The plan may have passed but the zoning that is required to implement it did not. So we are at a stalemate. I would like to begin a real dialog before both sides have to start spending thousands of dollars on legal fees. The City Council can address the statute, the city charter and pursue any clarification in the future without a legal ruling. Going to the Circuit Court to further pursue a plan that was purposely written as a text amendment to avoid protest, is not an honest aproach. It appears like the city attorney and the planning department would like a ruling that could prevent any future protests from taking place, and nullify the protest petition. We should be asking City Council not to spend tax dollars appealing this to Circuit Court and perhaps farther. It only shows what great lengths this City Council is willing to go to to push the development of the Waterfront. I am ready to start a new dialog about how to bring change and improvement to the watefront without a legal battle. Come join me for a press conference Monday at 6 pm, at the foot of Oronoco St. next to Robinson Terminal North. www.boydwalker2012.com

A streetcar system around Old Town sounds great. Seems like low hanging fruit could be to convert the existing rail line that serves the power plant and Robinson terminal to street car when the plant is shut down this fall. And this line would connect the waterfront with Braddock Road metro station and link to the soon-to-be-developed Potomac Yard to Crystal City streetcar. Thoughts?

While I respect the BZA, and it's effort to satisfy the disgruntled few, the mechanism for protesting a zoning map amendment is seriously flawed. Nowhere in a Democracy should such a small minority, 20% of residents within 300 ft. of the affected area, wield so much power over an entire community and the remaining 80%. Here it is in plain sight, the wealthiest community members lawyering up, reaking havoc over the majority.......

Great idea. A trolley from DC used to run on Commonwealth Avenue

The Mayor's rationale for appealing that “The BZA’s decision could have broad implications on future land use decisions throughout the city" makes no sense. If that is the reason, the correct procedure is to change the ordinance, not sue your citizens. In addition, the court is not going to care that the ordinance Council enacted leads to results Council does not like. It is going to care what the law says.

The city's decision to litigate of the BZA decision has nothing to do with the future and everything to do with saving a failed plan. If they really go through with this litigation, it will be measured in years.

The requirements for an adjoining landowners protest petition have been part of the city's zoning code for a long time. Language in the zoning ordinance actually states that the petition may be brought against either a text amendment or a map amendment. The Board of Zoning Appeals member who made the motion to uphold the validity of the petition said that he did so because he thought the board should follow the plain language of the ordinance. A majority agreed with him. That should have been the end of the story. Instead we have a Mayor who simply can not take no for an answer and is willing to spend taxpayer dollars on outside Council as well as use Alexandria city employees to deny Alexandria citizens their right to a process that no one objected to until now. Because it has denied the Mayor and his friends an objective they hold dear -- the remaking of the waterfront as a dense, completely commercial area, it is no good anymore.

The hotels planned are too high, and those areas can't accommodate the traffic and the number of visitors. There's also little confidence that tax funds raised will be used wisely.

Haunches, read the code, and the briefs by Mr. Shannon to the circuit court, and to the BZA, You will find that the Mayor's comment makes perfect sense. There is a valid difference between a text amendment and a map amendment, and the protest process attrached to each. The decision of the BZA is to lump the processes together, making any zoning issue a supermajority decision. Reading the text of the code in full shows clearly that this was not, and is not the intent of the code.

"the disgruntled few"

That's nonsense. I'm second generation Old Town and not one-not one single individual- of my neighbors or family support the plan. Amost every single person between King and Gibbon and S. St. Asaph and the river opposes the development.

I meant King and Green, not King and Gibbon.

What makes no sense Haunches is that 80% of this community is being held hostage by the minority disgruntled 20%.

Gina;
I would suggest that your use of terms like "holding hostages" and "reaking (sic) havoc over the majority" is intended simply to raise passions and set up an us-them mentality rather than lead to mutually agreeable solutions. Your designation of opposition as a "minority disgruntled 20%" looks like the same approach and tactic. It's a political approach that we can all do better without, IMO.

I would expect those living closest to the affected areas to be most concerned with the impact of any plan. They have a right to their views and their actions. If you truly have respect for the BZA, you'll let the process work without the hyperbole.

Haunches, where do you get that City contends that t" the code was poorly drafted and inadvertently failed to distinguish between text and map amendments." I find that argument nowhere. In fact, Mr. Shannon's own argument in his citing of a Fairfax case undermines this. It says"plaing language" (which he emphasizes) but then also says "and the legislative intent" which he does not emphasize. Mr. Zander correctly described a common occurance in all forms of code where you should look at the term as a reference point to somewhere else. it is inconceivable that the writers wished to make both either/or a supermajority vote. It doesn,t make any sense. We'll see what the court says.

We will see what the court says. In light of all the other sections, it does not seem reasonable to me that you can derive the meaning that both text and map would require a three-fourths ruling. It just doesn't make sense, and contrary to the meaning of the other sections in 800.

Euille absolutely blew a golden opportunity to lead for a change and unite the community. Instead, he opted to heed the (bad) advice of James Banks. We came on Saturday with high hopes that The city leadership would use the Bza decision to reframe the dialog and work with us. We came with un clenched fists and a willingness to compromise. Now we shall fight on as far as necessary because the City chose to ignore the Bza ruling. We didn't want to have to do this but we are fully prepared. Such a missed opportunity for the Mayor with far reaching political ramifications for he and his allies on city council. This is tyranny in the shadow of the nations Capitol and we will not stand for it one minute...

Bottom Line: If the Waterfront Plan goes forward "as is", it means increased density for Old Town and I just don't think that more people and traffic is what is required to make Old Town a better place to live. If you want Disney, go to Orlando.

The rights of the most affected should be protected but doing so does not mean that these residents, the wealthiest in our city by far, own the waterfront. It takes only a single photograph of opponents to determine they are not representative of all of Alexandria: (http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/articles/activists-criticize-city-for-fostering-lack-of-trust-with-citizens#photo-9574095). That doesn’t mean they don’t have rights, and surely they are the most affected which is why they’ve been the loudest, but the majority will likely be impacted in less apparent but still measurable ways. Rising property taxes, diminishing city services due to a stagnating tax base and declining business climate are some of the risks of failing to develop a coherent waterfront.

I’m personally not opposed to even more compromise but I haven’t seen a single fiscally viable option (so no unwanted museums and arts) put forward by opponents. I’d be fine with dropping hotels but the property owners, an affected party one would think, should have a say in this too. Of course without the zoning townhouses could be built but then we’d lose the access to the waterfront.

Many of the posters have accurately asserted that the petitioning/protesting is their democratic right but I think it’s equally fair that our elected representatives seek to protect the interests of the entire community through the same appropriate means available to them - that includes the courts.

"It takes only a single photograph of opponents to determine they are not representative of all of Alexandria:" Wow. That is really offensive. How dare you judge who is "reprsentative" by how they look.

Mike, you have it right, and I agree with most of what you said. My only difference is the hotels. What economic incentive can you give the land owners that would be more attractive to build than residential units (not offices in a down market)? As you point out, residential would severly downgrade waterfront access, and make it islands with the attraction to no one other than residents (see Fords Landing). As you said, neighbor rights but citywide interests. This neighborhood is different than other neighborhoods because of the waterfront. The inclusion of hotels gives the city more negotiating room to get citizen amenities. The City compromised from the original plan from 3 hotels and 600 rooms to 2 hotels and 300 rooms. Hotels invite the public, residential units don't. Existing zoning would result in the waterfront becoming island of townhouses. Yes, a gated community.

Wow these are some "interesting" posts for sure (class warfare attempt, gated community). Here is a radical idea- lets look at what can be done under EXISTING zoning... Guys we are talking about doing high density development IN A FLOODPLAIN. This is an indisputable fact. I would suggest that you watch Banks try to fight the Wales alley case in the VA Supreme Court this week. That should be interesting for sure... So fire up the popcorn popper and let's reconvene afterward.

Great idea. We can look at the open and inviting to all Fords Landing, entered through a gate, Harbour Side area with signs close by saying "closed after 10 pm", and Canal Center which is open and inviting only to all the people who work in the building. The City proposed flood control will greatly improve the flooding. Engineers have figured out underground parking years ago. See Canal Center, Crown Plaza and United Way. Opening the waterfront to all of Alexandria will be the end results and when all is said, done and delivered, even Old Town residents will recognize, the City Waterfront plan is the best outcome in traffic management, open space and controlled development.

And the story continues. Vice-mayor Donley is now inviting a select group of waterfront plan lovers to a "support Sean Hollihan because he supported the waterfront plan" event at, you guessed it, folks, Virtue Feed and Grain on April 29th from 3-5pm.

And Mr Auld, your logic is terrible.. All your talk about gated communities as the result of the NOT passing the plan, or (somehow, though again your logic fails) that having a less developed waterfront is elitist. Welll, the lack of affordable housing, the lack of diverse community input by those who used to be called middle class is elitist. Those are the folks in this town that are badly served by this waterfront plan. City government is acting elitist by siding with developers and creating a waterfront for no one.

January 19, 2011
Mr. AI Cox
Historic Preservation Manager
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Alexandria
301 King Street, Room 2100
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. Cox:
I am writing on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding the draft Alexandria Waterfront Small Area Plan.
As you are aware, the National Trust has been contacted by a number of property owners in Alexandria, including leaders of the Old Town Civic Association and members of the City's Waterfront Plan Work Group, who are concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the draft plan on historic Old Town, a designated National Historic Landmark. I am grateful to you and Lance Mallamo for meeting with me and Sonja Ingram of Preservation Virginia on December 19th regarding the draft plan.
The concerned residents of Old Town who have contacted the National Trust include architects, developers, and city planners who own historic properties in the waterfront neighborhood. The concerned residents have raised questions regarding a number of important issues, including:
• Scale and massing of the proposed new development encouraged by the draft plan on the Cummings-Turner Block, Robinson Terminal North, and Robinson Terminal South.
• Potential adverse impacts to residents' quality of life caused by increased traffic congestion and parking demands on the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the waterfront.

• And, the implications of the 2011 agreement to retire and permanently close the power plant adjacent to the area considered by the draft Waterfront Small Area Plan.
We understand that the Old Town Civic Association has formally requested that the City Counc:il should not adopt the current draft plan and text amendment until these and other issues are addressed.
There is much to recommend in the draft plan, including the emphasis on expanding public access to the waterfront and on protecting historic structures which survive along the waterfront. At the same time, in our view, the questions raised by the local civic association and by members of the public merit additional attention. The National Trust respectfully recommends that the City of Alexandria should defer adoption of the draft plan and text amendment in order to continue the planning process and expand its public education efforts to address these substantive issues and the public's conc.erns for the future of the waterfront.
Thank you in advance for considering the views of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Sincerely,
Rob Nieweg d
Field Director and Attorney
Washington Field Office
National Trust for Historic Preservation
cc: Elizabeth Kostelny, Executive Director, Preservation Virginia