Alexandria. | The scope of the Zoning for Housing initiative does not include an evaluation of Boards and Commissions. The City Council appoints members of the Board of Architectural Review and the Zoning Ordinance establishes the BAR's purpose and the extent of their review authority. The Board of Architectural review is comprised of seven volunteers who are appointed by City Council per Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance and enforce the policies and guidelines adopted by the BAR to implement their responsibilities under the ordinance. Anyone can apply and Board members serve three year terms. All policies and guidelines have been developed and adopted through a public process with input from the public. Changes to these policies and guidelines are made by the Board through public vote to reflect changes in construction technologies or methods. The Board members base their decisions on these adopted policies rather than on individual design sensibilities. Any decision of the BAR may be appealed to City Council who will then review the proposal in their place. |
| 328 | | Online feedback form | | I support the Zoning reform 100%! Please do everything you can to remove exclusionary Zoning regulations that artificially constrain supply and make housing unaffordable. When thinking about missing middle, please also create additional allowances for increases far, loosened setback requirements, and other relaxations of building codes to ensure that missing middle housing actually gets built. Thank you for making our community more inclusive! | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 329 | | Online feedback form | | One zoning improvement I would love to see for the city of Alexandria for all residential/single family zoning is to allow for more unrelated # of people within a home. Currently the regulation is limited to 4 people. People have long survived in tough conditions by being able to live with less space. Mortgages in this area are now nearly double what they were in 2019 with price and rate hikes. A "starter" $700k home is almost $5500 PITI with 5% down. Many much larger cities such as Atlanta allow for nearly 8 people in homes across all residential zoning and it doesn't cause any significant issues. This initiative would help many share the costs of expensive home ownership. | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 330 | | Online feedback form | | What is driving the desire for higher density by allowing significantly larger residential projects; the City’s commitment to COG housing growth targets can be met without the Bonus Heigh Amendment? | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 331 | | Online feedback form | | I am opposed to any effort that would allow for multi-family housing units to be built in areas zoned for single-family housing without the need for a zoning variance or other special approval. I, and I would think most people, who purchased homes in single-family neighborhoods did so because we wanted to be in such neighborhoods. We paid more for those homes because there was less density and because we understood that neighborhoods that have remained single-family for the past 80+ years would stay that way. Allowing developers to purchase single-family homes to build apartment buildings will completely change the nature of these neighborhoods for the worse. These neighborhoods were never designed to support apartment buildings and the City should not permit developers to profit at the expense of City residents. There are plenty of spaces in the City where apartment buildings can be located without completely changing the nature of existing neighborhoods. I also want to note that this entire effort seems more focused on what's better for potential future residents of the City than what is best for the existing residents who elected this Council. It seems to me a violation of whatever oath City elected officials took to intentionally harm the neighborhoods of existing residents, who chose to move to those neighborhoods for a reason, by turning these neighborhoods into a free-for-all for developers, and that includes not only single-family neighborhoods but neighborhoods like Arlandria where increases to building height and density will completely change these neighborhoods forever. It is admirable that the City wants to help alleviate what is a regional problem, but it should do so without harming existing City residents. | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 332 | | Online feedback form | | City services, including schools, emergency response, law enforcement, and social safety net are already well beyond capacity. Alexandria struggles to retain employees in these departments, and those that are there are drowning in work. City Council continues to drive residential density without addressing these very real challenges, worsening the quality of life for all City residents. Additionally, City Council relies too heavily on residential real estate taxes for funding, which these proposals will add to. What is the plan to better balance between residential and business taxes? Is it possible for City council to take a deep breath, pause and refocus on the basics so that quality of life improves for current residents? I feel they rush thru too many items and don't fully understand the wider and/or linger term impacts of their decisions. | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 333 | | Online feedback form | | What is driving the desire for higher density by allowing significantly larger residential projects; the City’s commitment to COG housing growth targets can be met without the Bonus Heigh Amendment? | Please refer to the fact sheet on the recommendations introduced during the September 5 City Council-Planning Commission work session. Staff is no longer recommending the Bonus Height proposal. https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all#Proposed2023ZoningforHousingInitiativesandDraftRecommendations. This is a recommendation by staff understanding that policymakers will review it prior to a decision. |
| 334 | | Online feedback form | | I support ADUs and additional AFFORDABLE density. What I see in Del Ray is lots subdivided to build huge homes priced for wealthy people, that pull up the prices of even the smaller houses. I would like to see those same large lots subdivided for, say, four townhouses but to have the huge houses that dwarf all else in neighborhood be banned. For development on mt Vernon Avenue I approve of the condos near the car dealerships that are set back and preserve the character of the neighborhood. | Thank you for your comments. Staff's recommendations on the proposals will be presented during a joint City Council-Planning Commission work session on September 5. Following that introduction, there will be multiple opportunities to ask questions and provide input prior to the November public hearings. Please stay engaged! |
| 335 | | Online feedback form | | Up housing density while degrading established neighborhoods. This "initiative" was taken on at the behest of what constituents. | The intent of this initiative is to help address a regional housing crisis as described in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Alexandria is participating in this initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's commitment to housing production is proportional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jurisdictions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight - that's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of property will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. |
| 336 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | Abolish zoning! A property owner should be allowed to use their property however they see fit. Nuisance laws (light/noise/air pollution, etc.) should be sufficient to allow any individual to enjoy their property without being encumbered by the use of nearby property. Don't want someone to build something on the lot across from you? Buy it. Too expensive? Too bad! Why should you get to dictate what someone else does with property that they, NOT YOU, own? Why should a neighbor (or a group of neighbors, i.e. local government) get to tell an individual what they can and cannot do with the property that they have legally purchased, the use of which does not directly impact them? "That 8-plex down the street WILL directly impact me, I'll have to look at it!" That is not an impact - that is a change. You prattle on about your beloved "neighborhood character", which seems to be defined as exactly what everything looked like when you moved in to the neighborhood six years ago. "The roads can't handle it!" I bet they can. And if, against all odds, they can't, then it is the responsibility of local government to account for change and accommodate it, not to prevent change in the first place. "You're going to outlaw my home!" Uhhh... no? If you want to build a single-family home on land you've bought, go for it. If instead, you feel like building a quadplex, or an office building, or a playground only you can use, go for it. Just don't tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own land. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 337 | | Email | | Follow up to 7/1 comment: Thank you. So 65 affordable units in all of the current oak ill’s development. How many total units are going in/planned? How does the affordable housing towers project at Glebe and Mount Vernon impact the city’s goals? What are the city’s goals with the bonus height amendment for neighborhoods like Del Ray and Rosemont and the rest of the city? And will the city allow developers to pay a fine instead of meeting the stateside affordability goals? I am trying to understand the percentage of current versus bonus height amendment objectives. I am also concerned with a bait and switch where we end up surrounded by 6 story buildings in the name of affordability, but just end up with significant density and not real impact to affordability. And one final question, what is the corny planning to account for the increase in the public school numbers and school increase to all city services? | The staff reports linked in the previous response provide the breakdown and mix of uses: Block A1 (324 residential units), Block A2 (Inova medical facility), Block B (253 residential units), Block C (future development), Block D (84 townhomes). See the report for additional community benefits provided by the development.(https://media.alexandriava.gov/docs-archives/planning/info/masterplan/mpa202000003.pdf).
Housing Alexandria’s (https://www.housingalexandria.org) Mount Vernon/Glebe project has two components: a 416-unit mixed-income rental community affordable to households with incomes between 40% and 80% of the area median income; and a 58-unit committed affordable condominium community. The project’s rental units affordable at 40-60% AMI contribute to the City’s Housing Master Plan goals to create new affordability in 2,000 units by 2025; the remaining units contribute to the City’s regional housing goals to create 2,250 low- to moderate-income units through 2030. The project is distinguished by its commitment to expand housing options at deeper levels of affordability (40% AMI), provide a range of family-sized units, and incorporate affordable first-time homebuyer units. In addition to the affordable housing, there are other important community benefits created by the community which are described in the staff report (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5378258&GUID=38DA141D-03FD-424A-BEA4-52608F8592E5)
With respect to the proposed amendment to Section 7-703 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff is exploring a potential strategy to incentivize more use of this existing section (Bonus Height) in order to expand both market rate and affordable housing. Currently it can be utilized in zones with a height of more than 50 feet. This initiative is exploring its use in areas with height limits of 45 feet or more - representing a change of 6 feet. This proposed change may not work in all such areas due to other regulatory factors or a property owner's decision not to use it. That said, for those areas where it might be feasible, we are currently identifying possible scenarios and creating illustratives of how it may work in a manner that is in compliance with the regulations and is harmonious to other surrounding development. The great majority of any future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan.
One point of study for each of the proposed in components under this initiative is to assess them for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. The City and ACPS work closely to regularly update our analysis of the number of students “generated” by different housing types - 88% of ACPS students live in households 30 years of age or older. Newer market-rate multifamily development houses the lowest percentage of ACPS students, with only 3% of ACPS students living in apartment or condo buildings built within the last 30 years (for reference: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ACPSStudentGenerationRatesUpdateJune2023.pdf).
Again, thank you for your comments. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 338 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I oppose the initiative to "expand opportunities" for affordable housing by eliminating single family zoning requirements. Without any requirement to build affordable housing, developers can and will take advantage to build high end condos and multi-family units. The economic incentives here will not benefit residents in need of affordable housing. The ONLY party this proposal will benefit is developers. Any city council member who approves this initiative under the guise of "increasing affordable housing" loses all credibility. Alexandrians DO NOT support this. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 339 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am writing today with serious concerns about the "Expanding Housing Opportunities in Single Family Zones" initiative". I am against the proposal to eliminate Single Family Zoning. Here are some of my concerns: 1. Alexandria infrastructure and schools are already woefully inadequate. Increasing density will only enhance these problems. Alexandria is already very dense. From the Alex times: "Only 14% of housing units in our city are detached single-family homes, which places it on par with large cities like Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. – and lower than Los Angeles (38%), Chicago (27%) and Queens (20%). For local comparison, Fairfax County is at 47% detached single-family homes and Arlington County at 27%. Nationally, single-family homes are 63% of all housing units." 2. Alexandria has quiet, historic, character filled, tree-lined neighborhoods. Alexandria will lose its charm if we allow developers to tear down SFHs and build luxury condos and multi-family units in these quiet residential single family neighborhoods. 3. This potential zoning change will only accelerate teardowns of the most affordable SFHs still in the city. The most affordable homes in desirable areas will be the first to be torn down and developed as multi-unit luxury homes/condos, etc. The most immediate result of this initiative is in direct conflict with the actual goal here. I support increasing affordable housing but this is not an effective way to do it. Honestly this initiative seems to be only in the best interest of the developers and anyone connected to them. Additionally, many Alexandrians that I've spoken to do not know about this initiative AND were absolutely opposed to it when I told them. The SFH zoning piece has been lost in the conversation and many people do not realize this is on the table, so they have not commented. I think this would be an immensely unpopular decision. I am a longtime resident of Alexandria and LOVE this city. The gorgeous, historic neighborhoods are an important part of what makes Alexandria a unique place in the DMV that attracts both tourists and potential residents. Please do not let this initiative ruin that. | Thank you for sharing your concerns. A few points: Single-family zones, where the only dwelling type that can be constructed is a single family detached house, account for 5.17 square miles or 34% of the total land area of the city. Staff is looking at single-family only zones, not to eliminate them but to study the potential expansion of housing types within those zones, such as exploring the current limit of one household per lot and the potential benefits of allowing a greater number of households per lot in those zones. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the city's neighborhoods. One point of study for each of the proposed in components under this initiative is to asses them for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. The City and ACPS work closely to regularly update our analysis of the number of students “generated” by different housing types - 88% of ACPS students live in households 30 years of age or older. Newer market-rate multifamily development houses the lowest percentage of ACPS students, with only 3% of ACPS students living in apartment or condo buildings built within the last 30 years (for reference: https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ACPSStudentGenerationRatesUpdateJune2023.pdf). Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 340 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | Alexandria's current zoning includes R2-5 zoning, allowing 2 homes on a 5,000 square foot lot. These zones also allow ADUs, meaning each home only requires about 1,250 square feet of land. All current single-family zoned areas should allow at least the same ratio of lot size to homes, if not more. The more homes on a lot, the more affordable each home will be | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 341 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | There is entirely too much building and no new roads. When some of the new builds on Route 1 are occupied traffic will come to a standstill. We are losing the charm of Old Town with all this building and over crowding. The other traffic problem are all the no turn on red signs. Why can't the City put in the yellow flashing alerts that pedestrians are crossing instead. Enough already! | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 342 | | Online feedback form | 22308 | Do not change single family housing. We moved to neighborhoods that are single family for good reasons and don’t want our neighborhoods changed into multiple housing. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 343 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | What are the affordability goals of the current housing construction along route 1 near Potomac yard? | If you are referring to the development occurring in the Oakville Triangle area of the city (across from Potomac Yard), in December 2020 City Council approved the Concept Plan for the site (https://media.alexandriava.gov/docs-archives/planning/info/masterplan/mpa202000003.pdf), the affordable housing goals for which are consistent with the City's Housing Master Plan and include 65 set-aside rental units affordable to households with incomes at 60% of the area median income (exclusive of utilities) for a period of 35 years. These units are to be provided through a combination of units in the multi-family buildings on Blocks A1 and B, and the future development on Block C. For reference, the development approval for Blocks A1 and B can be found in the materials posted for the January 23, 2021 City Council Docket: https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4749780&GUID=B2AB97E5-5BCD-4DA8-B9F7-27F35ED70A05. |
| 344 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | It seems unfair that we continue to raise property taxes on individuals (60+) whose home values have increased but have actual incomes that are significantly less than those individuals who are being subsidized for workforce and affordable housing. Yes, our property values have gone up, but we are now using up over 75% of our income simply to pay for property taxes, property and health insurance. There must be a better way than to squeeze longtime fiscally responsible residents out of the City because it is nearly impossible to continue to pay for property taxes and have a reasonable standard of living…while the focus is and continues to be on subsidizing others who actually have higher annual incomes. | Thank you for raising this concern. The City has a Real Estate Tax Relief and Assistance Program for Elderly and Disabled Persons. Information including how to apply can be found on https://www.alexandriava.gov/taxes/real-estate-tax-relief-and-assistance-program-for-elderly-and-disabled-persons or by calling 703.746.4800. |
| 345 | | Online feedback form | | PLEASE stop approving high density housing for Old Town. As a homeowner, our streets are already overcrowded and in disrepair. Additional people and cars will only add to this issue. Old Town is in danger of losing its charm which also equals tourist dollars for the city. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 346 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am a home-owner in North-Ridge at the edge of Del Ray, and have lived in Alexandria for over decade in multiple locations--Eisenhower East, North Old Town close to Potomac Yards, and now on the edge of Del Ray. I am strongly opposed to any zoning changes that fundamentally alter the character of an established neighborhood--such as adding much taller or higher buildings to low-lying neighborhood like Del Ray, or adding multi-family housing in a neighborhood in an exclusively or majority single-family housing. I am not opposed to incentivizing more similar density housing in commercial pockets near residential areas, such as replacing some commercial-zone pockets in/near Del Ray (or other residential neighborhood) with more townhouses, duplexes, or small multi-unit apartment buildings that are consistent or integrate well with the surrounding residential neighborhood's style and building character. Alexandria's major advantage over large swaths of Arlington is that Alexandria has neighborhoods that feel walkable but also remain charming and low-lying--the best parts of Alexandria (like Old Town and Del Ray) are a happy medium between suburban sprawl and McMansions on the one hand, and high-rise, extremely dense city-style living on the other hand. Those areas should retain their medium-density and low to mid-rise building heights, or else the character of the neighborhood, the long-term stability of the community there, and the property values, all will be destroyed. | Thank you for your comments - yes, as part of the analysis of all 9 components of the Zoning for Housing initiative, staff will be evaluating any unintended consequences from any proposal that eventually comes forth. Please keep in mind that findings and any potential recommendations will be shared with the community for input in late summer/early fall.
Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue - if your comment is referencing that – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 347 | | Online feedback form | 22392 | Comment in Del Ray Bonaventure development | Thank you. |
| 348 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am curious how you plan to preserve the historic nature of Del Ray while accommodating more mixed use housing. Will you keep Main Street (Mt Vernon) as is or allow older buildings to be razed to make room for high rises? | Redevelopment along Mt. Vernon Avenue in Del Ray is governed by the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, adopted in 2005 (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Any redevelopment a property owner considers must adhere to the recommendations in that Plan as well as requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of the proposed initiatives under Zoning for Housing will be assesed so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. The issue of tear downs is hardly a new one in Del Ray – the Del Ray Civic Association asked one of our staff to come to a couple of years ago to talk about the options a community can pursue. One option is to establish a Board of Architectural Review that reviews every project including demos, but this would limit a homeowners ability to change their property. There are less intensive options. Most of these things are in use somewhere around the country – if folks are interested in pursuing this, it’s important to have a community aligned in that approach and we offered that recommendation a couple of years ago. Such questions are beyond the scope of Zoning for Housing, which will only look at the extent to which the proposals could stimulate the pace of change. |
| 349 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I’m a Del Ray homeowner and fully support the initiative. I saw the proposed zoning changes for Del Ray/Mr. Vernon Ave and welcome the changes. It is a great neighborhood and I welcome more neighbors in and lowering our insane housing prices. We need more density and this is a sensible approach. Thank you. | Thank you for your comments. Staff is still conducting analysis on all Zoning for Housing components and will present findings and recommendations in the fall. Please stay engaged and be on the look out for late summery/early fall community engagement opportunities. |
| 350 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | 1. Give consideration to other areas in the DMV region and what is happening with them. Otherwise all this apartment development is just going to turn Alexandria into the place you go to get a cheap apartment until you can afford to live somewhere nicer and with better schools. 2. Zoning needs to follow schools. Jefferson Houston is the worst performing elementary school possibly in the entire DMV region, middle and high school isn’t better. Why concentrate poverty in this school zone? How is that fair and equitable to people who need affordable housing. Build affordable housing where the highest performing schools are located. 3. Do not allow new development until previous development has less than 20% vacancy. Right now apartment owners are preferring more vacancy to keep rent high. If you’re trying to drive down prices with supply, force the issue. 4. If you’re encouraging more renting and less owner-occupied housing, we need rent control or in a few years rising rents will create stress 5. If you consider bonus height, the requirement should be the top floors and premium location units are the affordable units. Otherwise developers just trade off low profit units for high priced pent houses enabled by bonus heights. 6. All buildings should be warranties to last 50 years otherwise we will have decaying apartment complexes 7. Schools schools schools. Families need good schools as much as they need affordable housing. Our schools trail the whole region. DC public schools - which are diverse with many low income students - are thriving. So can we. | Thank you for these very thoughtful comments - they will be forwarded to each of the project manager's for this initiative. A couple of points - The City's intent is to locate affordable units in mixed-income communities as you suggest. For example, the Samuel Madden project in the Braddock area is redeveloping into a mixed-income community which will include market-rate units as well as deeply affordable and workforce units. The goal is for these mixed income projects is that all of the units are integrated. Several similar projects are occuring throughout the city. Also, another goal of this initiative is to allow different types of housing throughout the city that would include neighborhoods where all schools are located. The Zoning for Housing initiative is just one potential 'tool' in the City's toolbox to address housing supply and affordability, envisioned to supplment other tools and approaches, which include the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing provides a range of services to homeowners and homebuyers, including first-time homebuyer training, reduced interest financing, and access to resale restricted affordable units, in partnership with Virginia Housing. |
| 351 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | What changes have been made to the Bonus Height Text Amendment since the Planning Commission asked for further review? Some of the areas shown on the map with height limits of 45’ (like Warwick Village) include houses that are relatively affordable. Tearing down of existing affordable housing shouldn’t be incentivized by the BHTA. | This year, staff is exploring this potential strategy to incentivize more use of the existing Section 7-703 of the Zoning Ordinance (Bonus Height) in order to both expand market rate and affordable housing. This initiative would further explore use of the Bonus Height provision in zones with height limits of 45 feet or more. Currently it can be utilized in zones with a height of more than 50 feet the proposal represents a limited change of 6 feet. Any further findings and/or recommendations will be shared with the community later this summer or early fall.
The map presented last year identifies areas of the city where bonus height would be eligible based on existing allowable bulding heights. This proposed change may not work in all such areas due to other regulatory factors or a property owner's decision not to use it. That said, for those areas where it might be feasible, we are currently identifying possible scenarios and creating illustratives of how it may work in a manner that is in compliance with the regulations and is harmonious to other surrounding development. Part of the analysis will include assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. For this project, we’re looking at the issue of tear downs with regard to any of our proposals. The issue of tear downs is hardly a new one in Del Ray – the Del Ray Civic Association asked one of our staff to come to a couple of years ago to talk about the options a community can pursue. One option is to establish a Board of Architectural Review that reviews every project including demos, but this would limit a homeowners ability to change their property. There are less intensive options. Most of these things are in use somewhere around the country – if folks are interested in pursuing this, it’s important to have a community aligned in that approach and we offered that recommendation a couple of years ago. Such questions are beyond the scope of Zoning for Housing, which will only look at the extent to which the proposals could stimulate the pace of change. |
| 352 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Will lots be allowed to be consolidated in SFH zones to build a larger building than could be built on a single lot? This may allow for a structure that is not to scale to the existing neighborhood and could negatively affect the property values of the existing homeowners. If lots are allowed to be consolidated, and enough properties are bought, could they be rezoned as RMF? In other words, could large projects like the Heritage be built in an area with only single family housing? | Your questions point to what staff is researching through this initiative. All findings and/or recommendations will be shared with the community in late summer/early fall for additional input. Please continue to stay engaged for further information and updates. |
| 353 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The lot size, setbacks, FAR, height, parking, open space, etc. for each residential zone regulate the size and density of a proposed housing structure. Will the zoning regulations for each zone apply to the various housing types the city is proposing including multi-family buildings? If the proposed structure (other than a single family house) meets the zone’s requirements, will it be allowed by right or will it go through a SUP process? | These questions are exactly what staff are evaluating - particular to the potential expansion of housing types in the single-family only zones, staff is exploring the current limit of one household per lot and the potential benefits of allowing a greater number of households per lot in those zones. We anticipate bringing findings and recommendations to the community in late summer/early fall. Please continue to stay engaged for further information and updates. |
| 354 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Are you considering traffic, narrow streets (which cannot be widened) and parking? I own a home without a driveway and already am starting to have trouble parking in front of or near my house. The streets are also very narrow with parking on only one side. All aspects of development, including traffic, crowding, and infrastructure should be considered, not just how to pack as many people into spaces that may not be able to handle the volume and potentially destroying neighborhoods or making them miserable to live in. I agree that addressing housing is important but I hope it will be done by thinking about how any potential plan could impact all aspects of the community, not just the pure number of units and price. | Yes, a point of study for each of the proposed initiatives under Zoning for Housing to asses them for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. |
| 355 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | All of the talk about affordable housing in ‘Housing for All’ is about rental housing, property owners/re gets, etc. There seem to be no initiatives to develop affordable housing for residents to purchase. I am disappointed in this fact, given how many Alexandrians would love to stay here and raise families after they grow up, but they cannot afford to purchase a home. This is particularly true for teachers, police, fire, and other public servants. It’s very disappointing. Is there anything under way to address the lack of affordable home ownership opportunities? | You raise a very important point - the Zoning for Housing initiative is just one potential set of new tools in the City's 'tool box' to address the City's housing supply and affordability crisis. It is envisioned to supplement other tools and approaches, which include the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing also provides homebuyer resources to support homeownership - https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources |
| 356 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Where exactly is the 577,000 square feet of development intended to be placed along Mount Vernon Ave. What streets/areas in Delray will be impacted by new zoning that will allow multiple units where previous lots were intended for only single family homes? | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 357 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | You will ruin the small town feel if del ray! The dev on Eisenhower Ave and west end are too dense. Do not do this! | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 358 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | 577,000 sq feet of development in del ray? No! | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 359 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | The fabric and physical character of existing older neighborhoods should remain. These are vital to the city and make this city a place where people want to live, work, and visit. More building like is seen on RT 1 and in north Old Town will ruin neighborhood character and make this city look like Arlington -- all the same and not interesting. The variety of neighborhood character is what makes this city appealing and why people want to live and visit here. Please build in areas that are not already established. You can not go back once that character is gone (for those of us who remember razing in Old Town several decades ago). Additionally, if building were to happen in existing older areas, the density will be unbearable for current residents -- it's already crowded and getting around can be challenging -- not to mention infrastructure that would need to be added to accommodate this. Please develop in areas that are not as established in the city. | The initiative includes the study of potential zoning reforms throughout the city - industrial zones, transit oriented development areas, coordinated development districts and others. Part of the analysis will including assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. Findings and any potential recommendations will be shared with the community for input later this summer/early fall. Please continue to stay engaged for further information and updates. |
| 360 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I have lived in Alexandria since 1985, and my husband and I raised three children here. We’ve always loved the City’s small town atmosphere and feel. But we are increasingly concerned that our mayor and City Council are going to totally destroy that City we love by continually approving massive new development projects, which have and will greatly increase population density — but without upgrading needed infrastructure. We strongly oppose the proposed development in Del Ray. Please don’t turn our City into another Crystal City. | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 361 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I just saw the map of the proposed area in Del Ray that you want rezone. NO WAY!! Del Ray is historic and should not be rezoned. This is total BS. | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 362 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am deeply concerned about the level of building without consideration for the impact to traffic. Individually, these projects look great but when you add them all up and look at the effects cumulatively, it is clear we are overbuilding. In terms of zoning, I looked at the map. I think R12 Represents the Hume Springs neighborhood and I think integrity of the neighborhood would be compromised to change the zoning to multifamily. I also object to changing zoning that would cause residents to have to leave their homes. Secondly, I support local businesses and recent sales of houses on West Glebe between Mt Vernon and Russell Road have caused great local businesses to leave our area. I do not support the building of a multifamily complex at the corner of Mt Vernon and W Glebe. The Housing for all title? Is it really? | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue, if your comments are in reference to that – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 363 | | Online feedback form | 22311 | I encourage the city to strive to preserve the existing entry-level single-family homes and encourage developers to build new ones. | Thank you for your comments. Any findings or recommendations resulting from staff analysis will be shared with the community in later summer/early fall. Please continue to stay engaged for further information and updates. |
| 364 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | We are against adding new housing development to the del Ray area. | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue, if your comment is in reference to that – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 365 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | We do not support more density. It is already very congested and crime seems to be increasing around us. We've had our car broken into and our tires stolen from our minivan. There is a co stant problem with people not picking up after there dogs and dogs off-leash behind our house. Everytime we drive on Monroe, people walk in the road and park all over the place in businesses parking lots, on private streets, in loading and fire lanes. We are strongly against more density. We instead support more high schools because it is asinine that there is only one for a city of this size. | Thank you for your comments. Please stay engaged to learn about findings and potential recommendations later this summer/early fall. Staff will share these for additional community input. |
| 366 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Please do NOT add development to this proposed area. We are positively overwhelmed in our city's schools. I have 6 children in ACPS, and their needs are already not being properly met. So much additional housing would be a nightmare for our city's schools. | Staff is unclear as to which are you're referencing; however, no findings or recommendations have been developed yet by this initiative. If your question is regarding the Del Ray area, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 367 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Please preserve the historic business district in Del Ray by NOT increasing density!! | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 368 | | Online feedback form | 22311 | Once again the the city staff show total lack of understanding of the uniqueness of Alexandria Neighborhoods as they strive to recreate Crystal City and Balston type developments in Alexandria. The Mayor and City Council have shown no ability or desire to stand up for citizens - only to satisfy and insatiable hunger for growth. Vote folks. | The intent of this initiative is to help address a regional housing crisis as described in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable.
That’s one of the things we are doing - we're also looking back at past policies, laws and practices that may have resulted in systematic discrimation and that may have left vestiges even today that impact of lives of persons of color in terms of access to decent and affordable housing and other quality of life factors. It is important to recognize if/where this may exist and to correct it so that all Alexandrians can live in an environment of fairness and equity. |
| 369 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I have lived in Alexandria since 1989 and Del Ray since 1997, my three children were born here and educated at ACPS. I am upset that the current initiative really has not included the input of residents of the neighborhood that are most impacted. Further under the guise of affordable housing, I think initiatives are being pushed forward to build multistoried buildings and change the zoning to allow townhouses and so called granny suites to increase density. However, I think the main beneficiaries will be developers and folks renting AirBnBs. Real initiatives would establish programs to assist first time owners with down payments. I think what you will see is an increase in teardowns, a change in the character of Mt. Vernon Avenue; but not more affordable housing. | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue, if your comment is in reference to that – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 370 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | This proposal should effectively kill Delray as a family neighborhood. Try a referendum to get the Delray resident position on anything like this before you do anything. | There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 371 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | While I absolutely DO want to see more affordable housing for city residents, the increase in density and height zoning rely on developers "promises" for more "affordable" housing. However this has not historically actually produced more affordable housing - it produces more $$ in the developers pockets. Additionally - while the city has flooding issues, removing green space and adding more concrete and buildings will only worsen the problem. | Thank you for your comments. The Bonus Height component of the Zoning for Housing initaitive is just one of 11 to address the housing supply and affordability crisis. The analysis includes evaluating the components to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. |
| 372 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | A noble cause. It seems to me that the only really stable/sustainable way to approach this is to create vastly more opportunities for home ownership. Multi-family buildings with time-limited affordable units only push the issue of affordable housing down the road. Better to provide more pathways to home ownership. Thank you. | You raise a very important point - the Zoning for Housing initiative is just one potential set of new tools in the City's 'tool box' to address the City's housing supply and affordability crisis. It is envisioned to supplement other tools and approaches, which include the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. The Office of Housing also provides homebuyer resources to support homeownership - https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources |
| 373 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I firmly believe that every city needs a diverse range of housing options. Everything from apartment towers to condo buildings, to row houses to single-family homes. Even NYC, which is densely populated by any standard, includes significant areas that are zone for single-family homes. Further, as regards the racial rationales for abolishing or near-abolishing zoning, inflicting new injustices in an attempt to redress old ones from decades ago usually just makes things worse. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. To be clear, staff is not proposing to abolish zoning but look at ways for current zones to be more inclusive in terms of housing choice. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 374 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The city lacks the necessary resources and services to support an influx of new residents that would come with increased housing construction. | Staff is evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. |
| 375 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Has the City done projections for how many possible affordable housing units (rental or purchase) may be added in the Del Ray neighborhood if the bonus height amendment goes through? If so, please provide the projected numbers. If the City has not done so, please explain why not. While there are clearly variables out of the City’s control, it appears important to determine through some legitimate analysis what “benefit” can be derived from this proposal. The proposal is not neutral to the neighborhood as it could significantly alter the look and feel of the “small town” vibe for which Del Ray is popular. So to allow a cost/benefit analysis (by the City and its citizens), it appears necessary to demonstrate how much bang the city could get for this proposed change. To be very straightforward - before I register my opinion to the City Council and Mayor - I want to know whether there is actual potential for meaning increases in affordable housing in the Del Ray neighborhood. I need to see projections so I can determine whether it is worth it to me - to potentially lose the feel of my small town neighborhood in exchange for more affordable housing. Otherwise I will continue to worry this will help developers more than those seeking affordable housing. This seems to be a very likely outcome for the Glendale Ave apartments which currently provides many with affordable housing. | Staff is currently conducting analysis to address your question and findings/potential recommendations will be shared with the community in later summer/early fall. Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue, if your comment is in reference to that – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 376 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Building additional housing in the Seminary Hill neighborhood would strain the already congested roads, making commuting and daily transportation even more challenging for residents. | Thank you for your comments, which will be shared with staff as part of their ongoing analysis. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. |
| 377 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I oppose this plan for several reasons: 1. Preservation of property rights: Zoning for all initiatives could infringe upon the property rights of individual property owners. Property owners should have the freedom to use and develop their properties within the established zoning regulations that were in place when they made their investments. Imposing a blanket zoning policy that overrides existing regulations could undermine property rights and create uncertainty for property owners. 2. Impact on neighborhood character: Alexandria is home to diverse neighborhoods, each with its own unique character and ambiance. Implementing a zoning for all policy may lead to a homogenization of neighborhoods, erasing the distinct characteristics that attract residents and contribute to the city's charm. Preserving the diversity and character of neighborhoods should be a priority. 3. Strain on infrastructure and services: Expanding zoning to allow for all types of development without proper planning and consideration of infrastructure capacity could strain existing systems. Increased population density without corresponding improvements to transportation, schools, healthcare, and other essential services may lead to overcrowding, decreased quality of life, and an inability to meet the needs of residents. 4. Potential for overdevelopment: Zoning for all initiatives without adequate checks and balances may open the door to excessive development without regard for the long-term impact on the city's livability and sustainability. Without proper oversight, there is a risk of urban sprawl, loss of green spaces, increased traffic congestion, and strain on resources. 5. Preservation of open spaces and natural environment: Alexandria is known for its parks, waterfront areas, and natural beauty. A zoning for all approach could threaten the preservation of these valuable open spaces, harming biodiversity, reducing recreational opportunities, and diminishing the overall quality of life for residents. Protecting and maintaining these natural assets should be a priority in zoning decisions. 6. Impact on affordable housing goals: While zoning for all initiatives may aim to address housing affordability concerns, a one-size-fits-all approach may not effectively achieve those goals. Affordability requires a comprehensive strategy that considers various factors, including targeted affordable housing programs, partnerships with developers, and incentives for affordable housing construction. Merely allowing for all types of development may not ensure the availability of affordable housing options for all income levels. 7. Consideration of community input: Implementing a zoning for all policy against community feedback and input may lead to a lack of representation and disregard for the concerns and preferences of local residents. Decisions on zoning should involve meaningful dialogue with community members, ensuring that their voices are heard and considered in shaping the future of their neighborhoods. | Thank you for these very important points, all of which will be shared with staff. To be clear, staff has not presented a plan and all of your comments are part of the analysis being conducted with the Zoning for Housing initiative. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. A couple of comments: Typically, the concept of "a loss of the property rights conferred through zoning" is when a zoning ordinance is changed to reduce the options available to a property owner. Zoning for Housing is is primarily looking at options that would expand options for property owners. So, for example, in the case of property owners in neighborhoods that only allow the construction of single-family detached houses, Zoning for Housing is not proposing to restrict a property owner's ability to build a single family detached house but is evaluating whether it makes sense to allow them to build more than one housing unit on their property. A program that expands, rather than restricts, options for property owners does not infringe on the rights of those property owners. Also, Part of the analysis will include assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing as well as gauging impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. |
| 378 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | Aren’t the schools way overcrowded? What’s the plan there? | The City and ACPS collaborate closely on the calculation of student 'generation' rates to estimate the number of students that are expected to join the school system from new residential development. ACPS coordinates with the City to review, plan and allocate needed resources. Joint projects including how student 'generation' is estimated can be found on this page https://www.alexandriava.gov/neighborhood-development/basic-page/joint-city-acps-capital-planning-initiatives-and-implementation. |
| 379 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I oppose this for many reasons but one is timing. Amazon just announced a major scale back and Arlington is building furiously. Let’s let it settle out before we do anything. Affordable housing generally costs more in services than it generates in tax. If we overbuild and the market turns the city will be burdened with services at a much lower tax base. | The existing deficit in the supply of both affordable and market rate housing is so great that the danger of overbuilding is, in staff's opinion, non-existent. Prior to Amazon's announcement to locate in the area, the region was studying the need for additional housing which is documented through census data. The supply is not keeping pace with the demand causing prices to be higher than many can afford -- 15,000 households pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, leaving little funds for other necessities to help them in maintaining a healthy and sustainable decent quality of life. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. |
| 380 | | Online feedback form | 22206 | Building more housing will further strain the already overburdened school system in Alexandria, compromising the quality of education for our children. | The City and ACPS collaborate closely on the calculation of student 'generation' rates to estimate the number of students that are expected to join the school system from new residential development. ACPS coordinates with the City to review, plan and allocate needed resources. Joint projects including how student 'generation' is estimated can be found on this page https://www.alexandriava.gov/neighborhood-development/basic-page/joint-city-acps-capital-planning-initiatives-and-implementation. |
| 381 | | Online feedback form | 22303 | if they start building more housing in our little slice of Alexandria, it's gonna feel like we're living on top of each other. We love our space and don't want to lose that cozy neighborhood vibe | Thank you for your comments, which will be shared with staff as part of their ongoing analysis. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. |
| 382 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | 300 units a year? Where will those kids go to school? | The City and ACPS collaborate closely on the calculation of student 'generation' rates to estimate the number of students that are expected to join the school system from new residential development. ACPS coordinates with the City to review, plan and allocate needed resources. Joint projects including how student 'generation' is estimated can be found on this page https://www.alexandriava.gov/neighborhood-development/basic-page/joint-city-acps-capital-planning-initiatives-and-implementation. |
| 383 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | I really hate the plan. Boo city council. Booooo! | Staff is unclear as to which plan you are referencing. No plans have been proposed as a result of this phase of the Zoning for Housing initiative. Staff intends to share findings/recommendations to the community later this summer or early fall. Please continue to stay engaged for further information and updates. |
| 384 | | Online feedback form | 22333 | How will this affect our goal of increasing tree canopy coverage? Global warming is the greatest risk we face! | Thank you for this very important question - part of our analysis includes evaluating each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative to the environment, traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. Findings and any potential recommendations for each of the Zoning for Housing initiatives will be shared with the community in late summer or early fall for further input. |
| 385 | | Online feedback form | 22333 | Can the city council please show their math? I feel like this is going to be a budget drain | Staff is conducting analysis for each component of the Zoning for Housing initiative and will share findings/recommendations in later summer/early fall for community input. If you're referencing Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments (Resolution adopted on March 14, 2020), the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. |
| 386 | | Online feedback form | 22334 | It’s hard to take this take seriously the city council’s claims that it seeks “community input” when it reply’s with the same canned response over and over again. | Community input is very important to the City. Our intent is to provide consistent responses to similar questions. If you feel that your questions have not been answered, please do not hesitate to contact us. |
| 387 | | Email | 22301 | I rise in strong opposition & in dissent to the proposed Section 7-703 of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing an increase in building height above three stories on Mount Vernon Avenue in the Del Ray area of Alexandria, VA - as unnecessary, ill-supported, and not at all "in character" for the surrounding communities. The City Council should be ashamed of themselves for letting anything like this happen to our communities.
As a twenty-year resident of the area in question, the potential increase to anything over three stories creates an "URBAN CANYON" effect that is unacceptable to anyone who knows of such urban decay. The over commercialization and local use demographics proposed is not required since the recent increase in housing density at Potomac Yard occured! And there is NOT sufficient resources for Fire & Rescue, and Water & Sewer for the proposed increased density & utilization. Neighborhoods already suffered from the closing of the fire house in Del Ray, and now the city wants to make things far worse?!
The potential for ruining the art on the avenue and other local community events is palpable. No one will want to come to an urban canyon to walk the streets. This already can be seen in Crystal City and Arlington - and we just don't need to do it. Our schools are already suffering from the increased load and tax increases. This is simply not welcome!
And if another Del Raco weather event ever hits again, the community will suffer because of the high wind like funneling that will occur. Raco is the name given to a strong (gusts up to 17 m/s), caused by warm, and dry down-valley winds observed at the exit of Canyons. This climatology is already documented in Alexandria based on years of wind surface measurements from Arlington Ridge and Alexandria. The sudden appearance of Raco winds at the surface can be accompanied by conspicuous warming (up to 10°C) and drying (up to 3 g/kg). Raco winds are associated with a strong along-canyon pressure gradient, a regional pressure fall, and clear skies. During a Raco, a nocturnal easterly jet of air at or below 700m AGL will descend rapidly to the surface, producing the raco effect. If it transects along an urban canyon - a sharp frontlike weather feature occurs and the raco-produced winds in the Urban Canyon can increase to well over 120kph (to E4 to E5 intensities). | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. With respect to the proposed amendment to Section 7-703 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff is exploring this potential strategy to incentivize more use of this existing section (Bonus Height) in order to both expand market rate and affordable housing. Currently it can be utilized in zones with a height of more than 50 feet. This initiative is exploring its use in areas with height limits of 45 feet or more - representing a change of 6 feet. This proposed change may not work in all such areas due to other regulatory factors or a property owner's decision not to use it. That said, for those areas where it might be feasible, we are currently identifying possible scenarios and creating illustratives of how it may work in a manner that is in compliance with the regulations and is harmonious to other surrounding development. Part of the analysis will include assessing each of the proposed initiatives for unintended consequences. |
| 388 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | The Parker-Gray District does not have the same opportunities for economic improvement of residential property as the Old and Historic Alexandria District. Parker-Gray is predominately RB zoned which only allows for a 0.75 FAR while the Old and Historic Alexandria District is predominately RM zoned and allows for a 1.5 FAR. | Zoning for Housing's Townhouse initiative is reviewing the differences in Alexandria's townhouse zones, including the differences in permitted FAR. |
| 389 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | How will zoning for housing help make community-oriented development more possible? Will changes help to make things like cooperative housing or land banks more feasible in the City? | Yes, community-oriented development is a focus of Zoning for Housing, and is also a focus of the City’s Housing Master Plan. For example, a Zoning for Housing initiative that has already been implemented allows “co-living” or communal housing to be built in the City. |
| 390 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I chose to purchase a home in Del Ray, as opposed to Clarendon or Ballston, due to the unique character of the neighborhood. If this housing rezoning is pushed through, our neighborhood will be forever changed. I am trying to understand the push for so much new housing in Del Ray. I think back to when I was younger. I worked on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, however I could not afford to live on the Upper West Side, so I rented an apartment in Queens, NY. It never crossed my mind that I should ask for housing to built on the Upper West Side. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 391 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am not in favor of changing zoning from single family to multi family. In addition, I do not want to change the character of Mt Vernon Ave by allowing buildings of more than 3 stories to be built | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 392 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | As a homeowner in Del Ray, I enthusiastically support the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiatives to increase housing capacity and affordability, including modification (or elimination) of single-family housing zones and codes. I would also recommend revisiting any restrictions regarding height extensions or adding floors to existing duplexes / townhomes, reviewing and possibly relaxing any restrictions on building-to-lot-size ratios, and reviewing and possibly relaxing any restrictions on accessory dwelling units. To address traffic and parking, I would suggest that it may be reasonable to convert some of the two-way streets in Del Ray to one-way, that it may be reasonable to create new/modified bus routes from Del Ray to the newly-opened Potomac Metro station, and I would support any ordinances that required parking structures of more than 20 spaces to be multi-level parking garages rather than lots, thereby increasing capacity with the same surface footprint. And lastly, in order to prevent further straining electric utilities as a result of greater housing density, I would suggest that the City consider requiring any building construction/expansions/additions/ to meet an extraordinarily high sustainability threshold, through a combination of practices such as high-thermal-efficiency building practices (e.g., "Net-zero"), the selection of heatpumps rather than traditional air conditioners, the addition of on-site electric generation capacity, and the implementation of low-water/drought-tolerant landscaping practices. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 393 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am an almost 25-year resident of Del Ray & am very concerned about new housing/development being planned for a neighborhood, road’s & infrastructure that cannot support it. I urge you to reconsider large scale building plans in this community. Duplexes or small garden apartment complexes could work but our community can’t support a large apartment building especially in the “heart” of Del Ray (the majority of Mt. Verno Ave from Commonwealth to Monroe). PLEASE reconsider. There are other areas that could support additional housing without destroying a historic neighborhood. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 394 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The city leaders are going to kill the quality of the neighborhoods in Alexandria. I am stunned that there appears to be unfettered development being suggested for Del Ray. Arlington has used their subway stops as the boundry for their high rises. Not Alexandria - every fad that is written about somewhere appears to be the plan. You have messed up Seminary Road, you are going to do that on Duke St, killing the Torpedo Factory as something we are proud of and now going to kill Del Ray. The project across from the Braddock St Metro - great. The use of the space where the paint store was at Glebe and Mt Vernon -- awesome. These were underutilized space and could handle some redevelopment. The mall next to MOM is another example where it was sitting fallow for many years. (That may or may not be Alexandria). Be smart, don't upset all of us. I am stunned that the developers seem to running roughshod over all of us. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 395 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Not in favor of this expansive development at all...traffic is bad enough as it is. This will only add cars, cars, and cars in an already congested corrider. This is a bad idea for current residents and homeowners ! Listen to the residents, please. It effects the quality of life and changes the character of our cities neighborhoods, both in Del Ray and neighboring Rosemont. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 396 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I don’t want 75 foot tall buildings in del ray, this will kill the vibe and parking will b e terrible. Also: why did the car dealerships in del ray get a waiver ? Start there if you want more housing and stop lying about your plans | Thank you for your comment. In the City's earlier outreach last year, a map was presented that identifies areas of the city where bonus height would be eligible based on existing allowable bulding heights. This proposed change may not work in all such areas due to other regulatory factors or a property owner's decision not to use it. That said, for those areas where it might be feasible, we are currently identifying possible scenarios and creating illustratives of how it may work in a manner that is in compliance with the regulations and is harmonious to other surrounding development. |
| 397 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am a homeowner on Adams ave in del Ray and amy upset by the proposed development on mount vernon avenue as well as the changes in height restrictions. I do not want an 8 story apartment building in my back yard ( literally on the other side of my fence is one of the areas for proposed apartment development). We moved to Del Ray specifically for the main street atmosphere and neighborhood feel which will clearly be altered with these changes. I am also concerned about how increased density will negatively impact traffic, parking, etc. I do not feel like the city is considering homeowner opinion and perspectives from del Ray residents. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 398 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Del Ray is one of the last welcoming, walkable and safe neighborhoods in Northern Virginia- we plead with you to not destroy the historic charm with unwanted or needed high rise monstrosities. You would ruin this gem and the true community feel that make it special. Shame on you, Justin Wilson. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 399 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am opposed to changing zoning for single family housing — but do support adding additional apartment/condo housing stock in appropriate areas. NOTE: I answered your survey but suggest you better distinguish the possible zoning changes on Question 5. I think changing zoning for additional apartments and condos is very different than changing zoning for single family housing. The survey bundles these housing types together. I think that should be changed so that respondents can more effectively provide input on this issue. I request that you make that change if possible. Thanks. | Thank you for your comments and for answering the online questionniare. The initiative underway is not intended to eliminate single-family zoning but to allow for different types of housing within those zones. We anticipate that early findings and recommendations will be shared with the community for further input in late summer to early fall, approximately two months prior to public hearings. Please continue to visit the project website for updates on each component of the initiative (alexandriava.gov/Zoning) |
| 400 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am offended that you skew the gist of re-zoning by calling it "affordable housing for all." The plan only amounts to affordable housing for a few, but big dollars in developer's pockets, plus a burden on an already taxed infrastructure, school system, green space, traffic, and small-town feel. | This initiative, Zoning for Housing/Housing for All, is comprised of several components to address housing supply as well as affordability. Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. |
| 401 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I oppose the 577,000 square feet of planned development along Mt. Vernon Ave. I believe it is wrong to sell the soul of a historic, quirky, artsy small town to developers for a minimal number of affordable dwellings. People who like that style already have to option to live in Clarendon. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 402 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I’m opposed to the densification of Alexandria. Traffic is bad and the schools are overcrowded. In the Mayor’s newsletter he informed us that the tax revenue from small apartments generally did not offset the cost of government services. How do we plan to pay for these services? Will we increase taxes on current residents? | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 403 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | Though I appreciate the desire for affordable housing, please think what the focus on rentals and apartment development does for our community. 1. Home ownership is the way most Americans transfer wealth to their children. Less owner occupied units deprives Alexandrians of that. 2. Home ownership provides economic stability. Rents go up, a lot. Mortgages don’t. 3. Alexandria has to be viewed in the context of the surrounding community. By all measures we have some of the worst public schools in the region. If you combine that with our only other defining feature being having the most cheap apartments …. Alexandria won’t be much more than the place you live in DMV until you can afford something better. 4. A few affordable units are not a good trade for variances, the only one here that wins is a builder. In exchange for a high rise penthouse they can rent at a premium, the builder provides a discount on an undesirable basement apartment? The builders are laughing all the way to the bank that we’re falling for this. 5. Old town is known for its charming European feeling downtown. It’s why many of us live here. Instead of surrounding old town with sky scrapers apartments, why not extend the blocks of old town continuing the look and feel? Townhouses, duplexes, and triplexes can maintain the same look and feel and are still reasonably dense. 6. Fix the schools before trying to support a larger, denser population. I’ve heard so many times “our schools are always going to do bad because they are diverse and we value that.” I can’t believe anyone suggests that diverse student populations don’t deserve excellent schools. Also, DC has turned around its public schools to the point people would rather DC public schools than ACPS , and DC has an incredibly diverse student population. 7. To double down on the last - if schools are not part of every discussion about housing we are having, we’re missing a major point of zoning for all. Putting our residents in dense housing that they can afford, only to send their children to schools that will fail them, is really a trap. It’s better if they live somewhere less affordable and their children read on grade level. | Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's commitment to housing production is proportional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jurisdictions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of property will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work.
Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood. T |
| 404 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | This is just developer greed, cloaked in a thin pretense of social justice activism. Adding density detracts from the quality of life; the schools and ERs and social service offices are packed to the gills already. Leave our neighborhoods the Hell alone. We paid our dues to get here, and we came here because of the quality of life here. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 405 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | In response to a prior virtual listening session, the city previously advised that it had an “analytical team” to evaluate the impact of added density on “traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, [and] public safety.” When will the community see those findings? Why would the city proceed with this rezoning without fully studying and planning for the real impact, and without a plan in place to ensure that the city can provide the needed services to its residents? | We are evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative using tools to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. We anticipate that early findings and recommendations will be shared with the community for further input in late summer to early fall, approximately two months prior to public hearings. |
| 406 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Is the city’s goal to wipe out the Main Street feel of Del Ray? The insane square footage increase is not supportable with the state of our schools. Is the intent to change the tag line to “where Main Street once existed?” Swallowing the avenue with 4-6 stories of high density, on top of the rt 1 and glebe road development risks the very reasons we chose Del Ray over other neighborhoods. Please tell me the goal is not Clarendon. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 407 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Why are you looking to destroy the neighborhood of Del Ray by adding 500,000+ square feet of commercial development. We don’t want this neighborhood ruined to feed some insane desire for more density. My basement flooded 3 summers in a row with the development of Potomac Yard. My children’s public school class had 28 children per class. The traffic is backing up on neighborhood streets 2/3rds of the way of the block. This is absolutely crazy and will destroy Del Ray. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 408 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | This isn’t a question but rather a comment. I have seen the plans for the new development in Del Ray and am strongly against it. I say this as someone who struggles to find affordable housing and recognizes the need for changes to achieve this. Adding massive development to historic neighborhoods is not the solution. Not only would this new development destroy a large part of what makes Alexandria special, I’m also quite skeptical that this will actually achieve much in terms of affordable housing. The massive development along route 1 at Potomac Yard certainly didn’t produce anything that was affordable for me, an employee teacher. All this proposal would do is benefit developers - people who already have enough money. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 409 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | As a homeowner of 20 years in DelRay, I'm concerned about the development targeted along Mt. Vernon Avenue. The monstrous development of the Potomac Yard area is already crushing us with significant additional traffic ...at 25 mph. Our neighborhood is unique and homeowners here pay millions collectively in taxes. Many of us took a chance on Del Ray when there were still bars on the windows. Stuffing it with development feels like a betrayal of our investment and patience. Please reconsider. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 410 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The city is promoting ADU’s as affordable housing. The ones I am aware of in my part of the neighborhood are used either by the homeowner as extra living/studio space, or more commonly as VRBO for short term pricey rentals. My info is very limited. Has the city done a study to determine the extent to which ADU’s are actually used as affordable housing? | Thank you for your question. As of April, 42 Accessory Dwelling Units have been approved. While ADUs are not required to meet affordability guidelines, they help to expand housing choices within the city. Additionally, the Regional Fair Housing Assessment has made a recommendation that the City sould consider support to make them more affordable. In terms of short term rentals, City Code defines short terms rentals as the provision of a room or space by an operator that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. They must be registered with the City in order to operate. Please visit alexandriava.gov/Zoning for more information on ADUs. |
| 411 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Is the city’s goal to wipe out the Main Street feel of Del Ray? The insane square footage increase is not supportable with the state of our schools. Is the intent to change the tag line to “where Main Street once existed?” Swallowing the avenue with 4-6 stories of high density, on top of the rt 1 and glebe road development risks the very reasons we chose Del Ray over other neighborhoods. Please tell me the goal is not Clarendon. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 412 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am very concerned about the proposed development along mt vernon Ave in del ray. I worry that it will destroy the charm of the neighbor which is what draws people to the area in the first place. Alexandria does not need to be like arlington; people come to alexandria specifically because it is different. we are already having difficulty with parking and traffic and irresponsible drivers, adding density would be irresponsible and the idea that people wont have cars and will use public transportation is an assumption, not a fact, and should not be used to make decisions. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 413 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Good afternoon, We recently purchased a home in Del Ray that would be affected by the planned development (Del Ray). We are a young family, with one toddler, and a second child on the way. We are also a mixed, interracial couple with myself having grown up in Fairfax, and my wife in Massachussets. We met in NYC and when we decided to expand our family, moved into Del Ray. I understand the need for affordable housing, and think it is a noble goal, but I think the implementation of it in Del Ray is not well-thought out. My wife and I run our own businesses and can work anywhere - in fact we have: NYC, L.A., Hawaii, Austria, Italy, etc. all over the world. But when we saw Del Ray we fell in love and knew to call this home. What attracted me to this area is the walkability and the neighborhood charm. There is a mix of housing and incomes, racial diversity is growing, and the neighborhood is welcoming and supportive of all types of diversity. What was unattractive about other parts of Northern VA was the apartment buildings, that if you removed the name off the building, you wouldn't tell them apart. These apartment buildings are built with what appears to be cookie-cutter designs that are an aesthetic injustice. I built my firm with love, and that means undying creativity. These apartments feel like they were build with cookie cutter designs to save on cost. But if you look at the costs of these apartments (which we did when we first moved into the neighborhood), they rivaled the same insane rates we paid in NYC. How is a luxury apartment that starts at $3000/month for a 1 bedroom affordable? Our townhome, which we rented in Del Ray, was less than $3000/month for a 3 bedroom. These apartments would improve housing units, but not even be close to affordable compared to what seems available right now. Not only that, they would completely ruin the charm of Del Ray and why we chose to move here vs. any other place in the world. What attracted us to Del Ray is the organic beauty that has grown over the years. The small-town feel in an otherwise busy area. A place to exhale. This is what attracts people to the area and neighborhood and makes it such a desirable place to live. The housing proposal you are putting forth, completely will destroy that place to exhale, to instead be another Crystal City Lite (how else can you fit 577k sq ft of space?). With the exact same style of buildings that we see everywhere else, and prices so unaffordable they only go to worsen inflation. We came to Del Ray to escape a busier life, but still have walkability. It seems like many other young people did too. Where else is there to go if you now bring that busy life to Del Ray? It removes the purpose that we, and many others, chose to move here. Thanks for listening Rishi | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 414 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The density contemplated will destroy Del Ray as a historic district - what are you putting into place to protect contributing structures that make this historically significant architecture - recently designated as endangered by Virginia’s state government - isn’t destroyed? | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 415 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Please stop developing every available inch in Alexandria. Please no more high rises. do not bring Crystal City to Del Ray. | Thank you for your comments. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 416 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The housing survey is barely a good first step to address the housing and public safety issues in Alexandria. How many people below the income of $100k will actually see and/or have access to this survey? Do you have plans to get actual in person feedback? Building housing is great in theory but what are the plans to building up schools and truly addressing public safety and the spike in crime. The short-term solutions of more police presence and cameras does not address the systemic inequities that exist in Alexandria and that continue to be exascerbated by local politicians who approach growing a city by catering to the needs of people with high income levels and that are predominantly white. What I want to know are the city’s plans for investment in public education and after school activities and wrap around supports for families that are suffering. Progress won’t happen overnight but local city leaders aren’t even thinking about this investment. That’s how you address public safety. | Thank you for your comments. The online questionnaire is just one avenue for the community to provide input on this initiative. We are working through a variety of communication channels to ensure that all residents of Alexandria have an opportunity to learn about and participate in this process, including providing translation and interpretation services as needed. This includes leveraging our engagement on other planning initiatives to make sure Alexandria's diverse communities are aware of, and engaged in, Zoning for Housing/Housing for All. |
| 417 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Please do not overdevelop the Mount Vernon St of DelRay. We need to maintain the current height restrictions. No one is looking for another Clarendon. There are other areas in the neighborhood we can develop for multifamily housing (the car dealership, anyone??) and more retail can be added on Richmond Highway. It currently a charming neighborhood. Don't ruin it. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 418 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | before ANY upzoning in Del Rey, the city should get rid of the car dealerships and the auto place across the street. Del Rey should never have 75 foot tall buildings | Thank you for your comments. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 419 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Please do not allow massive density increases in del ray. The infrastructure is failing with the current level of density (see: flooding of people’s homes)! | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 420 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Significant concerns regarding the overdevelopment of Alexandria, and Del Ray specifically. City anticipates adding 577,000 square feet of development as part of it's update to MWCOG's Regional Housing Initiative which would destroy the last remaining neighborhoods. Del Ray has attracted families who seek a quiet neighborhood, and the plans proposed would ruin the community under the guise of "affordable housing". Not to mention the impact it would have on stormwater runoffs in an area that floods. I question the motivation of those involved and intend to take my voice to the ballot box when able | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 421 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The action to develop 577,000 square feet of development along Mt. Vernon Ave. Would negatively impact and stress not only the infrastructure of the area but strip away the essence of what makes Del Ray unique and a community. The greed of the developers should not be trusted to better our housing availability. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 422 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Housing for all means infrastructure for none. | Thank you for your comments. Staff is evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. |
| 423 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Please do not increase the density of Del Ray. It could not handle the additional car traffic. High rise buildings in Del Ray would turn it into Rosslyn, which is another way to say, would ruin it. | Thank you for your comments. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 424 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The zoning survey due on June 19th was very frustrating as I felt the questions were too leading to get the answers you wanted. You should have included comment boxes so survey participants could clearly communicate their intent. For example, in the question related to if there should be varying housing rates in all areas, while I agree, I actually think that we need to focus way more on low income housing across all neighborhoods. There was no way to express that priority. | Thank you for following up on your questionnaire responses with these comments and for conveying your support for more deeply affordable housing options in the City (which the City defines as those serving households up to 40% of the area median income). Expanding, as well as maintaining, deeply affordable rental housing options can be particularly challenging due to the high cost of subsidy needed to create and preserve such units. The ZfH initiative is just one potential set of new tools in the City's 'tool box' to address the City's housing supply and affordability crisis. It is envisioned to supplement other tools and approaches, which include the support for public-private-nonprofit housing partnerships; the support for the City's pilot rental subsidy program; the preservation of existing HUD rental subsidy contracts; the use of city owned land for affordable housing; and the modernization and expansion of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's public housing communities which have historically provided the City's most deeply affordable housing options. |
| 425 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I am a resident of Del Ray and I strongly support putting affordable housing the Del Ray area by any means necessary. We are in a housing crisis and this city and community shouldn’t be exclusive to families that can afford 700,000+ homes. | Thank you for your comments. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 426 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | 1- I understand how densification will create housing to newcomers but how will it help the local homeowners/residents? 2- With climate change impacts increasing and the need of more green space is needed to deal with stronger storms and build resilience, how does building more will lead to stronger resilience to climate change? 3- Alexandria city schools are crowded. How can densification be planned without adding more schools? | Thank you for your input and questions. Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. Staff is evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. The proposal is not to eliminate the option to contruct single family detached housing anywhere in the city, but to increase housing options on land now zoned for just single family detached housing. |
| 427 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | As a resident of Chirilagua that enjoys Del Ray, and sees Del Ray as a success story of a community coming together, I remain disappointed with the city's fixation on exploiting Del Ray and neglect for Chirilagua. The local community has made Del Ray an attraction. The city should be working with that community to reach a compromise on addressing housing concerns. Alexandria is the densest suburb of DC (I think?). The obsession with density in an already dense region is asinine, moreso when a functioning community is poised to bear the cost of your obsession. We have to be honest that most of Alexandria not an attraction. Outside of Old Town and Del Ray, there are no destinations. Why whittle it down to one? | If you haven't already, please review the recently adopted Arlandria-Chirilagua Small Area Plan to learn about the City's intent and support of the neighborhood. (https://www.alexandriava.gov/small-area-plans/basic-page/city-alexandria-master-plan#SmallAreaPlans)
There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan. |
| 428 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | As a 40-year resident of Alexandria who raised two children in the city, I am fearful that current elected and unelected city leaders/employees are seeking to use our historic city as a petri-dish for their untested urban-planning theories. It will be a shame if in their zeal to burnish their progressive credentials they destroy the suburban appeal of Alexandria that draws so many to want to live here. We are surrounded by opportunities to live in dense, concrete jungles, so there is no reason to turn Alexandria into another of those. We also already have a disproportionately-high amount of low income housing in our city. We talk about "affordable" housing, but we have yet to define what that term means to our planning department. Projects like the new Hermitage development is exactly what Alexandria does not need. We don't need 500 additional apartment units for young, recent college graduates who have decided it would be "cool" to live in Alexandria. We need to maintain our neighborhoods so they will want to live her 10 years from now with their spouses and kids. Right now, the schools are largely over-crowded and we will soon find out that those who can choose where to live and send their children to school will move to localities that provide stronger schools, with adequate outdoor space, not struggling academic facilities in repurposed office buildings with roof-top play areas. | Thank you for your comments. Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. Please refer to the Housing Definitions and Terminology link on the project website https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing/housing-publications-reports-and-videos#HousingDefinitionsandTerminology
City staff will not be conducting empircal analysis of the outcomes of zoning reforms in other cities but staff has noted studies such as one recently conducted by the Urban Institute (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/zoning-change). That study is a thorough look at the potential outcomes of zoning change, and which addresses Minneapolis as just one example: "Recent, non-causal evidence on Minneapolis’s 2018 allowances for moderate density on single-family properties citywide is comparable; post-reform, annual permits for triplex and fourplex units increased to only about 50—miniscule compared to overall construction (Blumgart 2022)." In another article, the Urban Institute notes that the total number of new units was 81, compared to the 180,000 Minneapolis households. This is one reason why Zoning for Housing contains 11 different different initiatives -- not every initiative will produce a large number of units, but will achieve other goals, such as increasing the potential for housing diversity. |
| 429 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | Why is it necessary for Alex. to jump through hoops to provide this housing. When I first came to this area, I lived where I could afford. Also, what makes the City think rents will be affordable no matter how many you provide. It is a matter of supply and demand. | Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. |
| 430 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I have genuinely tried to keep an open mind throughout the Zoning for Housing process, but after reviewing the materials and recording from the most recent community engagement meeting, I am strongly urging the city NOT to remove single family-only zoning. The city population has grown tremendously under the existing zoning regs, and there remain opportunities for additional building outside of the areas currently zoned for single-family homes (R20, R12, R8, R5, and R2-5). (I support looking at opportunities to place housing in industrial zoned areas.) Placing greater density in residential neighborhoods will not fix the housing affordability issues in the region and will instead destroy the character of the neighborhoods. We moved from a condo building in downtown DC to a house in Alexandria because we wanted a small house with a yard in a residential neighborhood. We have nothing against city life and density — we lived in it for many years — but that is simply not why most people choose to live in Alexandria. | Thanks for your comments. Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. |
| 431 | | email | 22304 | Hello, I serve on the Alexandria Commission for Women Affordable Housing Subcommittee. I hope to learn more about ways to get involved. Thank you. | Thank you for your email regarding Zoning for Housing/Housing for All. We are encouraging stakeholders to please use our Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage to learn about the purpose and background of these proposed zoning reforms and the equity component of Zoning for Housing which is Housing for All. We also hope that stakeholders will take advantage of the poll and provide their input on areas of housing which they consider important to them. Further there will be a couple summer Zoning for Housing/Housing for All events and we hope that stakeholders will monitor the website in order to keep abreast of events and information around this project to stay engaged. |
| 432 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | When we moved to Del Ray 14 years ago, we deliberately chose to not live surrounded by low and high rise buildings like Arlington. We chose Del Ray for the neighborhood and in no small part for “where Main Street still exists.” We moved here, paying the same taxes as Arlington, but not the same caliber of schools. We did so for the small town gem and knew we would make up for the school in other way. The one high school is enormous and if kids are left in general population it is just that. We love the close in pocket of this throwback neighborhood that allows us to raise our family with kids walking and biking after school. However, the onslaught of efforts to increase density in every in of the curry causes me great concern for where the city is heading. Without first having the infrastructure (schools, sanitation, roads, etc) I don’t see how it is sound city planning to add massive amounts of people, kids, and cars to this dynamic. Further complicating this dynamic is a seeming disregard for public safety when calls to the police and city about groups of people using bus stops as their gathering place, being intoxicated, stumbling towards the street, and preventing others from being comfortable to walk down the sidewalk. If the city is unable to deal with this when it is a few park benches and bus stops, the trajectory for Alexandria is not good. What are the low income percentages for the current volume of condos and apartments being built along Rt 1 a few blocks from Del Ray? When does construction begin on the tower at the corner of glebe and Mt Vernon? Have traffic studies need conducted? What is the plan for Arlandria development? What is the underlying intent of this massive push for housing? What I the plan to accommodate the significant increase in city services required for the additional population? At what point to the city believe single family home owners will have had enough of the increasing tax dollars out of pocket as they listen to the city’s plan to wipeout their neighborhoods? (Please don’t explain the lack of increase in tax rates when the assessments skyrocket and the city gives tax breaks at alarming rates while the middle class picks up the tab) The city does not appear to be planning for the impact of this drive to cram more people in and seem willing to give away the very reason people worked hard to mover here. What happens when those folks have had enough and the city is left with those who can’t or won’t pay their share? | Thank you for your input and questions. Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. Staff is evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and master plan updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. The proposal is not to eliminate the option to contruct single family detached housing anywhere in the city, but to increase housing options on land now zoned for just single family detached housing.
Construction of the affordable housing project approved for the corner of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Glebe Road should begin within the next few months. Traffic studies were conducted as a normal part of the City's review. For planning recommendations regarding the Arlandria-Chirilagua neighborhood, please refer to the Arlandria-Chirilagua Small Area Plan. https://www.alexandriava.gov/small-area-plans/basic-page/city-alexandria-master-plan#SmallAreaPlans |
| 433 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | "The City should adopt the Vision Plan 2049 first and then have Zoning for Housing be in line with its goals. In addition, the City should be disseminating data and information (from Alexandria and/or from other cities) prior to adopting the Zoning For Housing initiative to show: 1. | Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The City is pursuing Zoning for Housing ahead of the Vision Plan because of the urgency of the housing supply issues at stake. Alexandria launched Zoning for Housing in 2018 after having studied housing supply and demand both locally and regionally, and after having committed to take actions to materially support an increase in production of both affordable and market rate housing in the 2020-2030 decade. The pandemic interrupted progress on these housing initiatives, but the pandemic actually exacerbated the mismatch between housing supply and demand, and hit our most vulnerable households hardest. We are evaluating the proposals for each component of this initiative to gauge impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. City staff will not be conducting empircal analysis of the outcomes of zoning reforms in other cities but staff has noted studies such as one recently conducted by the Urban Institute (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/zoning-change). That study is a thorough look at the potential outcomes of zoning change, and which addresses Minneapolis as just one example: "Recent, non-causal evidence on Minneapolis’s 2018 allowances for moderate density on single-family properties citywide is comparable; post-reform, annual permits for triplex and fourplex units increased to only about 50—miniscule compared to overall construction (Blumgart 2022)." In another article, the Urban Institute notes that the total number of new units was 81, compared to the 180,000 Minneapolis households. This is one reason why Zoning for Housing contains 11 different different initiatives -- not every initiative will produce a large number of units, but will achieve other goals, such as increasing hte potential for housing diversity. We anticipate that early findings and recommendations will be shared with the community for further input in late summer to early fall, approximately two months prior to public hearings. |
| 434 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The City of Alexandria should stop treating the Town of Potomac & Del Ray as a land grab for developers. Every block is losing historic homes to bulldozers - the character of this district is being destroyed. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year |
| 435 | | Online feedback form | 22311 | Comment: I only found out about this initiative via a chance happening on ALXNow.com despite being a lifelong (33 year) resident of Alexandria and employee of the city. I believe that the city needs to make a more concerted effort to reach out and provide information on this effort and engage its citizenry, especially those who are on the West end and of lower socioeconomic status. | Thanks for your comment and suggestions. Subscribing to the City's eNews service and social media platforms will give community members information on all City initiatives including this one. Please be sure that if you are already subscribed, you've selected Planning and Zoning categories to receive information about similar efforts. We agree that reaching all members of the community is important and are working through a variety of communication channels to ensure that all residents of Alexandria have an opportunity to learn about and participate in this process, including providing translation and interpretation services as needed. This includes leveraging our engagement on other planning initiatives to make sure Alexandria's diverse communities are aware of, and engaged. |
| 436 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The R-2.5 zone requires a minimum parcel size of 5,000 sf [MLS5000] for an interior lot for by-right development. Explain why, when calculated on per square foot basis, the appraised land value of parcels exceeding min. size [>MLS5000] is less than an ~minimum size parcel? And why a substandard size parcel [MLS5000? E.g. ~MSL5000 on Stewart: $573,075- / 5170 sf = $110.85 per sf MLS5000 on Randolph: $578,864- / 5750 sf = 100.67 per sf. >MLS5000 on Randolph: $619,384- / 9401 sf = $65.88 per sf. >MSL5000 on Stewart: $665,694- / 12,957 sf = $51.38 per sf. | Although land value is clearly a factor in the issues addressed by Zoning for Housing, the specifics of how assessments are conducted lie outside the purview of this project. Staff will communicate this question via the 311 system to the Office of Real Estate who will contact you with an answer. |
| 437 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | We have grave concerns about broad-brush approaches to up-zoning in Alexandria and suggest an incremental approach instead. Once the genie is let out of the bottle, it can not be put back... Broad-brush up-zoning is problematic in a number of ways: 1) It is a HUGE giveaway to developers and incumbent landowners with deep pockets that can develop. The incumbent owners, developers, and landlords in desirable areas get a windfall of development rights and profits while zero wealth-building opportunities for the lowest income people are created at all. The same people crying about gentrification and teardown of modest historic homes to be replaced by McMansions somehow think that giving developers and incumbent owners a huge windfall while removing guardrails is somehow progressive. The LIBERTARIANS have co-opted this entire debate through faux progressive YIMBYism. 2) Upzoning does not produce wealth-building opportunities for low income families. Presumably one would want to generate wealth building opportunities for this segment and not just places that are marginally cheaper to rent and owned by absentee landlords who extract all the income and wealth for themselves. Owning 1/4th of a quadplex,(or even a cheap apartment) is NOT a wealth building opportunity, it is a bad investment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a developer or scam artist. 3) Broad-brush upzoning removes guardrails that help protect parties from injury (or at least afford some due process to the injurious result). Existing appeals to zoning variances require an owner to appeal to the board of zoning and present their case publicly on a case by case basis. That is, if someone wants to build a duplex where their SFH sits, they will go through this process. Revisions to the system for lobbying for variances to reduce time and cost would result in more appropriate and targeted specific zoning changes where they are practical rather than where they sow chaos and animosity. 4) Broad brush upzoning will accelerate teardowns of the most affordable SFHs in Alexandria. The most affordable homes in desirable areas will be the first to be torn down and developed as multi-unit luxury homes/apartments/townhomes/quadplexes. That is, the most immediate result of broad upzoning is the opposite of the stated goal of the project!!! 5) Along with point #4, these teardowns also will have an effect of reducing availability of family-sized housing as the most modest SFHs are replace by multi-unit buildings that primarily cater to 1br and 2br tenants. 6) The upzoning plan will change community composition from primarily owner-occupied to primarily renters (from absentee-landlords) wherever development takes place. Not only does this not fulfill any equity or wealth building opportunity goals, it has dramatic impacts on the character of neighborhoods. We want lower income households to have real wealth building opportunities. We want real improvements in distributional equity. Upzoning solves neither of those problems and is therefore a needless stupid and counterproductive distraction. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. A couple of points: Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's commitment to housing production is proportional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jurisridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of property will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the proposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive existing housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. One last point: the proposal is not to eliminate the option to construct single family detached housing anywhere in the City, but to increase housing options on land now zoned for just single family detached housing. |
| 438 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | i do not support 70 feet building heights in Del Rey, knock it off | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 439 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Thank you for advancing these initiatives. My family and I are extremely excited about the future Alexandria this will create. How is the city ensuring that the input from renters, immigrants and marginalized communities is being effectively received? | Thank you for your comments. We are working through a variety of communication channels to ensure that all residents of Alexandria have an opportunity to learn about and participate in this process, including providing translation and interpretation services as needed. This includes leveraging our engagement on other planning initiatives to make sure Alexandria's diverse communities are aware of, and engaged in, Zoning for Housing/Housing for All. |
| 440 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | ALL communities in Alexandra must be responsible for contributing to the city’s housing needs, and that includes Del Rey | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 441 | | Online feedback form | 20015 | Residents and preservation groups keep expressing concerns about the impact of the Zoning for Housing (ZFH) initiative on Del Ray’s Art Deco commercial and apartment buildings. But, the only "protections" cited by planners thus far – “design guidelines” that will be trumped by the ZFH, nonbinding community input, and the special use permit negotiation process between developers and the city – do not constitute meaningful, legally enforceable constraints that would ensure historic preservation. Why not add a historic overlay district for Del Ray (like in Old Town) as part of ZFH, and incorporate something like the Mt. Vernon Business Plan’s land use and design recommendations into it, so that the protections have teeth? Thank you! | For this project, we will only be looking at the extent to which Zoning for Housing might or might not accelerate that pace of change. With our economics folks we’re looking at the issue of tear downs with regard to any of our proposals. The issue of tear downs is hardly a new one in Del Ray – the Del Ray Civic Association asked one of our staff to come to a couple of years ago to talk about the options a community can pursue. One option is to establish a Board of Architectural Review that reviews every project including demos, but this would limit a homeowners ability to change their property. There are less intensive options. Most of these things are in use somewhere around the country – if folks are interested in pursuing this, it’s important to have a community aligned in that approach and we offered that recommendation a couple of years ago. Such questions are beyond the scope of Zoning for Housing, which will only look at the extent to which the proposals could stimulate the pace of change." |
| 442 | | Online feedback form | | How might the change from SFR zoning in Del Ray affect a community governed by an HOA? May we establish our own Bylaws regarding multi-family housing within the community? We are an 11-home development (Cobblestone) on Holly Street. | Thanks for your question. Keep in mind that we are not experts in the law related to HOAs, but generally speaking, HOAs are able to impose on their members more stringent limitations on development than the zoning ordinance allows. HOA’s can’t be less permissive than the zoning ordinance (if they are, the zoning ordinance would still apply). So if the zoning ordinance were changed to allow two units on each parcel in Cobblestone, the HOA could adopt a rule that only allows one unit per parcel. Recently in the City’s zoning ordinance was changed to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (so-called “granny flats”) and HOA’s were not required to also allow them, although they could have. |
| 443 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | a recent proposal for 48 condos at 301 N. Fairfax was awarded an entire fourth floor that overwhelms the rest of the historic neighborhood for adding only 2 affordable housing units. That seems like a really bad deal for Alexandria, and a shameless gift to the developer at a detrimental architectual impact to the Historic Old Town neighborhood that would have to accomodate the extra full story. Can you comment? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 444 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How many other cities in the U.S. have eliminated single family zones, and can you provide any data or analysis of whether it had an effect on housing affordability? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 445 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Many helped to build the Area, so the People who are a Little Disabled who worked, in Organizations, go to Church also, was in M.S.-Phd. Universities, has helped and given to Charities have had ARHA waitlist since Jan 2021 have helped Elder Relatives in another part of the State, Paying for them and buying their Food. They can not stay there anymore and now are sick, getting back on there Feet, taking their Medicines trying to avoid Homelessness, what are they going to do and Color | Thank you for your message. The cost of housing, food and medicine can be overwhelming for many residents. Contact information for the City's Department of Community and Human Services, as well as the Office of Housing can be accessed at https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022HousingResourceGuide.pdf on the Office of Housing's main page (alexandriava.gov/housing). An updated Housing Resource Guide will be posted by mid June. |
| 446 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the number of affordable housing and total number of housing in the Potomac Generating Station CDD? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 447 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What other incentives are offered for developers to build single-family homes and townhomes as opposed to high-end condos and apartments? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 448 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How many developer projects are currently in the planning stage and known by the City as being designed to take advantage of the bonus height allowance? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 449 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | what regulations and safeguards are going to be in place to ensure that affordable housing is safe and high quality housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 450 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Very excited by these proposals, thanks for the great presentation! Which initiatives do you think have the highest potential for increasing housing stock affordability and addressing our housing crisis? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 451 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | No question here. I think this is great and I am supportive of the city’s effort | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 452 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Once the planning staff has made their official recommendations regarding changes to the zoning ordinance, has the city considered holding a referendum vote for each major change? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 453 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It sounds like y’all are getting a lot of negative toned questions, but I wanted to thank you all for providing a forum for discussion and the information presentations. Thanks! :) | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 454 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are you working with the City’s climate change officer to understand and support the climate benefits of maintaining the embodied energy in existing buildings, encouraging rehab rather than demolition? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 455 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Bringing a referendum vote to the public is a good idea as it would be helpful and fair. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 456 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Do existing Alexandria regulations impact Accessory Dwelling Units (i.e. "granny flats") for short-term rentals (e.g., AirBnB rentals)? | Per Section 7-203(7) of the Zoning Ordinance: The accessory dwelling shall not be a short-term residential rental, as defined by City Code section 3-2-152(a)(2), for a period exceeding 120 days per calendar year. |
| 457 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I very much agree with Izora, and greatly appreciate your efforts in working towards making our City a city for *all* | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 458 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | No question. I just want to commend you all for doing the work to change the housing situation. It's terrible. Too many people can't afford to live here. Looking forward to assisting however I can as a current resident of Alexandria. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 459 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Note: I was asked to submit a written copy of my spoken comments at the 5/10/23 meeting by Assistant Director Nancy Williams. Comments of William Shen, Alexandria resident, on the Zoning For Housing proposal at the Planning and Zoning Department's May 10, 2023 Community Engagement Meeting I'm Will Shen. I've been a homeowner in Alexandria for over ten years. I also have a master's degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania. Although I do not work in planning, I have worked in housing in the public and private sector for 25 years. I currently work on affordable housing for the federal government. Zoning for Housing will not accomplish any of its three main goals: “Affordability” of housing in general, “Availability” of affordable housing, or “Accessibility,” which seeks to address historic housing discrimination. First - Affordability Housing affordability is a regional issue, as the city has repeatedly admitted. There is no way tiny Alexandria, with two percent of the population of the metropolitan area, can significantly reduce home prices and rents in the region. If anything, Zoning for Housing will increase house prices and rents locally. Allowing a drastic increase in allowable density, as this proposal does, will set off a feeding frenzy of developers bidding for properties to tear down and redevelop. Second - Availability Zoning for Housing will not lead to the building of much affordable housing. Instead it will allow the construction of a great deal of high-density luxury housing. Look at what was built at Potomac Yard, which the city redeveloped recently. There is a great deal of very expensive luxury housing, but very little affordable housing. There is no reason to expect anything different from Zoning for Housing. These zoning changes will come at a great cost – the destruction of much of Alexandria's unique, historic housing stock, including most of its existing affordable housing. The drastic upzoning that Zoning for Housing proposes will create powerful incentives for property owners to tear down and completely redevelop existing properties. Alexandria's houses and apartment buildings were built under the existing zoning, and can only be expanded so much using their existing structure and lot layout. Zoning for Housing will make it impossible to expand existing structures to anything close to what will be allowed by the new zoning. It will make more economic sense for property owners to tear down and build a much larger structure from scratch, or sell to someone who will. The Bonus Height Text Amendment piece of Zoning for Housing will greatly increase allowable height for Alexandria's many historic garden apartment properties, which make up most of Alexandria's existing affordable housing. These are the low-hanging fruit for developers, and will be torn down almost right away, They will be replaced by much bulkier five and six-story buildings containing mostly expensive market-rate units. The residents will all be displaced and will probably not be able to afford to stay in the city. But it's not just apartments that will be destroyed, since Zoning for Housing covers nearly all housing types. Zoning for Housing's single-family zoning component will create incentives to demolish and replace most of the existing single-family homes in the city. An apparent but unstated goal of Zoning for Housing is to eliminate or drastically change single-family zoning. Arlington eliminated single-family zoning recently, and appears to be the model they will follow. Even if you want to stay in your single-family home (or smaller townhouse), your property taxes, which are tied to your home's market value, will go up so much that you won't be able to afford to stay. Your only reasonable choice will be to sell to a developer, who will tear down your home, and move elsewhere. The same goes for the older buildings that house many of Alexandria's small businesses. They will be rep | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. A couple of points: Alexandria is participating in a regional initiative to increase housing production so that we can leverage our place at the regional table to positively impact the housing market, which we agree is regional in nature. Alexandria's comitment to housing production is proprtional to our share of the regional housing market; City staff agrees that we will make progress on this front by doing our part along with neighboring jusridctions. That said, increasing the supply, affordability and diversity of housing types will have direct benefits to Alexandrians even if the regional housing market remains tight. That's because there's unmet demand here in the City for housing of all kinds. Increases in the number of housing units allowed on a specific piece of propoerty will reduce the cost per unit of housing on that property. A key question for each of the porposed initiatives is calibrating them so that they do not have unintended consequences -- such as inducing the redevelopment of comparatively inexpensive exiosting housing. Addressing that question is part of our work. One last point: the proposal is not to eliminate the option to contruct single family detached housing anywhere in the City, but to increase housing options on land now zoned for just single family detached housing. |
| 460 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | What does the city consider Alexandria’s target population size? Given the large number of development projects currently under way, has the city conducted an analysis to determine whether changes to the current zoning is even needed to meet that target? And, most importantly, what is the city’s plan to increase the services available with the increase in population? If, eg, the goal is 175,000 people by 2035, what are the plans for increased staff and city resources to accommodate the larger population? And, do we actually need changes to our current zoning refs to achieve that density? | The City does not have a targeted population size per se, but we do develop 25-30 year employment, population and household forecasts on an ongoing basis with our regional partners. Every new small area plan process conducted by the City includes determining the capacity of our infrastructure/public facilities to support the growth expected in that plan: transportation, water and sewer, fire, open space, etc. We also regularly update the citywide infrastructure plans (water and sewer plan, mobility plan, open space plan, etc) to ensure that forecast growth can be accommodated -- including identifying improvements/expansions, the cost of those improvements, and typically a funding strategy. Major new development projects are also assessed for their impact. |
| 461 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I am wholly in support of Zoning that targets equity and increased affordable housing. I have been a 22304 resident since 1977. I am fully vested in the city being more affordable, particulaly for our public servants diverse immigrant community. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 462 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The outreach that city staff are doing for Zoning for Housing and related topics is excellent. Thank you for your patience and diligence in explaining your work. I look forward to seeing more equity in housing as we move forward. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 463 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Are you able to give specific dates for the timeline for the Planning Commission and Council meetings to hear these changes? If not now, when? | We'll provide that information when confirmed |
| 464 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will the slides and/or a recording of this session be available online post-event? | The presentations are currently posted on the website and yes, the recording will also be posted. On the main project page, look under "Ways to Engage" and you'll see tonight's slides |
| 465 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | is there any housing for people with low income and have bad credit | The Office of Housing indicates that yes, although poor credit or an eviction can be a big barrier. Sometimes measures to protect the landlord from financial risk can be helpful, like requiring a large security deposit in case rent payment problems occur in the future. We also recommend contacting individual affordable housing providers to inquire how they spefically address credit requirements. Information on rental options can be found at https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/renter-resources#AffordableRentalOptions (see Current Availability and General Options). You can also call the Office of Housing at 703.746.4990. The Department of Housing and Urban Development also certifies housing counseling agencies. You can identify agencies in our region at https://hudgov-answers.force.com/housingcounseling/s/?language=en_US; you can select the counseling service in the Options drop down. They may be able to provide advice on what steps you can take to improve your credit over time. |
| 466 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | what can be done to assist non-profit housing developers rather than for-profit--so a larger proportion of units built will be affordable (rather than market rate). So many of the units build along US 1 have a SMALL proportion of units that are affordable! | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 467 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Have City staff reviewed affordable houseing strategies used by other municipalities in the United States, and does the Dillion Rule preclude the adoption of any potential solutions? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 468 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | When will other city goals and initiatives such as stormwater control and tree canopy expansion be brought into consideration of housing/zoning policy? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 469 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | what if you make less then what you are are asking for | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 470 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The city's recent history is one of displacement and gentrification. Given so much concern about righting hisotric wrongs, how do you square this--specifically, what is the city doing for all the residents displaced for the Heritage redevelopment--apparently now having solvency issues; how will the city ensure residents in current often older affordable housing stock are not desplaced by redevelopment? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 471 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is the goal that every part of Alexandria have the same distribution of races, nationalities, religions, income levels, spoken languages? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 472 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Bonus Height Desitiy incentive - Along Mt. Vernon Ave, the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Overlay considered the impact (light-sun/shade/seasonal) of taller buildings on the adjacent residental homes , as the depth of commercially zoned properties is relatively shallow (100’-120’).
It is my understanding that a recent proposal requested bonus density-increased heights. When questioned by citizens, staff wasn’t able to adequately explain what the impact would be on adjacent SFH. The project has subsequently been withdrawn.
Has staff made progress toward being able to answer the impact that project would incur? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 473 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I am a single mom of 2 kids one with S.S.D and my lease is ending and need housing in July is there anyone that can help | Information on affordable rental options can be found at https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/renter-resources#AffordableRentalOptions (see Current Availability and General Options). You can reach the Office of Housing at 703.746.4990. I also recommend for very deeply affordable housing options and other potential supportive programs to contact the Department of Community and Human Services at 703.746.5700. |
| 474 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | On March 2, 2023, Sen. Elzabeth Warren made a referral to DoJ about "he role that algorithmic rent-setting software may
play in facilitating de-facto price setting and driving rapid inflation for rental properties." What is the City doing to ensure operators of multifamily are not using algorythmic software to extract maximum profit regardless of occupancy rates. This collusion was identified by ProPublica as a major driver of exponential rent increases while leaving available units unoccupied. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 475 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What guarentee will be required of developers that the addt’l units built will be (and remain) affordable to the target demographic? | Affordable housing contributions are incorporated into conditions of approval. Monetary contributions to the City's Housing Trust Fund (which helps fund affordable housing projects and leverage state, federal and other funding sources) must be made prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the project. Development conditions require developers to coordinate with staff on the delivery, marketing, and leasing/sale processes associated with all affordable set-aside units. Housing staff monitor this process. Following a project's delivery, Housing's asset manager monitors rental set-aside units for the term of affordability (40 years for recent and new projects). Affordable for-sale units are resale restricted and are subject to equity sharing covenants which ensures the units continue to discounted. This process is also overseen by Housing's asset manager. |
| 476 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What incentives will SFH owners be availed as incentive to construct add’l affordable units should HFA proposal be enacted. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 477 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Housing goals for Alexandria were included in the MWCOG document that was circulated for comment. By what decision process were the Alexandria goals chosen for inclusion? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 478 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | As the City aquires properties for City offices/services, will the City commit to integrate affordable housing units into those properties? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 479 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | This is a question for Councilman Aguirre: City employees such as first responders and teachers are frequently identified as those who are least able to afford to live in our city. What is he city doing to ensure that the city pay employees a linving wage which allows them to live in the city unburdened by housing costs? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 480 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will we focus on the sustainability benefits of more housing (including market rate) in places like Alexandria with access to transit, jobs and amenities | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 481 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I want to know what ADDITIONAL help non-profits that are focusing on 100% affordable housing! | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 482 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What does developing "partnerships" actually mean? | With respect to affordable housing production and preservation, partnerships can take many different forms. Examples include: Projects co-located with public and/or commercial uses (e.g. The Station at Potomac Yard); Built on public land (e.g. Jackson Crossing involved a consolidation of parcels, including a small parcel of City land); IInfill with ground lease (e.g. The Spire); Development (air) rights in larger projects (e.g. The Nexus); Partnership with faith-based institution (e.g. The Spire and St James Plaza); Mixed-ability, mixed-tenure partnerships (e.g. Housing Alexandria’s Seminary Road project); Preservation through investment (e.g. Parkstone and Park Vue); Repositioning public housing with mixed-income developer (e.g. the Samuel Madden project) |
| 483 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Having attended last week's presentation on the Equity Index Map, it was made clear that the census tract data displayed requires further analysis--the data should not be considered definitive or used in isolation for decision of this magnitude. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 484 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | (1). What other cities in the US have eliminated Single Family Zoning and (2). can you point me to studies that address the impact this has made to housing affordability in that city? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 485 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the purpose of these meetings if the ALX city council proceeds to vote in favor of these changes with out the input of its residents. Will my feedback and my neighbors input ever be considered to retract these changes? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 486 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Thank you! This is an excellent session and I appreciate all the hard work that City of Alexandria employees have done and will do on these topics. | Thank you! Please stay engaged! |
| 487 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | According to the EPA, our new upgraded Alexandria Renew Tunnel System will reduce the annual volume of sewage dumped into the Potomac river from 140 million gallons to 16 million gallons. Should we increase our density and thus our city's population, we would increase the sewage dumped into the Potomac. What is the city going to do to address the environmental impacts and odor resulting from the increased sewage runoff? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 488 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | On May 9, 2023, Preservation Virginia released their list of Virginia’s Most Endangered Historic Places. The Town of Potomac Historic District was included on this year's list. How is Zoning for Housing taking into consideration protecting our finite and irreplaceable historic resources? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 489 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | My church - Fairlington Presbyterian Church (in Alexandria) built and founded in the late 1940's had such a racial covenant that would restrict who and how the land would be used. We are actively dismantling that discrimination and together with Wesly Housing built 81 affordable housing units in Alexandria. Very proud of that change for good we have created. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 490 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | will we still have section 8 and rent vouchers | This process will not impact the number of Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). HCVs continue to be administered by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority. |
| 491 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why does the city have to use these kinds of incentives to get private developers to provide affordable housing? Can't they just make it a requirement? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 492 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The kickoff session in March was held in a hotel ballroom with catered meals. From what source or sources of funding were the costs for that event covered? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 493 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | You mentioned that some of Alexandria's most popular neighborhoods like Del Ray would be illegal to build today. Can you talk a little about what that means and how zoning for housing could address it?zszz | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 494 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | COMMENT--Wesley is EXACTLY the type of non-profit who focuses on exclusively affordable projects! Why can't the city provide EXTRA incentives to these types of developers? | In addition to affordable housing zoning tools, the City provides gap investment to affordable housing providers for new construction and preservation within the resources currently available. This investment leverages low income housing tax credit equity (the primary source of equity funding for committed affordable housing projects), commercial debt, and other funding sources. With respect to existing zoning tools, the RMF Zone (the residential multifamily zone) was created recently to incentivize more deeply affordable units, averaging at 40% of the area median income. This zone has been utilized, for example, by the Elbert Avenue, Witter Place, and Samuel Madden projects. |
| 495 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | According to the EPA, our new upgraded Alexandria Renew Tunnel System will reduce the annual volume of sewage dumped into the Potomac river from 140 million gallons to 16 million gallons. Should we increase our density and thus our city's population, we would increase the sewage dumped into the Potomac. What is the city going to do to address the environmental impacts and odor resulting from the increased sewage runoff? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 496 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | (1). What other cities in the US have eliminated Single Family Zoning and (2). can you point me to studies that address the impact this has made to housing affordability in that city? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 497 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The FAR is too high--which is why you have these mega-mansions being built all over Del Ray. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 498 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I’m excited to see Alexandria lead the way in the region toward revising our zoning for flexibility in housing. I’m sure the city has protections in place to preserve our existing small apartments, while making space for growing households and ways for everyone to age in place, from new college students to retirees wanting to downsize. It would be great to see more plans about that topic. Thanks for your work! | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 499 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am a homeowner in Del Ray and support the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiative. I currently own a semi-detached home in the R2-5 zone, and I previously lived in one of the older garden apartment buildings. The diversity of housing in Del Ray make it a desirable place to live. Although the R2-5 zone ostensibly permits semi-detached dwellings by right, most of the existing dwellings could not be built by right under current zoning as a 37.5' lot width per semi-detached dwelling (75' lot total for two semi-detached dwellings) is required. Additionally, the setbacks required to construct two semi-detached dwellings exceeds the setbacks required for a 1 over 1 duplex or single family dwelling. It saddens me that so many of the smaller, single family homes in the neighborhood have been torn down to make way for single family houses approaching $2 million or more. But, if they will be torn down, I would at least like to see some additional semi-detached homes built. Our community will no longer function as a community if we become an enclave for multi-million dollar homes, with some dedicated affordable rental housing for low income residents and luxury apartments for (primarily) young renters tossed in. We need to maintain housing at a range of price points for the community to remain vital. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year. |
| 500 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | The Zoning for Housing proposal has my cautious but genuine support. Increasing housing stock should be one of the city's highest priorities. Changing our restrictive zoning codes to promote the construction of denser housing is a key element of addressing that priority. The steps the city is taking to rework its zoning have been met with criticism, some of it quite vehement, from certain corners. I would highly encourage the city to understand this criticism as expressing the opinions of a vocal minority, and as non-representative of community sentiment as a whole. The majority of Alexandria's citizens want more housing options, better affordability, and closer access to the region's public transit systems. ZFH can provide benefits in each of those areas. In expressing my support for ZFH, I want to specifically emphasize my strong desire to see the city continue and expand its practice of loosening height maximum and parking minimum restrictions in exchange for affordability commitments. In fact, I would like to see the city be more assertive in its affordability demands when negotiating with developers. The city already occupies a very strong position at the bargaining table thanks to Alexandria's hot rental market. This position will only become stronger once ZFH passes and developers see Alexandria as an even more attractive location. The city should use this strong position to demand that higher percentages of developed units be dedicated to on-site affordable units priced at 30% of AMI. Having affordable units be on-site is especially crucial to ensure that working class individuals have the same degree of access to neighborhood services and resources as their fellow community members. Aggressively pursuing affordability commitments from developers will help ensure that the housing produced as a result of ZFH is truly Housing for All. I would greatly appreciate a response from the city outlining its plans, or explaining the lack thereof, for making extraction of greater affordability commitments a part of ZFH's changes to the current Section 7-700 of the Zoning Ordinance. | Thank you very much for these comments. Affordable housing is one of the three pillars of Zoning for Housing and staff agrees that it is important to be clear about which initiatives are designed to increase the provision of affordable housing. As you note, there is an urgent need for deeply affordable units. The City strengthens its position at the bargaining table with developers in a number of ways, including by continually assessing the financial realities of new development. We do these analyses during small area plans, when developing new developer contribution policies (affordable housing, green building) so that staff has a clear understanding of the financial capacity of new development projects to absorb City conditions. For example, the recently updated Housing Contribution Procedures were informed by this kind of financial analysis (https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/developer-resources). Economic/financial analysis is also part of the Zoning for Housing program. |
| 501 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | This past week at a symposium on housing in Alexandria, Mayor Justin Wilson characterized the city’s zoning codes as “a poisoned tree.” That reminded me that in the late 1990s I was appointed as a member of a citizen Taskforce to review those same codes. They had been challenged on the grounds of “fairness” by landowners. For me that “fairness” term included most particularly finding any racial bias that might be embedded in the codes. It was an era when “red-lining” by real estate interests to exclude blacks from certain neighborhoods had been uncovered in many cities. Our group was headed by Bill Hurd, then the chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. Over several months our Taskforce examined the zoning code meticulously. In the end we found no racial bias or other substantive instances of unfairness to any group of Alexandria residents in the ordinances themselves. The Taskforce recommended only “tweaks” to the codes, two or three minor amendments. Unfortunately, the Taskforce report has gone missing. My request to the Office of Planning and Zoning recently brought back the response that while the existence of the Taskforce is acknowledged, our report cannot be found archived anywhere in city files. My own copy long since has been lost. I am hopeful that renewed efforts will find the report somewhere. In the meantime Mayor Justin Wilson is alleging that this same code is a “poisoned tree” bearing “poisoned fruit” but he does not, and perhaps cannot, point out specific offending ordinances. It is just a blanket condemnation. This suggest to me that Mr. Wilson comes to this notion of a “poisoned tree” not through facts but is playing a specious race card with the sole purpose of terminating single family zoning in Alexandria to the benefit of anxiously waiting developers. Question: Please describe what the "poisoned tree" represents. | Thank you for your comments and your note about the late 1990s task force. As you note, staff searched the archives for a copy of the report, which we agree would be useful, but were not able to locate a copy. The review of the zoning ordinance language that is planned as part of Zoning for Housing will be informed by research that might not have been available in the 1990s and it is also possible that in the decades since the previous task force, our shared understanding of what constitutes exclusionary language has evolved somewhat. |
| 502 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | The American dream was built on small businesses operated out of the same buildings people lived in, whether a shop with an apartment above it or a house with a small shop or cafe built out front. We've largely made this illegal with residential-only zoning, setback requirements, etc. How can zoning reforms help empower Alexandrians to start small businesses on the property they already own? | Thank you for your comment about the importance and advantage of allowing opportunities for small businesses within residential dwellings. There is a benefit to the homeowner as an entrepreneur and a benefit to the City which supports small business. In that regard, the City does allow home based businesses in residential dwellings. You can read the specifics in Section 7-300 of the Zoning Ordinance. |
| 503 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I am very happy to see the city take this issue seriously. I originally moved to this area because I was actually able to find the right kind of housing for my partner and I, and I loved that my area supported walkability and public transit, so it's very exciting to see these ideas be developed across the city. | Thank you for your comments. It sounds like you have found the perfect urban community that fits your needs. It is important that all communities have ready access to multi-modal transportation options and services. |
| 504 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Early on, the city was was asked if it would be providing quantitative evidence that these zoning changes will accomplish the desired objective. The answer to this question indicated they would be doing quantitative analysis. I think the question was misinterpreted. Will the city provide quantitative evidence where these types of changes have accomplished similar goals in other cities? | City staff will not be conducting empirical analysis of the outcomes of zoning reforms in other cities but staff has noted studies such as one recently conducted by the Urban Institute (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/zoning-change). That study is a thorough look at the potential outcomes of zoning change, and which addresses Minneapolis as just one example: "Recent, non-causal evidence on Minneapolis’s 2018 allowances for moderate density on single-family properties citywide is comparable; post-reform, annual permits for triplex and fourplex units increased to only about 50—miniscule compared to overall construction (Blumgart 2022)." In another article, the Urban Institute notes that the total number of new units was 81, compared to the 180,000 Minneapolis households. This is one reason why Zoning for Housing contains 11 different different initiatives -- not every initiative will produce a large number of units, but will achieve other goals, such as increasing hte potential for housing diversity. |
| 505 | | Online feedback form | 22206 | At the upcoming May 10 community meeting on housing for all, will the city be presenting their proposed plans on addressing this area? If they are not planning on presenting their proposed plans at this meeting, when will they be presenting their proposed plans? And after they present their proposed plans to the various Alexandria city communities, will the communities have time to study the proposed plans and have input about the proposed plans including expressing any concerns? When is Alexandria city expected to decide on accepting the proposed plans? Thank you for your time | The City is conducting these spring outreach meetings to not only share the concepts of the Zoning for Housing initiative, but also to get early input from the community which can help inform this data gathering and analysis phase of the process. We anticipate that early findings and recommendations will be shared with the community for further input in late summer to early fall, approximately two months prior to public hearings. |
| 506 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | At last night’s meeting, you talked of housing equity in two ways: correcting past segregation and equity for all of those members who contribute to our community (police, waitresses, etc). Yet, you have failed to 1) identify that either of those is a problem in Alexandria and 2) that changing zoning restrictions solves either problem. Housing segregation by race is a federal civil rights violation. Alexandria surely does not have such language anymore. Alexandria’s population is 52% white non-Hispanic, 22% Black, and 17% Hispanic or Latino (US Census Bureau). So, in what communities of Alexandria are you saying segregation “may” exist that is not being afforded to minority groups? And are you specifically targeting those communities for affordable housing options? Are you then targeting minority groups to move into those affordable housing options? Of the affordable housing options now, what is the racial makeup of recipients- ie, are you addressing race segregation or economic segregation or both? Of the affordable housing options now, how many of those make up members you cited that live and work in Alexandria- firefighters, police, waiters/waitresses, etc? If you don’t know the answers to those questions, then how can you know there is a problem, what the problem is, or how to fix it? Only 42% of housing in Alexandria is owner-occupied (US Census Bureau). The more units you build up to create a concrete village, the lower that number goes. Focus on what is documented broken: roads, schools, water systems, parking and traffic issues. | There are communities within the City -- just as they exist in other jurisdictions - that have challenges of living conditions. Please click onto the Equity Emphasis Areas Map on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage to see the 12 Census Tracts in Alexandria where remnants of socio-economic challgenges exist and/or where populations of color exists in numbers beyond the regional average for other census tracts. Whether those disparties have occurred through past discriminatory practices -- zoning or otherwise -- it something we are studying -- but more importantly we want through this project and other initiatives of the City to help those communities raise their standard of living and to provide more housing choices for all Alexandrias in and outside these communities. There are other reference tools on the Housing for All webpage (https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/housing-for-all) which speak to past discrimination in housing and how the remnants of those policies could potentially link to conditions in certain communities of color today. These include -- A Timeline of African American Housing History in Alexandria; A History of Restrictive Covenants and Land Use Zoning in Alexandria; and Zoning and Segregation in VA. It is important to study the root causes of socio-economically challenged communities as part of determining the right solutions to help those communities. The goal is not to place blame or live in the past but instead to help all communities improve their quality of life in a fair and equitable way, creating a stronger Alexandria for all. |
| 507 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Are there any restrictions on developers tearing down historic, more affordable homes, and building $1 - 2 million dollar+ homes? How is this creating affordable, diverse housing in Del Ray or Alexandria? As a middle class senior on a fixed income I cannot afford to buy a smaller home in my own neighborhood. | The City cannot prohibit developers from constructing new homes if their proposals comply with all City requirements. The City cannot ban the sale or purchase of private property. However, through this process we can explore ways that might incentivize developers to look at other options that can help in the expansion of housing production and affordability |
| 508 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Hi, we are homeowners in Del Ray and fully support the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All plan. We attended the 4/18 meeting virtually. The disparities that exist in Alexandria due to historic racist policies have real effects on our community today and they cannot continue to stand. Thank you for your time and effort on this project. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and the fall meetings will be posted there as well. |
| 509 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The speaker has focused his presentation to 'housing'; the various aspects and goals related to increased availability, affordability, etc. At no time have the other issues that confront Alexandria and the 'goals' that the city has presented been addressed. For example: the schools are already overcrowded, what is the city planning to do to address the current challenge and the increase in the number of students? Infrastructure: our infrastructure is outdated and the City is trying to catch up. What is the City going to do to provide adequate water and sewer. How about the issue of flooding that will worsen with more blacktop and concrete? Green space is already inadequate. The City is proposing using some of the parks for housing, further reducing parks in the City. There has been little attention to the quality of life of current and future residents. This proposal sounds like making Alexandria into a high density City losing much of its charm. | In each component of this initiative, we are evaluating the proposals under the Zoning for Housing using specific tools to guage impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. Proposing park space for housing is not under consideration as part of this inititiative; if you are refernecing the upcoming zoning text amendment for the POS zone, it is related to recommendations of the Open Space Steering Committee. |
| 510 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | each according to his ability, to each according to his needs | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 511 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | You say that the housing for all is to address segregation and equality issues. Please report what race percentages make up the current affordable housing options in Alexandria. If they are not going to minority races now, then increasing density and adding more housing does not address the historical problem. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 512 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The City zoning code has been in force for 31 years. It contains no language whatsoever that is restrictive or discriminatory in any way. Why do you keep saying that there may be language in the city zoning code that restricts people of color from living in any neighborhood they choose and can afford? Are there any examples? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 513 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | To what extent will development make it easier and more cost-efficient to make necessary stormwater infrastructure improvements? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 514 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | why was the Dealership in Del Ray approved for an exempetion if Alexandria needs more housing? That was almost 3 blocks ? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 515 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What is the formula in place to determine how many affordable units are derived. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 516 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will you be implementing/expanding upon inclusionary zoning policies such as rent control? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 517 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Dr. Moon has extensively researched racial restrictive covenants in the city and found no examples in any home built after 1962. That means that only a very small percentage of homes in Alexandria might have that sort of unenforceable covenant. Do you know of any examples of people purchasing a home who were not able to complete the transaction due to such a covenant? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 518 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | There are NO covenents in my neoghborhood and anyone, of any race, religion, etc. can buy and own a home here. We are a multi-ethnic, multi-generational community and I take exception to how you're hammering that we don't exist. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 519 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I love that my neighborhood has small apartment & condo buildings and churches among the duplexes and single family houses. Will we be able to have this again with the new zoning plan? This seems to have been restricted in the past few decades. Would they remain small buildings, like 2-3 story apartments? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 520 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why did Mr. Moritz say that redlining could be in the code? It is not. Also, why do the city’s planning, zoning and housing departments keep saying they are researching the code when they work with the code every day? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 521 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I have great concerns about your proposals to change the single family zones to allow additional housing units. The City already has many zones that permit or encourage multi-family housing types. If enacted, it would create more traffic problems, eliminate open space, and potentially exacerbate our problems with school capacity. I hope you will listen to the input we provide before finalizing this component of your proposals. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 522 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What does success look like for advancing equity in housing for Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 523 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How does your plan align with the recent missing middle policies passed by the Arlington County Board? How will Alexandria expand upon missing middle housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 524 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | How does the city reconcile the lack of infrastructure (schools, water, sewage, parking, etc.) with what is clearly a drive for significant additional density? What is the goal in practical terms -for example, that anyone with 2/3 of the median income can afford to live in any area or neighborhood of the city and not pay more than 30% of their income? How do we know if we've accomplished the goal? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 525 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What traffic assessments, if any, has the city done in considering even more dense zoning? With the PTO and Potomac Yard massive developments, the city already seems over-capacity and unsustainable as far as quality of life. The city simply cannot get endlessly more dense. I do not understand why the city wants to make these targeted neighborhoods even more dense, destroying their current character. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 526 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | So you have no examples of racially restrictive covenants or racially restrictive language in the current code? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 527 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | In addition to higher density, will you upzone residential neighborhoods and increase mixed use zoning? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 528 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | When will your research into the history be completed and presented to the public? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 529 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We live in a multi-racial community now so I don't know what you're talking about. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 530 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | We keep hearing about discriniation being the main reason for Zoning For Housing even though the Supreme Court made discrimationatory housing illegal in 1948. What we have yet to hear is how these proposals will effect the majority of Alexandrians due to increasing density beyond that analyzed in small area plans. In this regard, (1) What weight, if any, be given to the adverse impact the majority of Alexandrians will endure if the Zoning for Housing proposlas are adopted on matters such as traffic congestion, school capacity, the enrgy grid, taxes, and flooding and other environmental impacts?; (2) Will the amount of affordable housing sought to be built be dimimnished by the roughly 7% of current vacant housing units in Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 531 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | As part of the equity component, is the City taking steps to ensure all City employees are paid a living wage and to require all vendors and contractors used by the City do so as well? Frequently City employees like teachers and firefighters are held up as the example of people working in Alexandria that cannot afford it. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 532 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why is the City Council automatically equating "affordable housing" with increasing density? Why didn't the city take action to make all of the recent extensive developments "affordable" instead of just saying we need to increase density? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 533 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Yes, higher density, transit oriented communities have much less of an environmental impact than single zoning which promotes sprawl and increases runoff | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 534 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | the car dealership in Del Ray was approved for an exempetion why? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 535 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I understand the need to research past harms and discrinatory practices. Nevertheless it seems the presentation infers these land use reforms are necessary to right these wrongs or lingering vestages of exclusionary zoning policies. What is not covered in the presentation are safegaurds to preclude manipulation or discrimnatory abuse as a result of zoning reforms--gentrification being one. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 536 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is the city of Alexandria researching land-use reparations for those African American historical communities that were displaced? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 537 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | why a 75 foot max height restiction versus of 85 or 90? due to DCA? or?? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 538 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Will you coordinate with the transportation agency to ensure the increase in density is able to travel by transit and active transportation to their daily needs and services? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 539 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | I appreciate the comment about zoning changes will not force people to leave their community. The city has not been helpful in keeping developers promises about paying for foundation damage due to construction. The proposed development on Queen and Fairfax poses a number of risks for the surrounding foundations. What changes will be used to ensure current homes are not damaged and when damage occurs the city actually keeps promises? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 540 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | When the Z4H proposal eventually goes to the public hearing phase…will that be done as a single proposal or potentially as multiple proposals? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 541 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Is there a chart that shows the number of affordable units being built by development and at what % of affordability level AMI. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 542 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | It sounds like Carl mentioned that developers already have options to build in those areas, but adding a few units of affordable housing could allow maybe an extra floor off square footage? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 543 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | with the increase in inflation and interest rates going up, how much will that impact constuction projects ? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 544 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | What weight will be given to the impact of increased density on the majority of Alexandrians with respect to traffic congestion, school capacity, the energy grid, taxes, and flooding and other environmental impacts? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 545 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | At the June 22, 2022 Planning Commission meeting on Bonus Height Text Amendment (BHTA), the Commission voted unanimously for Staff to provide additional information based on community feedback. The specific request was:
- A study of the number of units to be produced without the BHTA
- A study of the number of units to be produced with the BHTA
- To review both of the above with an additional 25' of height, with an additional 15' of height and with a 50' height limit
- To review and document the displacement effect for existing market rate affordable housing
- To review the potential impact on historic structures
What is the timeline for the community to obtain the answers requested by the Planning Commission last June? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 546 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | The presentor spoke about 3000 affordability units in the next 10 years. Now you are speaking about 5000 affordable units. Which one is it? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 547 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | There is a 0.7 mile BRT lane on Rt. 1 between Potomac Ave and E Glebe Rd. that does not connect Metro stations or other transit hubs. Would that lane be sufficient to increase density within Del Ray under the Expansion of Transit Oriented Development? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 548 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Where in the process will the "stacking effect" of these components be overlaid on a map for the community to understand the full picture of how the community will be impacted?
As an example, by "stacking effect" I mean if the 0.7 mile long BRT lane on Rt. 1 allows for a density bonus and reduction in parking minimum AND Office to Residential allows for reduction in parking minimums AND BHTA allows for increased density and reduction in parking minimums, will these be compounding? If so, how is the community supposed to understand this impact? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 549 | | Hybrid Community Meeting | | Why are building heights given in ft and not stories? 70ft sounds misleading when it is 6 to 7 stories. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 550 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Just wanted to say that while I can't come to one of the in-person meetings to lend my support vocally, I do want my support of Zoning for Housing and Housing for All on the record. I moved to Alexandria in 1998, purchasing a house that needed alot of work in the Del Ray neighborhood. At the time - the house cost us $135k and we spent another $100k fixing it. Tough but doable on two incomes of about $80k total. Six years later we bought a slightly bigger house in the neighborhood that was condemened but still demanded a $530k price tag. Lucky for us the other house sold for a similar amount and with savings we've improved this house over the years to be a gem. In that same time we had 2 children who went through the ACPS school system and graduated. And - now I'm thinking, my own kids will never be able to buy into the neighborhood they grew up in. Every small house is bought by a developer and turned into a $1.8 million or higher priced house. There is no incentive to build small/starter houses. I'm dissapointed in the vocal group that derailed the Housing and Human Services plot redevelopment. Instead we walk by an underused site daily instead of enduring a year of construction for what could be decades of new residents and new buildings. While my neighbors continue to complain about cars, they increase the size of their homes to eat up what used to be long front to back driveways and turn them into 1-2 car parking pads. I support more housing, more variety, more price points. Just like the duplexes that dot Del Ray, there was a time when empty lots were filled not with the Sears Homes of the 1920's and 30's but with duplexes of the 1950's. Now it's time to start adding the mixed used developments of the 2020's. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website and the fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 551 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I do not support the increased height limit to 75 feet on Mt. Vernon Ave. It will destroy the character of the neighborhood and turn it into Arlington | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and the fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 552 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | You have my full support for Zoning for Housing/Housing for All! Keep up the good work and don't let the NIMBYs delay everything. The NIMBYs who are a part of groups like "Save Del Ray" will never accept these measures no matter how much more time is spent. Delaying these projects and costing the city additional time and money until you give up is their #1 strategy at preventing change. We have a very real housing affordability and climate crisis on our hands, and promoting dense, walkable, and transit-oriented communities is a great step in the right direction. Loosening restrictive zoning is a great idea that will at least partially improve housing supply and affordability, while maximizing the freedom of property owners in the area. I rent a duplex in Del Ray, and I would never have had the chance to live and spend money in this amazing community if everything was restricted to single family detached lots. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and all fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 553 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | I am deeply skeptical of whether the City cares about community input given the Mayor's recent comments lamenting the efforts to gain consensus on Taylor Run Restoration, but will still put these comments in. This plan should be approached neighborhood-by-neighborhood with actual, democratic process for those neighborhoods. There is nothing in the VA Code to prevent the city from getting advisory votes from each precinct on whether residents desire to allow exiting owners (sellers) to transform the neighborhoods they are leaving behind. (That's the practical way this plays out. I sell my house, and I sell to a developer for MORE so a duplex/quad can be put in.) What the City Staff is proposing, with the current support from the Council, is a fundamental destruction of existing neighborhoods in favor of heavy traffic and crowding -- precisely things we did not choose, and *could* have chosen by living in high density areas. If you want to strip the neighborhoods of their character and pace, then structure a democratic process that deals with it *DIRECTLY.* I know the City is terrified of this sort of direct neighborhood engagement -- we all know the City loathes the neighborhood associations -- but the politicians need to override the City staff and support basic democracy. Closing: I had lunch with a 20-year Alexandria resident who lives in a SFR. His comment: "it's obvious the City doesn't want me here. It wants a city full of 20-somethings jammed tightly together, who will then move away when they have kids. It's a big strategy to replace my family. So I'll leave." If you want that, you'll get it. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and the fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 554 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I am writing to express a strongly held view based on many years of experience assisting low income families. The charity I'm with goes to wherever those in need are: in their homes, place of work, in shelters, homeless...wherever. We have seen what works and what doesn't. It is clear to me that the success rate for children raised in mixed housing developments as opposed to low income families all together in high rises or town homes is so much higher. And I have met with many moms who are so grateful that their children are not preyed upon by drug dealers and gangs that hang out at exclusively low income communities. Since cities launched projects to house low income families in the 1960s, despite the best of intentions, these only perpetuated the cycle of poverty. And in many cities, those buildings and entire communities have been razed. To be sure, housing exclusively for elderly poor, like Annie B. Rose, has done so much to provide comfort, dignity and decent housing to their residents. But I heard recently from an elderly lady living in another location in 22304 that a new high rise going up next to them would house exclusively low income families. She is fearful what this will mean to her safety and security. Please, please, please...stay with what works: mixed housing. To be sure, it can require extensive negotiations with developers and a litany of Special Use Permits. But it is worth it...for the families and for the future of our City and our nation. We must not doom low income children to a future without hope, dreams and decent life. | Thank you for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and the fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 555 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Why is an old and unique city like Alexandria not including strong historic preservation and conservation goals in this process? It would help residents to know that these positive, inclusive goals will not sacrifice the historic fabric of our communities. This would be the golden opportunity to include both in a wholistic way. | The historic development patterns team has identified several buildings that were constructed prior to the 1992 zoning ordinance update that exemplify compatible historic development patterns that can no longer be constructed but are so valued that some have been designated for preservation. Many of these sites are located within the Old and Historic District as well as Parker-Gray, both of which are designated local historic districts by the City. Additional buildings were identified in Rosemont and Del Ray, both National Register Historic Districts. Staff is evaluating options to allow new construction to employ historic development patterns that are now precluded by current zoning regulations. |
| 556 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I strongly support efforts to increase Alexandria's housing supply and housing density, including in my neighborhood of Del Ray. | Thank you so much for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all spring upcoming community meetings and events are posted on the project website and all fall community meetings will be posted as well. |
| 557 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I think the city is being too heavy handed in allowing single family zoning to allow multi-family. This undermines the definition of the zone itself. What percentage of the city’s land mass is single family zoning? Not enough detail and clarity is being provided for this change that I assume affects a vast majority of the city. | Approximately a third of Alexandria is zoned for single-family homes. A few uses (some parks, schools, and churches) are permitted in zones that are otherwise limited to single-family detached housing. " |
| 558 | | Email | | To Planning Commission Chair: As Zoning for Housing has been announced, I am concerned that we will find ourselves once again in a rushed timeline leaving a vote without sufficient understanding of the impact to our neighborhoods and our community. As the Mayor has called Zoning for Housing the "most ambitious housing effort in the City's history" the community needs to understand not only the intended impact but also uncover unintended impact to our neighborhoods and community. While I am guessing you are lacking the same details we are in the community, I wanted to see if you had insight into or to draw your attention to the following:
•The timeline in general. According Ms. Williams on the 23 March P&Z listening session, we won't see a draft plan until late summer. The City has indicated the timeline is fixed to have Council vote in November or December which leaves less than three (3) months to gain clarity on how these massive changes would impact our neighborhoods, community and daily life.
o Do you have any idea when Planning Commission would hear proposals from Staff?
o Do you have any understanding if these will come in the form of a single or multiple components to be evaluated? For example, will Zoning for Housing be a monolith or will components like Bonus Height be reviewed independently?
•There seems to be no protections for Historic Alexandria. Living in Del Ray I see contributing structure after contributing structure razed to make room for new construction. Our worst example is 205 E Duncan Ave where a $700k bungalow was replaced with four (4) $1.2m townhouses which are significant deviations from the established pattern of development. Do you have any insight into how historic resources will be protected?
•The compounding effect of each provision seems does not seem to be accounted for. As an example, how will proximity to a BRT stop AND any reduction in parking minimums for new multifamily in existing single family "stack" to make parking in a neighborhood even more scarce. In Del Ray we have seen developers apply a 10% reduction in parking minimums due to distance the the Rt. 1 BRT "transit cooridor" that looks more like an abandoned highway than transit most of the day.
•How elimination of single family zoning will be applied? Arlington took four (4) years to pass "Missing Middle" which still left a vast amount of detail missing which could vastly change the outcomes both intended and unintended.
•What is meant by analysis of the Historic Patterns of Development and Townhouse Zoning? Is this an academic exercise or is there a hypothesis to be tested? If so, what are they?
I understand there is a significant lobby consisting of both well-intentioned and self-interested parties but the political rhetoric should not eclipse the real impact to people who have made their homes in Alexandria. As residents, we are not an academic exercise. We are people who raise children here, volunteer and contribute to the community. For many of us, Alexandria is not a place to find accommodations, it is a community in which we have made our homes. I'm sure this will be a very contentious year, I hope that the vitriol I see on social media doesn't spill over into our conversations about our community. | Your technical questions are very important and are relevant to a couple of the initiatives under Zoning for Housing and can help inform the data collection and analysis phase of the work undertaken by project managers. We appreciate receiving them at this juncture of the process and will be shared with the project managers. In addition, in terms of the schedule, your points are well taken; we are endeavoring to think ahead and as this process evolves further we will know more about the timing for the staff report and how the information will be formatted. In the meantime, please know that we pledge to continue to work as diligently as possible to ensure that we have as much data and analysis as early as possible to share with the community to help facilitate timely public review and feedback. |
| 559 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I am wondering how the City is going to incentivize developers to build more units, should single family zoning go away. Much of Del Ray is zoned R2-5, but developers are not tearing down single family homes to build duplexes or semi-detached, they just build one giant 5-bedroom house. | Yes, this is an interesting topic to examine, since this is a zone that allows both single family and two-family dwellings. |
| 560 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | Very excited to see the City addressing so many aspects of our housing crisis! We've seen a lot of info on how the reforms can help address the legacy of racial discrimination in Alx, which is very important. I'd love to also hear more about how they will help the city meet its climate goals, contribute to the city budget, etc. | Your comment is very important and the City is working hard to integrate sustainability measures into development. To guide that process, we are using provisions of our Environmental Action Plan 2040, Draft Energy and Climate Action Change Plan, and our Green Building Policy in coordination with City's newly established Climate Action Office, the Environmental Policy Commission and the Planning Commission. Please enter each of these documents as a search on the City's website to view a copy of them: www.alexandriava.gov |
| 561 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I think all the levers the city is exploring using to increase the supply of housing are good ideas - keep up the great work! | Thank you so much for providing your input. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 562 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Zoning for Housing is an important initiative and something our City desperately needs. We want to be an inclusive community where residents and their progeny will be able to stay if they choose to. Zoning for Housing addresses vestiges of a time past that continue to perpetuate segregation in our community. Thank you to the city staff and Council for making this a priority. | Thank you for your comments. Staff is preparing specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 563 | | Online feedback form | 22312 | No multi family households on single family plots | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 564 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | The Community Questionnaire is a joke. It doesn't even begin to cover the diversity of opinions that are possible. It's clear the survey was written to justify the plan rather than actually collect resident feedback. | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Although we made an effort to ensure that people of differing perspectives have potential answers in the question that align with those perspective, we neverthless also have the feedback form that you used to make this comment, which is entirely unrestricted and we are finding many Alexandrians are using that forum to communicate their thoughts. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods. We hope you will continue to stay engaged. |
| 565 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I’m appalled by this plan to turn del ray into another crystal city (Potomac Landing). What is wrong with you people? Del Rays charm are its buildings that attract families and small businesses. We don’t need more high rise living in such a unique neighborhood | Thank you for your comments and perspective. Yours and those of your fellow Alexandrians are informing staff's work as we prepare specific recommendations that will be available in the first week of September for public review and comment. Staff is looking for ways to balance the compatability concerns with the potential benefits of a measured expansion of housing type options in the City's neighborhoods.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community regarding proposed development along Mt. Vernon Avenue – if that is what you are referencing – that the City intends to place 577,000sf of development on Mt. Vernon Avenue, pursuant to both the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Housing Initiative. The square footage cited in some community communications is not associated with the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All Initiative or the COG Regional Housing Initiative. It is actually the size of the total development envelope permitted by the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, approved in 2005. It is the same number now as it was in 2005 when the Plan was approved (https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf). Moreover, a substantial fraction of that development has already occurred. Three Opportunity Sites in the Plan have been developed, namely the Del Ray Central Site or Opportunity Site A was developed at 110,788sf; the Del Ray Lofts Site or Opportunity Site C was developed at 18,642sf; and Del Ray Flooring was developed at 55,750sf. All three sites have been constructed. Therefore, approximately 391,820sf remains to be developed by the Plan, not the 577,000sf referenced. In addition, proposals for the remaining Opportunity Sites, if undertaken by the property owner, could take a period of 5-15 years. Just as with past development under the Mt. Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan, any future development would entail a public review process. Alexandria’s commitment through the Council of Governments is covered in a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2020 and the staff report explains the commitment in a bit of detail (https://alexandria.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4390562&GUID=56FD1779-B5BA-443B-8BFE-BDAA7D5C4727&FullText=1). Specifically, the local governments who come together under the COG umbrella studied how much housing regionally would be needed in the 2020-2030 decade for supply to better match demand. That analysis determined that the then-forecasted amount of housing production of 245,000 units over the coming decade wouldn’t be enough – another 75,000 housing units regionally would be needed. Alexandria’s share of that additional 75,000 is 3,000 units, or about 300 per year distributed throughout the city. There are further commitments: to locate the majority those units in “activity centers” – in proximity to high quality transit – and to a high proportion of the units being affordable. There is no allocation of that commitment to any specific neighborhood, so there’s no truth to that. The great majority of future residential development will occur in neighborhoods other than along Mount Vernon Avenue in Del Ray, because of the limited number of redevelopment sites along the Avenue and the constraints on development in the Mount Vernon Avenue Business Area Plan.
Zoning for Housing is studying the potential value of allowing residential buildings on parcels with a height limit of 45-50 feet the ability to be redeveloped at higher heights with the provision of affordable housing. If implemented, it could add up to about 2 stories to redeveloped properties on Mount Vernon Avenue, of which there are a limited number. Staff is now studying the potential impacts of this proposal and its impact on the character of Mount Vernon Avenue. |
| 566 | | Online feedback form | 20037 | I strongly support reforms to promote abundant, affordable housing. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 567 | | Online feedback form | 20171 | I can't realistically buy a condo anywhere even a little bit walkable even though I have a full-time job plus a part-time supplemental job and a master's degree. I want to own a home WITHOUT having a car. I want to live somewhere where I can realistically walk or ride the bus to where I need to go most days. What is being done so that I can buy a condo without needing a car? I feel really bemused that my very basic goal seems to be a pipe dream. | The City of Alexandria through its Office of Housing offers assistance to first time homebuyers. You can access their webpage here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources. In addition, there is a Northern VA Homebuyer Expo coming up this Saturday, April 1. Renters and first-time buyers looking to live in Northern Virginia should plan to visit the 2023 Northern Virginia Housing Expo, a free regional housing fair, at Dominion High School (21326 Augusta Dr, Sterling, VA 20164) on Saturday, April 1, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. To visit the webpage, please click here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/news-citywide/2023-03-15/2023-northern-virginia-housing-expo-returns-with-april-1-event-at |
| 568 | | Online feedback form | 22207 | I support housing for all initiatives in Arlington. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 569 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I strongly support zoning changes that will create more opportunities to build all housing types, including affordable housing. On my block, there are single family homes, apartments, townhouses and (soon!) ADUs. It is wonderful. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 570 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | I strongly support these efforts to encourage an abundant housing supply. • Relaxing land use restrictions will enable more and more affordable housing. This will benefit renters and future residents of Alexandria by providing them with more housing options and placing downward pressure on market rents. • Enabling the city to grow without increasing housing costs is crucial for the broad prosperity we desire. The potential economic benefits of zoning reform are hard to understate: the DC area provides enormous economic opportunity and allowing more people to access that at a better price is a great deal. • I encourage the City to consider relaxing height, lot coverage, and parking requirements in addition to common policies like allowing multiplexes on single-family lots. This is crucial for ensuring the economic viability of new multiplexes and small apartment building and has benefits for existing units. For example, my spouse and I live in Warwick Village, which is a great neighborhood with numerous midcentury townhouses that make it relatively dense. However, the units are small by modern standards which makes it hard to consider starting a family here. This is especially true now that many people work from home and have increased demand for residential square footage. If we want Alexandria to be a place where people can start families, then legalizing additions and popups would provide the flexibility for people to adapt these older units to their housing needs. • I worry about timeliness of reforms: two years ago, I moved to Alexandria from Arlington, where I lived in a nonconforming duplex that made living there affordable. While Arlington recently passed their Missing Middle reforms that will enable more duplexes, their process took many years and the reforms are designed to be slow, with explicit caps on the numbers of new projects ensuring that more people will be displaced or unable to access Arlington. Alexandria can do better! I encourage the city to go full steam ahead on an aggressive set of pro-housing reforms. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 571 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | How can Alexandria remove existing barriers to the development and addition of more affordable housing? | The City of Alexandria through its Zoning for Housing/Housng for All Program is working to identify regulatory barriers to affordable housing and identify new programs to expand housing production and affordability. Please see the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage for a list of those initiatives under the title of "Proposed 2023 Zoning for Housing Initiatives." |
| 572 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I support missing middle housing, greater density, walkability and lower housing prices. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 573 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | As a resident of Del Ray, I fully support zoning reform that makes it easier to built more and denser housing in Alexandria. The price of housing is absolutely absurd, and drastic reform is necessary to help bring it down. We should follow Arlington's lead (though without silly stuff like new development caps) and legalize denser housing. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 574 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Why aren't the people in each neighborhood being allowed to decide if they want more density and higher buildings and similar rezoning? | These initiatives are being considered as potential tools under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Every community is welcomed and encouraged to be part of this process, recognizing that Alexandria considers all communities as equal to one another, particularly as it relates to city-wide initiatives which should receive city-wide input. That is not to say that all of the initiatives may end up being applicable to all areas; again, that is why it is so important for all communities to engage in the process and share your input to bring your thoughts, concerns and ideas to the table. |
| 575 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | The housing for all initiative is sorely needed in Alexandria. We have a lot of work to do to recover from past inequity and current lack of housing. I hope to be part of the city’s middle income residents that are able to buy a house after renting for many years. This plan is thorough and thoughtful and will be a benefit to the region as our city leads on the issues. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 576 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | What design controls do you expect to implement to ensure that if you allow multi family within Alexandra neighborhoods like Delray that the structures will fit in to the style and nature of the current housing? | As you may know, the Mt. Vernon Business Plan does contain design guidelines for that area. The City takes those guidelines into consideration along with other zoning regulations when reviewing land use applications for that area. You can find a link to the Plan on the City's Master Plan page: https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/SAPs/MountVernonAvenueBusinessAreaPlanCurrent.pdf |
| 577 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | I strongly support the Zoning for Housing / Housing for All initiative. Housing prices currently are way too high, because we simply have not built enough housing to meet demand in this region. I support allowing more multi-family developments, townhomes, and mixed-use development throughout Alexandria. We can also reduce parking minimums, address concerns about greenspace through parkland design, and increase local amenities and comforts by encouraging small mixed-use developments. I hope by acting, our city can avoid becoming a financially gated community, like San Francisco, where local workers, teachers, and service-providers must travel from outside the community due to the cost of living within Alexandria. It is encouraging to see Alexandria consider this step, and I hope to see the City follow through on this commitment. | Thank you so much for providing your input on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All comment form. All feedback received will inform the initiative as we move forward. Please continue to stay engaged throughout the year – all upcoming community meetings and events will be posted on the project website. |
| 578 | | Virtual Listening Session | | My question on foundation research applies to Housing Alexandria as well. Can’t they apply to the large foundations | We are confident that Housing Alexandria tries to leverage all resources possible but that is a question we can put to them. |
| 579 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Please also consider Dari/Pashto interpretation for the growing Afghan community in Alexandria. | Thank you for that reminder to offer Dari/Pashto translation. |
| 580 | | Virtual Listening Session | | FYI, this really wasn't a listening session. It was a Q&A session. You didn't ask our opinions to listen to..... | The opening remarks did mention that questions and comments are welcome. The City will emphasize that in future meetings; thank you for that reminder. Also, both comments and quesitons are welcome via a Zoning for Housing/Housing for All form that is on the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All webpage. https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all Look under "Ways to Engage" to access that form. |
| 581 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Thank you for the time in answering these questions | Know that the City appreciates everyone's participation and we hope that those here today will stay engaged and also that others will join this conversation. It is important that we hear from as many stakeholders as possible and hearing comments and questions is an important part of the information gathering and analysis process. |
| 582 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Will Zoning 4 Housing changes be subordinate to or override Small Area Plans? | Zoning for Housing is intended to be another tool to help achieve housing goals within Small Area Plans. With that, the City is seeking to change, modify or add provisions to the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate those goals. We therefore anticipate that the Small Area Plans and the Zoning Ordinance will work hand in hand. We expect to learn more about where and when nuances might occur between certain Small Area Plans and the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Zoning for Housing and how to address them as the data gathering/analysis processes proceed under Zoning for Housing. |
| 583 | | Virtual Listening Session | | What is the percentage of land use by SFH vs. all "housing land"? (I'm presuming the 30%+ Mr. Moritz cited is 30% of all city land, not 30% of of just the land that occupies housing). | All land that is used by single family homes is approximately 30%. However, we will be confirming the land use data base to confirm that. |
| 584 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Has the City or a related Non-profit tried, or will you try, to find grants to write down home ownership or rentals. There are so many foundations that could help here | We will absolutely look ways to expand the funds we have, including grants. In terms of down payment assistance, we do provide help to people for the down payment assistance for first time homebuyers. We are also very interested in training people to help them become homeowners and to make sure that they have the resources to do so. We also have a class that trains people on condominiums. |
| 585 | | Virtual Listening Session | | From my understanding, new buildings usually come with some form of parking minimum requirements. Has the city thought about reducing or eliminating those parking minimums for certain areas? Reducing or eliminating parking minimums could have several benefits, including reducing the cost of housing, encouraging sustainable transportation, and making the city more livable. | The City has established new multi-family parking standards ratios with allowances for lower ratios when particular conditions are met. This parking ratio is a starting point, from which projects may
apply allowable credits according to the development’s proximity to transit, walkability index score, and percentage of studio units within the development project. Also development projects can ask that parking be reduced or parking be increased. |
| 586 | | Virtual Listening Session | | What is the City doing to ensure input from those who will be helped the most by this effort such as potential residents and current renters? | The City is working very hard to bring as many people of all income groups and needs to the table for their input. You can hep by sharing with those you know who have a stake in this effort to please join us and share their thoughts and input. Simultaneously we continue to gather and update information on affordability needs of our City. The information in Helen McIlvaine's presentation documents both current and future need. It is everyone best interest to help in finding solutions to meet the need because many of these households are critcal to our economy and quality of life and they are deserving of decent, safe and affordable housing. |
| 587 | | Virtual Listening Session | | What is the ratio of single family homes to other forms of housing and what percentage of Alexandria is currently zoned exclusively for single family houses? | Approximately a third of Alexandria is zoned for single-family homes. A few uses (some parks, schools, and churches) are permitted in zones that are otherwise limited to single-family detached housing. Staff hasn't calculated the land area zoned for single family detached housing that is used for these purposes. |
| 588 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Acccording to the Alexandria Demographics and Statistics Dashboard - Continued, more than 5,100 or 7% of housing units are vacant. Census data and regional studies indicate that the population of NoVa is shrinking. How do you reconcile this with the statement that Alexandria is behind in meeting demand? Please answer specific to Alexandria not to regional goals or National topics. | Respectfully, Alexandria is part of the regional housing market and nationally too. We are not in a self-contained area where we only need to take care of people who already live here, or can ignore the effects of regional demand for housing on the housing prices here in Alexandria. Alexandria was a full partner, both myself and Housing Director McIlvaine, in the regional analyses of housing supply and demand, and demand for affordable housing, that fed into the Regional Housing Initiative to which Alexandria is a signatory. |
| 589 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Since you are talking about re-shaping these long-standing single-family neighborhoods, shouldn’t the people most directly impacted (the single family homeowners/neighborhoods) have a more heavily-weighted input – and veto ability on specific projects? | Questions 24 combined with 27
I am going to start with the percentage of housing for single-family with information from our Office of Housing Director, Helen McIlvaine.
Based on the City's Office of Real Estate Assessment, single-family homes make up 25.9% of housing types, market rate rental units make up 43.8%; condominiums constitute 24.1% of our housing; committed affordable rental units are 6.0 percent and committed affordable condominums are .2% of housing types. Consequently, 50% of our housing are rental properties, 25% are single family homes, and 25% are condominiums.
We can combine these questions because there are a variety of people that are affected by this topic. It is very important. Those in single-family areas have bought into a lifestyle and a neighborhood that they are not necessarily interested in changing. That’s enormously important. There are other instances where people say I haven’t been able to get an apartment in Alexandria. So each of these groups that contribute to the City of Alexandria should have an opportunity to speak. Also, it is an ethical matter, that individuals across the City be treated equally when a proposal is being made. |
| 590 | | Virtual Listening Session | | I am excited about an Equity Impact process. Will this be something that developers will have to file in order to move forward? Thinking here of environmental impact statements/studies | We are in the initial stages of development in terms of analyzing potential Equity impacts. We have to give credit to the City's Housing for All Subcommittee that came up with the idea of including an Equity Impact Statement for future development projects. It’s definitely something practical that is worthy of studying under this effort. We also want to make sure that the Zoning for Housing initiatives are analyzed through an equity lens, along through a data and analysis lens. We don’t just want this to be a piece of paper that is signed. It has to be something that is linked to these initiatives with outcomes. |
| 591 | | Virtual Listening Session | | It will be very informative to learn more about African American communities in Alexandria throughout its existence. Do you know if Arlington County initiated a similar in-depth analsis of this subject? | We did meet with Arlington County a few months ago, before their proposal was brought for consideration by their board of supervisors. We wanted to hear about any lessons they have learned. They told us after listening to our proposal that they were very glad that we had incorporated Housing for All as the Equity component because one of the things they thought they could have done better is to lead with equity. They did that later in the process. I think they’ve created a good program and see the importance of equity to these processes. Our City too will continue to emphasize the importance of equity as we move forward.
Carl: I wanted to highlight to the people that are in the chat there’s a piece of information that’s very interesting (portion not understandable) there was a project in the 90’s, as part of the African American history Museum. It is fascinating and Nancy and I will be in contact with the museum. |
| 592 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Comment: I would find it interesting to see what constraints are on R2.5 property that prevented redevelopment of SF with 2-dwelling units and whether expansion to allow construction of 2-dwelling units in other SF zones would improve these types of dwelling being constructed. | Yes, this is an interesting topic to examine, since this is a zone that allows both single family and two-family dwellings. |
| 593 | | Virtual Listening Session | | I am wondering if you are aware of the photo project I did in 1994-1995 documenting the Parker Gray neighborhood. It was the first exhibit at the Black History Museum. They own the photographs plus some oral history. Also many slides of the area. It was called “The Spirit of the Neighborhood “ by myself, Carol Siegel. One of the photographs is in the Freedom House. It is of Eudora Lyles , who was an activist in the neighborhood. | Thank you for sharing this information about the resource of the photo project you completed for the Black History Museum. |
| 594 | | Virtual Listening Session | | How much are taxpayers expected to spend per year to subsidize these affordable housing units? Is it already in the proposed 2024 city budget? | Response is being confirmed with the Office of Housing and will be posted shortly. |
| 595 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Will developers be allowed to tear down adjacents SFH in the R2-5 zone and consolidate the lots to build townhouses or a 4-6 apartment building? | We appreciate this suggestion to examine this question. Many of the houses in Del Ray are on double lots. Lot consolidation is rare, as it is often propoerty owners are not interested in purchasing the lot next door, nor do mutliple properties often come to sale at the same time. |
| 596 | | Virtual Listening Session | | From my understanding new building usually come with some form of parking minimum requirements. Has the city thought about reducing or elmiating those parking mininums for certain areas? Reducing or eliminating parking minimums in could have several benefits, including reducing the cost of housing, encouraging sustainable transportation, and making the city more livable. | The City has undertaken changes to its Multi-family parking regulations. The new parking standards establish parking ratios with allowances for lower ratios when particular conditions are met. This parking ratio is a starting point, from which projects may apply allowable credits according to the development’s proximity to transit, walkability index score, and percentage of studio units within the development project. The City will continue to look at parking regulations particularly while also emphasizing oppportunities for more walkable, service enriched and multi-modal options for communities. |
| 597 | | Virtual Listening Session | | For ADUs specifically, how many have been used for long-term, affordable housing versus short term rentals (AirBnBs) or as additions to existing square footage (e.g. used as a home office)? | There are 40 Accessory Dwelling Units that were approved in February of this year and as of this month that number increased to 42. While ADUs are not required to meet affordability guidelines, they help to expand housing choices within the City. Additionally, the Regional Fair Housing Assessment has made a recommendation that the City sould consider support to make them more affordable. In terms of short term rentals, City Code defines short terms rentalss as the provision of a room or space by an operator that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. They must be registered with the City in order to operate. |
| 598 | | Virtual Listening Session | | How will the community feedback process ensure robust accessibility for individuals who speak limited English, have limited literacy, are disabled, or otherwise confront barriers to traditional means of engagement? | We have a strong commitment in our City to continue efforts to streamline our Office of Communications and Public Information and that effort is ongoing. The team is energetic and creative and brings a lot of knowledge and sensitivity to all these points that will enable them to work effectively and efficiently. We are committed to utilizing tools, resources and technology to ensure participation by the greatest amount of people in Alexandria as possible of all income, educational levels, abilities, languages, etc. We a want to make sure that there are avenues for everyone to participate. We are not saying this will happen overnight, but the City Council and staff are committed to it. |
| 599 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Other than the continued existence of racial covenants which are no longer enforceable, what evidence do you have of zoning policies which maintain discrimination? | That’s one of the things we are doing, looking back at past policies, laws and practices that may have resulted in systematic discrimation and that may have left vestiges even today that impact of lives of persons of color in terms of access to decent and affordable housing and other quality of life factors. It is important to recognize if/where this may exist and to correct it so that all Alexandrians can live in an environment of fairness and equity. |
| 600 | | Virtual Listening Session | | What are the specific goals of Zoning for Housing and what is the plan for specific, measurable, time-bound steps to achieve those goals. Such specific goals should include not merely meeting numbers of affordable housing units, but also address how many persons working in Alexandria have chosen to live in affordable housing, and the impacts of added density on (a) greenhouse gas emissions, (b) school enrollment, (c) road repairs, (d) the reliability of the electric grid, ( e ) response times for police and firefighter intervention, (f) real estate taxes, (g) housing prices, (g) flooding events, and (h) stormwater runoff. | We have an analytical team looking at units, impacts and metrics that people will find helpful. In each plan we are evaluating the added density. We also evaluate other factors, using specific tools, to guage impacts/improvements relative traffic, roads, parking, school enrollment, water, public safety. We will do this just as it is done for individual projects and as the City undertakes small area plan development and updates to ensure communities will have the infrastructure and services they need to be able to live a high quality life. |
| 601 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Follow up on the timeline: The final public hearings will be held over the winter holidays of Thanksgiving, Hanukkah and Christmas. This was explicitly identified as problematic during the Nov 2022 Council meeting. What is being done to ensure residents and staff are able to focus on their families rather than attend City meetings during this time? | We are very sensitive to this question, and we are endeavoring to schedule the public hearings so that they do not impact the timing for holiday gatherings or travel. We are trying to avoid that conflict to every extent possible. |
| 602 | | Virtual Listening Session | | The Seminary neighborhood was a thriving African American Community that the City drove out begining in 1961 to make way for TC William, now Alexandria High School, and Ft Ward Museum and park. This practice of dismissing historical communities continued through 2018 when the city recinded an agreement with ther remaining 17 households adjecent to the high school stadium by putting in lights. So why should this or any other community trust the city now? If history is prelude | What staff would like to highlight from this question is to affirm in the City’s history those and other examples where the City used our power and legal authority in ways that caused harm to the African American community and their families. That is very much a part of our history that we are acknowledging in our program. In terms of Alexandria City High School and the specific problems about lights, in that case, ultimately all parties including the neighbors, came to a settlement agreement. What was a material difference in terms of the lights is that everyone who should have been at the table was there. In terms of historic barriers of the past, people were not invited to the table; they weren’t welcome at the table and there were a number of barriers to deliberately exclude them from that table. That was wrong and it is imperative that we recognize that all groups in our City provide value and should always have a place at the table and be heard and their communities respected and supported as we are all part of a larger Alexandrian community. |
| 603 | | Virtual Listening Session | | As a part of this process will Alexandria be providing recomendations to our State Delegation. For example, creating an incentive program where the State assists with funding for schools and other services for areas where localities boost density around transit areas. Thank you to all of Staff for their hard work. | Each year, starting in the summer and continuing in the fall, the City creates a list of initiatives to take to the Legislature in Richmond. Also, during the fall, we hear from our delegation at City Council legislative meetings on the progress of such legislative activities. We welcome ideas on such matters from the public. |
| 604 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Mr Moritz stated that other impacts such as negative impact on school capacity, storm water drainage, parking, commute times, etc. would be considered in evaluating the "toolkit items." Improving these are not listed as goals or decision factors. Would you specify where and how those will be considered? | Yes; our objective for each of these initiatives is to produce an estimate of how many units can be created and where. With that, estimates on the services which would be needed can be generated as well. For current proposed development projects we do that now. For example, if we are talking about increasing a building by a floor, it would need to be approved by the impact that it has on the City such as open space, parking and traffic, water use, parking and traffic. |
| 605 | | Virtual Listening Session | | When you say affordable, what goal do you have for creating deeply affordable housing (30-40% AMI)? Sammie Moshenberg | Response being confirmed with Office of Housing and will be posted shortly. |
| 606 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Will there be more work done to clarify which specific parcels would be able to use Bonus Height Amendment? This information was very unclear in the last attempt to expand the reach of this option for developers. To what level of granularity will this informaiton be provided and when can we expect that detail? | Yes; we hear you. In our earlier outreach last year, the City presented a map that identifies areas of the City where this would be eligible based on existing allowable bulding heights. This proposed change may not work in all such areas due to other regulatory factors or a property owner's decision not to use it. That said, for those areas where it might be feasible, we are currently identifying possible scenarios and creating illustratives of how it may work in a manner that is in compliance with the regulations and is harmonious to other surrounding development. |
| 607 | | Virtual Listening Session | | There are R-2-5 properties where a small home has been torn down and a large SFH is built in its place. The builder could have built a semi-detached home there, but did not. will the city reach out to those developers and ask them why they didn’t build a semi-detached when they could have by right? | This is a good idea and there is likely a limited number of those cases, so that we should be able get a sense of how many and more importantly how the decisions were made. Staff will pursue this. |
| 608 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Are all the upcoming community meetings the same content, so I would want to pick the most convenient one to participate? Or will there be different content/agendas at different meetings so I might want to attend more than one? Thank you. | As the process develops, the spring community engagement opportunities will take place from April to June. That is an opportunity to hear initial comments on the proposed zoning reforms while in their conceptual stage. Since there are three meetings planned in the spring, we will document comments from each meeting to share at the next meeting. Then, with your comments and data gatherine and analysis, we can form preliminary findings during the summer. In the fall, we anticipate coming back to the public with another set of community engagement meetings to receive your feedback on findings, and we will utilize that feedback from those meetings to form draft recommendations for consideration during the public hearing review process later in the year.
Additionally, for those of you are daunted by the idea of coming to all three meetings, as stated, we will be documenting what is shared by the community so that is available to reference later. So if you want a summary or a list of what other people said, that will also be available. |
| 609 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Will the city provide quantitative evidence that these zoning changes will accomplish the desired objective? | We are fortunate that there are highly trained internal staff assigned to these Zoning for Housing initiatives to conduct quantitative analyses and we are also involving outside experts to help us with that. We are excited to hear the great ideas and overall input people will have to share and this is a good time to start receiving such information. |
| 610 | | Virtual Listening Session | | Why is the schedule for the zoning changes so aggressive? is there a deadline we must meet? | The City would like to have a comprehensive conversation about these matters. Something we have realized with some of our other planning work (non-Zoning for Housing work) is that some of our processes were too long; we had a lot of meetings, and people were getting tired. The way we were getting things done exhausted people. So we'd like have plenty of opportunities to listen to people's concerns at the beginning and have enough time to analyze, offer findings, and consider changes based on community feedback.
Also, Zoning for Housing/Housing for All goes back to 2020. Everyone may not have been aware of it at that time but we did initiate this effort nearly three years ago, with community outreach. Since that time, the City Council has adopted several policies -- Accessory Dwelling Units, Co-Living. and Auxiliary Dwellings policies under the umbrella of Zoning for Housing. |
| 611 | | Online feedback form | 22302 | Given the exorbitant property taxes I pay to this city, I do not want to live next to a "duplex" or apartment building. If that were case, I would be living elsewhere, minus the crazy taxes. What will happen to property values of those "lucky" enough" to live next to one of these hybrid units. Will my property taxes decrease -- I doubt it!! | Thank you for providing your input. All comments received will inform the process and proposed recommendations. |
| 612 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | Three months for public input with only three scheduled meetings so far- why the rush | Thank you for your question. The Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiative will continue through December 2023 and includes two extended periods of community engagement in the spring and early fall, including in-person and online options. Details and additional opportunities for community input throughout the process will be shared through several channels of communication. Please continue to visit the project website for updates: alexandriava.gov/Zoning for ways to engage remotely and in person. |
| 613 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is an example of courageous community conversation that we need to have in Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 614 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is the process to remove a restrictive covenant and do you need every owners authorization to do it? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 615 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Why doesn’t the city legislative package include a state law requiring deed recondition when a property conveys to remove restrictive covenants? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 616 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Can you please talk about how single-family zoning perpetuates housing segregation? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 617 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Much of Alexandria rental housing are owned by landlords located in PA NY and FL. How do we get these land owners to work with us here to convert some of their housing into owned housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 618 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How is success defined for Housing for All? Should each neighborhood look like our overall city demographics? If so, what are we doing to make neighborhoods like Parker Gray Affordable for home ownership not just rental units? It seems the conversations centers on affordable housing , but only in the context of renting. How are listening price of over a million dollars affordable for everyone but the highest income elite? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 619 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Has there ever been consideration of gifting displaced family heirs their property back? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 620 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What about the idea around Reparations ($) example providing cash for down payments and closing cost for black buyers ? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 621 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | If you move an Alexandra Resident and Drop then into a SFZ Neighborhood, precisely how will that improve that persons lie span access to healthcare , economic outcome ? Aren’t other zone areas also “exclusionary”? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 622 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What role, if any , does the mental health professional have in signing off on Housing development in the city of Alexandria? Please explain by citing specific examples in the last 10 years and foreseeable future (long range planning)? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 623 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How can the concerns of older residents be incorporated into the elements of good design of a project like old town? An older person who may not be able to ride a bike or walk home 8 blocks from he grocery store should not have to live in a tall apartment building / prefer garden style apartments | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 624 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | We are more segregated than we were 20 years ago what has caused this? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 625 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is “Housing for All” grounded in a Utopian Concept? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 626 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Not a question – a comment. The state of VA added a source of income protection in 2020. In 2021 City’s office of housing conducted Fair Housing testing with testers who claimed to have a hosing voucher. 6 problems were found and action was taken by the city to address the problems encountered by testing. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 627 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Are there actions to disrupt current policies or remedy past racist policies that are better led by the private sector vs government? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 628 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Isn’t an effort to remedy antique discrimination before the federal Fair Housing Act an ex part facto law? Given that Chief Justice Robers has assured us that the federal government had no action able role? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 629 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is the Hispanic community included in this project? I hear more about the African American community. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 630 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Deed restrictions on the books feel similar to abortion trigger laws. Is it fair that analogy and why it is work removing them despite current unenforceability? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 631 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How can increased density benefit city’s climate and environmental goals? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 632 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | If homeownership is key to wealth creation, why not recommend replacing VA Law that prohibits cities like Alexandria from requiring proposed multi- family to be condos and not apartments. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 633 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is the impact on the city’s inventory (?) of affordable and low income housing as it pertains to Amazon HQ? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 634 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Where do subsidiaries come from? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 635 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Why do you choose to use the term Attainable Housing rather than Affordable Housing ? Are there important nuance since language matters. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 636 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Where do we stand on persuading federal HUD to support and fund mixed buildings with side by side public housing with market rate and workforce units? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 637 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How might we balance long term solutions like more housing with near-term, right now challenges like evictions and displacement? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 638 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Do you currently have open unites (Affordable Units)? If so, what is the challenge to getting those filled? (i.e., what about families with < 50% AMI)? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 639 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What total Affordable Units in this project for the West-End? How many affordable Units are anticipated in the West- End? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 640 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How many Affordable Housing unites have been created by churches in Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 641 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is an alleged “ housing shortage” really a result of overpopulation and policies which attract more population than our exist zoning envisions? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 642 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What else cand we do now? So many of our neighbors having units of eviction with city and faith community sources are stretched thin. Do large developers like Paradigm contribute financially to eviction prevention efforts? If not, why not? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 643 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | I am interested in you r perspective as a resident of an mixed income community . Is that a factor in your positive experience? (I’m assuming this is in regard to John Goebel experience living in Alexandria) | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 644 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Shouldn’t the affordable housing projections be updated due to account for Post Covid Life? Companies have adopted remote work. Commercial offices building is vacant. High cost of living will drive away prospective residents. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 645 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | You mention that lowering the land cost per unit is important. Obviously, you can do that by adding more unites to the site. But are there any ways to bring down land cost itself? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 646 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Increasing desist challenges our community identify as a suburb vs an urban community. How can we shift our collective sense of identity of Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 647 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is there any plan to increase density of housing in certain areas? How will these be accomplished while ensuring that infrastructure and public services can keep up with the increased demand? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 648 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | It seems like so many new residential building look very similar to each other , almost cookie cutter. What drives this from and architectural perspective? Material cost? Regulations? style best practice? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 649 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | A century ago, Alexandria had three zones: industrial commercial and residential. With even a slaughter hours allowed in a light industrial zone and even six plex (?) proposed for single family zones, are we really making a full circle bake to three zones ? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 650 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What percentage of land in Alexandria is zoned for residential, commercial, nontaxable (church etc.) | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 651 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is the current mix of single family, townhome, apartments ? What might be voted 10 years from now? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 652 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Converting office building to residential is apparently very difficult. Are there ways to do that with out totally gutting the buildings? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 653 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | The Glebe Road Project as the potential to add 800 students into Alexandria. What is the city ‘s plans for the local schools. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 654 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Please explain how city values priorities and strategic plans fit and impact the city planning and zoning work? Can you Share how many zoning types we have in the city? Where can we find the listing and descriptions of each? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 655 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Of the 40 ADUs that have been built or approved, how are you tracking whether they are creating any affordable housing? How can we continue to say ADU’s are successful tool to create affordable housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 656 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | ADU may be used for short term rental. Do we know how many are being used that way? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 657 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | For the proposed zoning changes what might be gained in terms of number of affordable housing unites? Over what period? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 658 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How many potential dwellings unites are lost annually to mandatory zoning setbacks? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 659 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | You shared a matrix of policy tools to support Affordable housing. What is missing? Are there tools that we need to consider that are in place in other regions of the community? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 660 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Do we have a sense of unoccupied real estate in City of Alexandria? e.g. apartments commercial condos etc.? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 661 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How can we add playground to the office buildings that was converted to school? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 662 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Kids need playgrounds. The school we are talking about FTD West-End. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 663 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Parking requirements can drive cost that reduce available housing. Will Zoning for Housing re- assess Parking Minimums in Alexandria? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 664 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is this process going to look at the parking requirements of residential zones? Are there any barriers today? Do they match the actual need? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 665 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is the current resident parking ratio at the station at Potomac Yard? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 666 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Are there studies that reveal how much space a person needs based on a set of variables such as age, gender, etc.? what are the numbers for a family, individual that is considered reasonable to promote quality of live / livability for No VA? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 667 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How are affordable housing needs met when developers just pay into the reginal fund and not offer livable and affordable units. The result are no AH units in neighborhoods leading to concentration in large development projects. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 668 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Are there requirements for building for lifespan considering that will be for the quality of the building s20-50-100 years into the future? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 669 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Can you speak about the issues with St Rita on the Glebe Road project and the resolutions? What is the parking ratio for Glebe project? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 670 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | As Alexandria considers Zoning for Housing, outside of land trust model, how do we ensure the created hosing is ownership opportunities and not just rentals? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 671 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | You speak a lot of open space, but isn’t the best open space green space and worth of protection and enhancement? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 672 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is there a role zoning or other policies can plan for consideration for development of increased childcare options co- related with housing since affordable childcare goes hand in hand with quality of life? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 673 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How are we collecting data to ensure that we are attracting our teachers, police force and fire department to affordable housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 674 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | You speak a lot of open space, but isn’t the best open space green space and worth of protection and enhancement? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 675 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Is there a role zoning or other policies can plan for consideration for development of increased childcare options co- related with housing since affordable childcare goes hand in hand with quality of life? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 676 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How are we collecting data to ensure that we are attracting our teachers, police force and fire department to affordable housing? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 677 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Where on the City Website are the slides? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 678 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | By Show of hands how many in attendance are plain (?) (?) just residents? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 679 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What do we do to public outreach for new development or zone changes we always hear from the most passionate voices and do not get a representative of the public? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 680 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | By Show of hands how many in attendance are plain (?) (?) just residents? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 681 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What do we do to public outreach for new development or zone changes we always hear from the most passionate voices and do not get a representative of the public? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 682 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Moving forward. What might it look like to design engagement opportunities that put people place at the center and lead to more diverse room? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 683 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | When it comes to addressing displacement, what can and cant the city do because of the Dillion Rule Restriction ? How can the city get creative to overcome these limitations? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 684 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | Has Alexandria considered taking inspiration from European cities? Many foreign cities have well planned, dense neighborhoods that priorities walkability, public transportation, and mixed-use development. What lessons can we learn from these cities to improve our zoning and planning? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 685 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | The city got successfully sued over one of its equity initiative. With residential segregation years after the civil rights in housing was passed. Does this suggest that historical discrimination in the distant part may be the driving cause? What is the risk what the city is trying to do being the target of a successful lawsuit. | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 686 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | What is the city’s strategy to engage people wth “lived experience” in this process? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 687 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How important will it be to actually implement solutions for our homeowners to gain acquaintance of the reality of the history Mr. Dyke presented? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 688 | | Zoning for Housing Kick Off Event | | How do we create a paradigm for growth that helps people view neighbors as an opportunity and not a burden? | Please refer to the event recording on the project website |
| 689 | | Email | | I am wondering whether you had considered not making affordable housing optional for the Coordinated Development Districts. Having recently served on the City's UDAC committee, the additional density and the story bonuses are beyond the intent of the approved small area plan. One thought would be to require this percentage of affordable housing for all housing developments more than a certain number of units. | The City's general approach of incentivizing and negotiating for affordable housing, rather than to “require” it, is due to restrictions in state law. This is true whether the land in question is located inside or outside of a CDD zone. |
| 690 | | Online feedback form | 22314 | My husband and I make a decent 6 figure income, have no debt, and a decent amount of savings. However, we can't afford to buy much in the city and we worry about the diversity of housing stock. So many single family homes start close to a million dollars and are far too large. Two homes built by us in the last few months started at $1.6 million each and have both sold already. There don't seem to be a lot of condos and townhomes for sale in the city or ones that are being built. What is the plan to deliver on a diversity of housing stock, especially condos, starter homes, and townhomes at more affordable price points? What is the plan to build enough of them to meet demand and have them in communities that are walkable and close to Metro? | Great question. Zoning for Housing/Housing for All is meant to achieve choice in housing type, affordability level, tenure etc., so we are so glad you are engaged as your voice a personal story that aligns with the quantitative and the human need for more housing and more affordability. I do not know if you have explored our Office of Housing website but there are resources there for first time homebuyers. You can access their webpage here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/housing-services/homebuyer-resources. Hopefully, you also know about a Northern VA Housing Expo that is occurring this Saturday, April 1. Renters and first-time buyers looking to live in Northern Virginia should plan to visit the 2023 Northern Virginia Housing Expo, a free regional housing fair, at Dominion High School (21326 Augusta Dr, Sterling, VA 20164) on Saturday, April 1, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. To visit the webpage, please click here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/news-citywide/2023-03-15/2023-northern-virginia-housing-expo-returns-with-april-1-event-at |
| 691 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Out of the ADUs that have been approved and built in the City so far, how many are affordable? How many are rented to people that have a financial need? How many are successfully being used to generate income for homeowners that have a financial need? | ADUs are typically provided at market-rate rent, however, because they are significantly smaller than the single-family dwellings they surround, their rents are significantly less than the rental cost of a typical single-family dwelling in the same neighborhood. The City has not asked residents who construct ADUs to report their nor their tenants' financial information. The Regional Fair Housing Assessment that is in draft form now is recommending that the City consider some affordability measures for ADUs. |
| 692 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | I have yet to see any quantitative evidence supporting the need for the zoning changes. For example, where in other cities have similar zoning changes contributed to affordable housing? What changes were made and how did that increase the affordable housing stock? This kind of information would increase the "buy-in" of the residents of Alexandria. | Thank you very much for your comments. For each of the initiatives, the project managers are undertaking data collection and analysis including studies and compilation of information such as you mention. We expect to generate such information in the summer and share findings in the fall for community feedback. That said, the quantitative need for more housing production and affordability is documented through census data. The supply is not keeping pace with the demand causing prices to be higher than many can afford -- 15,000 households pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, leaving little funds for other necessities to help them in maintaining a healthy and sustainable decent quality of life. |
| 693 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Go onto VRBO and search for rentals in Alexandria VA. There are many apartments available for rent in the Del Ray area. I think I counted 25. There are likely more in other areas of the city. If we could get these out of the "VRBO" stock and back into the housing stock, we could increase the number of available housing units. I hope the city considers ways to disincentivize property owners from using apartments as temporary vacation rentals. | The City does not currently prohibit the use of apartments or houses as short term rentals. ADUs can only be used for short term rentals a maximum of 120 days per year. |
| 694 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | I hope you will take my perspective under consideration. The goal of making home ownership a greater reality for traditionally excluded populations is one I support. However, what is needed is a scalpel not a sledge hammer. New developments should include set-aside affordable condo units, taxed at a more favorable rate, at least for a period of years. Office to residential conversions would be ideal for this. Plans should not include carving up single family home lots. Existing multi-family development plans already threaten to overwhelm our infrastructure capacities. Thank you. | Thank you for your perspective of below pertaining to homeownership and more. Please know that we are in the data gathering and analysis stage of the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All effort, and we appreciate your comments; they are important to hear at this early stage of the process. As we undertake the spring community engagement period (April to June) we will be seeking further public input on all of the concepts proposed. We can then take them into consideration as we complete the data gathering and analysis phase this summer. After that we will have another community engagement period in early fall, but the public can also share comments in between the spring and fall by using the comment board and other methods of engagement. Thank you for writing and please continue to stay engaged. |
| 695 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | If the city is concerned about "housing for all" why are they allowing developers to buy affordable small homes and tear them down to build $2+ MILLION dollar homes? Why did the city allow one person in Del Ray to buy & tear down three homes to build one very large home on three lots? | The City cannot prohibit developers from constructing new homes if their proposals comply with all City requirements. The City cannot ban the sale or purchase of private property. However, through this process we can explore ways that might incentive developers to look at other options that can help in the expansion of housing production and affordability |
| 696 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | If this housing for all initiative seeks to allow multi-family housing on current single family residential lots then just come out and say it. That is a ridiculous proposition. The area is already crowded enough. What about the impacts on drainage? Sewage? Water? Parking? Electric? Fix all of these first! | You raise a very important and relevant point. As we undertake these initiatives we must look at potential impacts to community services -- sewer, , stormwater, parks, traffic, etc. The City is very cognizant of this as it is a requirement now as we review existing development proposals, with the expectation that such impacts are addressed. To do so is important to maintaining the quality of life and services of all communities. |
| 697 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | Had the city considered disincentivizing VRBO and airBNB apartment rentals? There are many apartments in the city on these sites that could help to increase the housing stock. | The City will study whether short term rentals impact housing supply. |
| 698 | | Online feedback form | 22304 | There are many skeptics out there who think this is not a good idea. I hope the city can provide numerical evidence that all of the zoning changes proposed will accomplish the affordable housing goals. I am not convinced. | Yes; appropriate collection of data and analysis is a very important part of this process. It is important though to also realize that Zoning for Houisng is not the only tool that is needed to expand housing production and affordability in Alexandria. We have others on the books now that have helped us achieve the progress that we have seen thus far, working with our partners in the non-profit and for-profit arenas. That said, because Alexandria does have a large gap between supply and demand there will also likely be other tools that are needed as well. Input from the community in that area as well as on Zoning for Housing initiatives is welcomed and appreciated. Also, as your comment implies it will be important to track progress if and when initiatives are approved for implementation. |
| 699 | | Online feedback form | 22305 | Unable to attend due to medical events both days at the National Institutes of Health Income Discrimination: I have a housing voucher from ARHA. Yet due to increasing minimum income requirements by leasing companies, I could no longer afford or qualify to rent my own apartment. Shouldn't the min. income be waived if you can afford the rent with the ARHA voucher? I've also noticed my apartment grew by 100 square feet in the 6 years I've lived here. It's like magic! | We are sorry to hear about the challenges you are facing in finding a place to rent with your ARHA voucher. May we suggest that you bring this to the attention of your Housing Analyst at ARHA if you have not had a chance to do so already. Their contact information is ARHA, 401 Wythe Street, Alexandria, 703.549.7115 https://www.arha.us/ |
| 700 | | Email | | I was very disappointed to learn that the kickoff event is being held during the work week when many residents are unable to attend including me. It looks like the only listening session takes place mid day. Please reconsider the schedule and offer sessions in the evening when those of us with day jobs can attend and provide our feedback.
This is the second time the city has scheduled meetings during times that make it difficult for many people to attend (e.g. hearing on July 5 last year).
As a side note, I recommend you contact Zelaya builder and ask them why they are building single family houses in zones where they may build semi-detached. We may change the zoning ordinance but it doesn’t mean it will accomplish the goals we want it to. | Thank you so much for reaching out to us with your question. This is just the initial kick-off event for this phase of the City’s Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiative; multiple in-person and virtual events will be scheduled throughout the year to communicate information and gather feedback from the community. As more information becomes available, the community will be informed through the project website, eNews, social media notifications and other forms of communication. Please know that the 1.5-day event on March 20-21 will be recorded and posted online for future viewing. Questions may be sent to this email address or through the Community Comment Form posted on the website. Information is accessible here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housing-kick-off-event |
| 701 | | Online feedback form | 22301 | It appears that the public hearings are scheduled to take place over the holiday season in Nov-Dec when many Alexandrians are out of town or unavailable to take time away from celebrations to attend City meetings. What will the City do to ensure that these meetings are not scheduled during holidays? | Thank you for your message regarding public hearings for the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiative to be scheduled this year. Please know we agree that it is important to avoid holiday conflicts and we will work to every extent possible to do so, and we look forward to engaging with the public during the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All public process. You can learn more about meetings, other events and cotinue to provide comments via the project webpage alexandriava.gov/Zoning. Thank you and we hope you will stay engaged. |
| 702 | | | | | |