It looks like the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan will not be proceeding to Planning Commission on January 4 as originally announced.
And that's a good thing, because this baby isn't ready for prime time yet.
At last night's City Council work session on the plan, Mayor William D. Euille said he couldn't see the Plan being completed by mid-January. "I don't want a half-baked loaf going out the door," he said, adding that evolving developments with ARHA and WMATA as well as community concerns about the transportation segment indicated "we need to slow this down and do it right." He acknowledged that the public housing issue entered the picture late and suggested several more public hearings on the subject before the plan is finalized.
There were a few surprises last night. Several City Council members asked about granting a higher floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5 immediately opposite Metro instead of the 2.0 currently in the Plan. Rich Josephson, acting director of Planning & Zoning, then appeared to state that a higher FAR would rule out retaining some or all of the public housing units.
The Growler admits not quite getting how a change in FAR would work against public housing, but was keenly interested that Council or staff even whispered the possibility of no public housing at Braddock Road.
At the same time, though, Council reiterated their commitment to getting the most out of developers in return for granting the density bonus. There was considerable discussion about a chart which showed that granting the highest level of FAR would result in a meaningful number of affordable housing units. (Development at lower densities would only require a developer cash contribution, not a set aside of units.)
So stay tuned for further developments on this front. It would be nice to speculate that the Council is toying with set-asides as a way to disaggregate bricks and mortar public housing at Braddock Metro while maintaining their oft-stated commitment to affordable housing. But it's too early and the signs are too murky to determine if this is the direction they are headed.
Some interesting numbers came out in the discussion about transportation, which remains the most questionable and politically loaded section of the entire plan.
Under questioning the transportation consultant coughed up some stats for neighborhood use of King Street and Braddock Road Metro stations. If the Growler heard right, ridership at King Street after 20 years still only represents about 20% of the people who live in the adjacent area while Braddock Road's ridership is around 18 to 20%. The consultant then claimed that Arlington has a rate of 50 to 60%, with so much of its new housing being built on top of Metro stations.
The Arlington number sounds way suspiciously rosy, but then all of the transportation numbers so far are zanily optimistic. In fact, the whole transportation section of the Plan is suspect and lacks transparency, not least of all the Route 1 stats which seem to change with every presentation. It's telling that Rich Baier, director of T&ES, never seems to be around for these meetings but pushes Tom Culpeper and the consultants out front to take the brunt of the criticism. (Note to activists: with Fogarty and Dahlberg gone, how can we get recruiters to spirit the "Teflon Man" away as well?)
Anway, the source for the questionable Metro data seems to be WMATA itself. And that's a real conflict of interest. Without reliable annual sources of funding, the agency is cash-strapped so it's pushing jurisdictions like the City of Alexandria hard about developing its properties. Naturally they are going to supply rosy ridership numbers that support their drive to develop. And Alexandria leaders would be thrilled to be able to bring in dense development with the assurance that the new residents won't clog the roads.
But there's a lack of specificity about how the City can actually make this happen by implementing aggressive transportation demand management (TDM). Back to the drawing board, guys.
And speaking of WMATA, Del Pepper cautioned City staff about showing the Braddock Road station lot on every map and presentation as an open space possibility. It turns out that Alexandria really can't prescribe that the lot, which is owned by WMATA, be reserved as open space. It emerged there are a few Council members like Ludwig Gaines who are a little uneasy about developing that lot to a fare thee well. He pointed out that King Street needs to add more bus bays so it's fortunate that every inch of its lot was not consumed by development, something that was proposed and dropped several years ago.
Other topics included a request to the impact of development on the City's water and sewer systems. (That Rob Krupicka, always rolling in the gutter! But then storm water is a big issue for his core constituency in Rosemont and Del Ray.)
Council also talked about cultural amenities for the area (ahhh, good!), open space and sports facilities at Braddock Fields (no no no please don't go there, we've had enough of that at Jones Point!), building design and the feasibility of concentrating retail rather than stretching it thinly around the study area. Turns out there isn't going to be that much new retail — perhaps 8 to 12 new stores total — and there is interest in leveraging it as much as possible through concentration.
The latest on Harris-Teeter: the stumbling block is indeed an access issue. The company believes the entrance ramp to the parking garage is too steep, but getting a more graduated decline means pushing the store back, which then triggers the problem of fire and rescue access. That's a Code Enforcement requirement, not zoning.
P&Z staff were supposed to meet with Harris-Teeter representatives today to thrash things out. We shall see ...
And that's a good thing, because this baby isn't ready for prime time yet.
At last night's City Council work session on the plan, Mayor William D. Euille said he couldn't see the Plan being completed by mid-January. "I don't want a half-baked loaf going out the door," he said, adding that evolving developments with ARHA and WMATA as well as community concerns about the transportation segment indicated "we need to slow this down and do it right." He acknowledged that the public housing issue entered the picture late and suggested several more public hearings on the subject before the plan is finalized.
There were a few surprises last night. Several City Council members asked about granting a higher floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5 immediately opposite Metro instead of the 2.0 currently in the Plan. Rich Josephson, acting director of Planning & Zoning, then appeared to state that a higher FAR would rule out retaining some or all of the public housing units.
The Growler admits not quite getting how a change in FAR would work against public housing, but was keenly interested that Council or staff even whispered the possibility of no public housing at Braddock Road.
At the same time, though, Council reiterated their commitment to getting the most out of developers in return for granting the density bonus. There was considerable discussion about a chart which showed that granting the highest level of FAR would result in a meaningful number of affordable housing units. (Development at lower densities would only require a developer cash contribution, not a set aside of units.)
So stay tuned for further developments on this front. It would be nice to speculate that the Council is toying with set-asides as a way to disaggregate bricks and mortar public housing at Braddock Metro while maintaining their oft-stated commitment to affordable housing. But it's too early and the signs are too murky to determine if this is the direction they are headed.
Some interesting numbers came out in the discussion about transportation, which remains the most questionable and politically loaded section of the entire plan.
Under questioning the transportation consultant coughed up some stats for neighborhood use of King Street and Braddock Road Metro stations. If the Growler heard right, ridership at King Street after 20 years still only represents about 20% of the people who live in the adjacent area while Braddock Road's ridership is around 18 to 20%. The consultant then claimed that Arlington has a rate of 50 to 60%, with so much of its new housing being built on top of Metro stations.
The Arlington number sounds way suspiciously rosy, but then all of the transportation numbers so far are zanily optimistic. In fact, the whole transportation section of the Plan is suspect and lacks transparency, not least of all the Route 1 stats which seem to change with every presentation. It's telling that Rich Baier, director of T&ES, never seems to be around for these meetings but pushes Tom Culpeper and the consultants out front to take the brunt of the criticism. (Note to activists: with Fogarty and Dahlberg gone, how can we get recruiters to spirit the "Teflon Man" away as well?)
Anway, the source for the questionable Metro data seems to be WMATA itself. And that's a real conflict of interest. Without reliable annual sources of funding, the agency is cash-strapped so it's pushing jurisdictions like the City of Alexandria hard about developing its properties. Naturally they are going to supply rosy ridership numbers that support their drive to develop. And Alexandria leaders would be thrilled to be able to bring in dense development with the assurance that the new residents won't clog the roads.
But there's a lack of specificity about how the City can actually make this happen by implementing aggressive transportation demand management (TDM). Back to the drawing board, guys.
And speaking of WMATA, Del Pepper cautioned City staff about showing the Braddock Road station lot on every map and presentation as an open space possibility. It turns out that Alexandria really can't prescribe that the lot, which is owned by WMATA, be reserved as open space. It emerged there are a few Council members like Ludwig Gaines who are a little uneasy about developing that lot to a fare thee well. He pointed out that King Street needs to add more bus bays so it's fortunate that every inch of its lot was not consumed by development, something that was proposed and dropped several years ago.
Other topics included a request to the impact of development on the City's water and sewer systems. (That Rob Krupicka, always rolling in the gutter! But then storm water is a big issue for his core constituency in Rosemont and Del Ray.)
Council also talked about cultural amenities for the area (ahhh, good!), open space and sports facilities at Braddock Fields (no no no please don't go there, we've had enough of that at Jones Point!), building design and the feasibility of concentrating retail rather than stretching it thinly around the study area. Turns out there isn't going to be that much new retail — perhaps 8 to 12 new stores total — and there is interest in leveraging it as much as possible through concentration.
The latest on Harris-Teeter: the stumbling block is indeed an access issue. The company believes the entrance ramp to the parking garage is too steep, but getting a more graduated decline means pushing the store back, which then triggers the problem of fire and rescue access. That's a Code Enforcement requirement, not zoning.
P&Z staff were supposed to meet with Harris-Teeter representatives today to thrash things out. We shall see ...
15 comments:
Growler, many thanks for the synopsis. I made it to Thursday's meeting, but was unable to make it last night. I appreciate your time and efforts.
Re: the ARHA discussion. Dare I hope that the Council is actually considering the possibility of replacing public housing with affordable housing????
Growler,
This brings up the question:
Can anything (Madison, Payne St Condos, Braddock Place) proceed while the plan is in such a state of flux?
And if the Council doesn't move forward on the Plan now, does this affect the EYA proposal to redevelop Adkins and Bland?
A City Council member actually mentioned the possibility of no public housing at the Braddock Road Metro?
I cannot believe it.
What a sense of relief. It almost feels like when you are in a meeting and are glad to have someone else there who shares your point of view to back you up. I am so grateful that the council and the mayor saw the plan for what it is and knew it was not ready. There are just too many outstanding and recent issues that need to be worked out.
Something I have not heard of lately is the idea of extending the main road going through the new Potomac Yard develop down towards Braddock Rd on the west side of the tracks, cutting through Braddock Fields? This was supposed to be where the BRT was supposed to go, not on Rte 1. This always seemed to be a great idea to me.
I echo The Growler's concern about retail. Nail and hair salons are NOT what we are looking for. Plenty of both of these are in abundance throughout the Old Town area. I personally want retail not so much for the convenience of shopping nearby, but for the added activity it brings to the neighborhood, particularily at night. Having one or two retail stores here and there is not what we need. We need a consolidated area of stores, restaurants, and bars. I know there is an abundant supply of retail in Old Town, Potomac Yard, and Crystal City. But I still think that there is a need for a specific kind of retail here and that it could be supported. All it takes is one store such as Border's, Panera, a new library, etc to anchor the area and bring people in.
i agree completely
He sounds just like you Growler:
What kind of commercial development does Alexandria need? Is high-density redevelopment of the kind proposed for the area around the Braddock Metro the answer to all our problems?
Developers will tell you of course that high-density rezoning enables them to save affordable housing, redesign sidewalks, and attract community-building retail. The Chamber of Commerce believes that such development lowers the property taxes for individual property owners. Affordable housing advocates argue that without density-bonuses (on top of the existing higher density) we won't be able to preserve affordable housing for lower-income workers like teachers.
The reality though is much less clear. In places where such development has occurred, or is occurring, retail chains often replace small businesses, traffic congestion and air quality worsen, and property values and taxes continue rising. There has already been an enormous amount of new, high-density—that is to say, tall building that occupy a block or more of land—construction in Alexandria, yet residential property taxes have continued to rise, because new residents want more park-land, police and there is more infrastructure to maintain. Yet this financial myth persists, despite the back-of-the-envelope evidence—your tax bill—to the contrary.
According to City planners, the Braddock Metro area should be redeveloped because it's full of so-called development opportunities —vacant warehouses, access to public transportation, and so on. All that is needed to make it work are good design principles. They claim that they new "urban village" they expect to create will not harm the historic residential neighborhood of Parker-Gray, although the buildings heights that are proposed are much higher than those in the bulk of the historic district. But it's not just a mass and scale issue though that's an important consideration —it's traffic, air pollution, its impact on property values and small businesses, among many other things. The new Monarch building looks too big for example, yet it's what developers and planners think we should build here.
Residents hope that it will bring in new retail, perhaps a Harris Teeter grocery store that they can walk to safely. They also believe, I think, that the public housing projects that are located along Route 1 will be torn down and redeveloped in some manner, thus reducing some of the crime in this area. They also want more open space, of some usable variety, bike trails, nicer sidewalks, and roads that can be crossed safely on foot. They want to see the old vacant warehouses along Fayette and Payne streets—and Route 1—turned into condos and grocery stores.
It's very hard right now to tell what we are really going to get. The real assumptions—the benefits and costs behind high-density development in areas around the Braddock Metro, and elsewhere, need to be examined further. I don't think most Alexandrians want this historic town to look like Bethesda and Clarendon, but that's the direction this kind of planning is taking us.
So what is the next step?
The next step?
Try .... waiting. Doubt we see anything get started in 2007.
The next step? It is the timeline for passage of the Braddock Road Small Area Plan. Rumor has it the City Manager wants the Plan to pass quickly for fear developers will otherwise build by-right. The Braddock Road process feels more and more like Potomac Yard's ... build now, deal with the consequences later. I think the Plan is poorly considered but if the Plan passes quickly it is more likely because the City Manager wants things looking "smooth" in the absence of a permanent Planning Director.
Heard it said that those who initially supported The Monarch's development no longer are happy with the building. I think the building is too big, it sits in the sidewalk (no setback), and the yellow brick is ugly! Does anyone know what retail stores the developer has under contract?
Wouldn't feel to badly if one of the Yard's "consequences" includes the relocation of JH School.
so where are we at now Growler in this process?
It seems like a collective gloom has settled over the neighborhood as the Plan seems ready to drag out into 2008 and any prospects for any redevelopment seem destined to go with it?
"Rich Josephson, acting director of Planning & Zoning, then appeared to state that a higher FAR would rule out retaining some or all of the public housing units.
The Growler admits not quite getting how a change in FAR would work against public housing, but was keenly interested that Council or staff even whispered the possibility of no public housing at Braddock Road."
This, I would guess, relates to restrictions on tall buildings for public housing use. My guess is that HUD, based on the fiascoes that occurred with tall public housing projects in the 1970's, has regulations in place to prevent the construction of new public housing units in buildings above a certain height. Thus, HUD would not support ARHA managing any new units in a tall building setting, which the larger FAR would support.
Thus, P&Z would then have to bring to the table the Resolution 830 replacement policy for review and discussion, as the way to get around this restriction would appear to be less units and provision of funding for the units by Section 8 vouchers.
The Alexandria Times brings up some good points in regards to ARHA, Growler:
A bale out
City Council agreed last week to lend the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority up to $4.7 million to bale out the authority’s Quaker Hill project. Along with the loan will come a serious look at ARHA’s financial situation in regard to many of its other projects. We supported this action but are concerned about some of the language used to justify it.
“Affordable” housing encompasses many different levels of subsidy. There is public housing, there are Section 8 subsidized vouchers and there is workforce housing.
Quaker Hill is part of the city’s public housing stock and this is already the most deeply subsidized part. Alexandria operates one of the largest public housing operations in Northern Virginia. This housing is targeted to the neediest in the area. Public housing is indeed affordable housing but it does not target the population about whom citizens are most concerned.
Affordable housing also means workforce housing. In Alexandria’s overheated real estate market, police, firefighters, teachers and many other employees of public and private concerns can not afford to live here. When the one cent earmark for affordable housing was adopted, we thought it was this level that the city was aiming to improve.
Spending the entire year’s allocation for affordable housing on more subsidies for public housing may have been necessary but is not the most desirable outcome. Our paramedics and public work’s employees must still find places to live. Surely the justification for it should not be to talk about affordable housing but to talk about the necessity of helping ARHA. We hope the city’s review of ARHA’s finances will lead to corrective actions and prevent further raiding of monies that Alexandria citizens thought were intended for helping city workers to live here.
Hey at least PG is consistent:
Intersection of North Henry & Madison Streets 12/26 8:50 p.m. Victim, a 52-year-old Alexandria man, reports that he was attacked by six or seven black males. He sustained minor injuries and refused medical treatment. The victim was able to provide descriptions for two of the suspects. Both are described as in their mid-teens, 5’06” to 6’00”, 150 to 170 lbs with medium builds. One wore blue jeans and the other wore black pants.
Post a Comment