patching...
Breaking: Alexandria Police ID Victim in Lynhaven Shooting »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Planning Commission OKs Waterfront Rezoning

City Council will consider waterfront measures at March 16 public hearing.

 

The Alexandria Planning Commission approved two zoning text amendments in a meeting that ran into early Wednesday morning that will allow the city to circumvent pending litigation and begin implementing a long-debated waterfront redevelopment plan, provided City Council signs off on the measures later this month.

See: Alexandria City Council to Vote Once Again on Waterfront Plan

Opponents of the plan, who have spent more than two years expressing their concerns over new development on the Old Town waterfront, stated old worries and some new ones to the commissioners.

Andrew Macdonald, a former vice mayor who ran a failed campaign for mayor last year largely built on opposition to the city’s waterfront proposal, told the commissioners the plan is “a final nail in the coffin of this historic city."

“We’re not debating the plan. The plan has been approved,” Commissioner Eric Wagner said, addressing Macdonald directly. “We’re talking about an amendment to begin implementing the plan.”

Wager later said the waterfront was discussed at great length ahead of the November 2012 election. 

"We all know the results of that election," he said. 

Opponents made calls for more time for consensus building and more time for three recently appointed commissioners to dig into the issue. They called for a halt to proceedings until two pending court cases about the waterfront can be heard. They referenced Hurricane Sandy and the impact such a superstorm could have on a built-up waterfront. The opponents asked for more parks and they asked for compromise.

“We’ve heard these arguments before,” Commissioner Stewart Dunn said. “As far as compromise, as far as I can see the compromise has been all one way. … The opposition is just as opposed as before. Where is this compromise?”

Opponents protested the number of hotels one amendment allows in the plan. That number shrunk from four lodges to two small hotels not exceeding 150 rooms during discussions last year. Tuesday’s speakers expressed continued worries that the hotels would bring too much traffic to Old Town’s crowded streets.

Vice Mayor Allison Silberberg has recently led the charge to reduce the number to one boutique hotel, maintaining that two 150-room hotels are too large for the waterfront.

See: Pete Seeger Joins Alexandria Waterfront Debate

“In discussing what was desired on the waterfront throughout this process, people said they wanted more dining options, more activity,” said Nate Macek, who was appointed to the commission last week after serving on multiple waterfront groups. “They want to see King Street extended down to the waterfront. This is how we can do that, by encouraging some commercial development.” 

The commission passed a second amendment to a section of the city’s zoning ordinance early Wednesday clarifying language to state citizens can protest zoning map changes as opposed to both text and map amendments.

City staff said the section of the zoning ordinance in question never was intended to include text amendments. Macek termed it "a clerical error." 

Waterfront residents last year filed a lawsuit over the waterfront plan saying they can protest changes to both text and map amendments. The city says protests only apply to changes in zoning maps and, because the waterfront vote only dealt with a text amendment, they couldn’t protest.

Council decided last month to revote last year’s 5-2 decision on the waterfront measure and it is expected to pass 6-1, which would be a supermajority.

If it passes again with a supermajority, the vote would squelch the protestors’ argument that the city’s zoning rules require a council supermajority vote to overrule a protest by residents who live near an area designated to be rezoned.

A group of Alexandria civic associations asked to defer action on the amendment earlier this week, saying proposed changes could blunt their ability to protest unwanted development near their homes anywhere across the city.

See: Civic Associations Ask to Defer Zoning Vote

The commission said it would review aspects of the zoning law at a later date.

Council will consider the amendments at a public hearing scheduled for March 16.

Read more articles on Alexandria's waterfront redevelopment plans.

Related Topics: Alexandria Planning Commission, Andrew MacDonald, Eric Wagner, Nate Macek, Stewart Dunn, waterfront redevelopment, and zoning ordinance

Ruben Duran

3:43 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Seems to me that this amendment simply provides new grounds for another lawsuit. This still is Virginia isn't it? Changing the law to stop a lawsuit seems to me would not fly in the Virginia Supreme Court since the lawsuits it's trying to eradicate were filed beforehand.

Reply

unbelievable

8:00 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Too weak to say so yourself, William? You are a coward and your post is reprehensible. Hansen should report it to APD as a threat.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Drew Hansen

8:32 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The comment was deleted for violating our terms of use. I have notified the members of the commission about the comment.

OT insider

8:25 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

"Andrew Macdonald, a former vice mayor who ran a failed campaign for mayor last year largely built on opposition to the city’s waterfront proposal, told the commissioners (blah, blah, blah)"

"Wager later said the waterfront was discussed at great length ahead of the November 2012 election. 'We all know the results of that election,' he said."

nuff said.

Reply

Mark Mueller

7:20 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Commissioners mocked me when I suggested a compromise on the waterfront - pretty sad. Wagner mocked Connie Ring when he indicated that it was absolutely not the intent of commissioners and council men/women in previous years to allow for a protest against one type of rezoning but not another. It is absolutely an assault on property owners rights (www.whatsreallynext.com for more on that). Both actions taken by the Planning Commission are un-American for seeking to deny the waterfront citizens due process while taking away property rights from all Alexandrians (many who are completely unaware of the implications). One person appropriately described this behavior as being "third world." I couldn't agree more....

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jon Rosenbaum

7:53 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Majority rules is not un-American. Letting the minority rule is un-American. Yes, there should be protections for the minority, but requiring a super-majority vote (all but one council person) is excessive. That is the issue.

Comment_arrow

Dennis Auld

5:12 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I was also at the hearing. To say that the Commissioners "mocked" you is totally inaccurate. The Commissioners were attentive to and respectful to all speakers. They routinely allowed speakers to go over their 3 minute limit. This is just another example of what the opposition to the waterfront plan say when things do not go their way.

Gail G

7:20 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I missed that comment but it must have been pretty bad if Drew sent it to the commissioners. Calm down, people. Threats are not the way to go. Just keep protesting and filing lawsuits. No matter what the city says or does, you can always protest and sue. You might not make it far in court, but you can always file. It's called the Laywers Rights To Work Act, and I support that.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Haunches

9:46 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

To be clear, it was the city who filed the lawsuit against the BZA decision, not any citizen. The city can stop its lawsuit anytime it wants. Why hasn't it? Who knows? Those decisions were made behind closed doors, as was the decision to try to pre-empt the judiciary. And I agree with one of your points -- the fact that the city continues its litigation in multiple courts and it has been nearly a year shows that it has not made it very far in court.

David Potomac Yard

8:27 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

This nonsense has gone on long enough. Minority rights guarantee you access, not results. The endgame is clear: the only question is how much time and money the opponents are going to waste.

Reply

Callimachus

8:41 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

@OT Insider - I suspect the number of "straight ticket" Democratic voters in November's election who knew or cared about city issues would only be a small percentage. We got a one party council because of Obama's victory (and the cynical movement of the election to November by losing Democrats in the previous Council), not because of the true representation of city-wide concerns. If the people were accurately represented in the city, it wouldn't be a one party council.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jon Rosenbaum

9:43 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Oh this is all due to our ignorant and uninformed voters. What a rationalization of defeat.

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

2:43 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Obviously that was the angle for moving the election, right?

Comment_arrow

oldtowner

3:28 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

to Callimachus: I've seen this argument before....seems having a lot of folks turn out for an election is a negative, per your thinking. I disagree. And the Waterfront was a major issue in the local Council election.... Elections have consequences. If the local Republican party could come up with viable candidates, they would be elected.

Comment_arrow

Jon Rosenbaum

4:10 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Oldtowner, the Republicans need viable policies too. Oddly, for Republicans, our local party seems opposed to most economic development proposals. They should drop this and focus on organizing folks to oppose our constantly rising taxes and expanding local government. Some of their candidates -Fannon, for example, are attractive. Others are appalling.

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

4:39 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I think the Republican slate was pretty strong, though - they're just at a disadvantage for having an (R) next to their name on the sample ballots. That being said - you're right, I'm all for more participation and would not in any way want to purposefully decrease turnout.

But let's not kid ourselves. There were many Democrat precinct operatives handing out sample ballots on the day of the election in my voting location alone. Why would they do that unless they expected people to vote straight party ticket? Seems like an awful waste of time and resources if they trusted the voters to know the issues.

Now, of course, the Republicans use the same strategy. But to say that the Council election was decided entirely on the merit of the issues is, in my opinion, missing a key nuance of how elections are won.

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

4:53 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Jon - you're right, go figure the Republicans would come down on the conservation side of development. But I chalk that up to protection of property rights - a key issue at the Waterfront and for conservatives (and Virginians) across the Commonwealth.

Comment_arrow

Gina Baum

4:53 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

The was no Rs or Ds for that matter next to any name on the ballot -- all the Republicans, I think, we're listed first. How many more advantages should Rs get In order for one of them to get elected? Maybe we should hold an election in the middle of a snow storm and not tell anyone it is happening.....will that make it fair?????

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

5:02 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

One response for each question mark:

- As I said, the designation is on the sample ballots. Which is a key tactic that both parties use to combat the fact that their candidates are not listed by party.
- I don't believe the election was unfair. It put certain candidates at a disadvantage, but if it was truly unfair, I'd hope the circumstances would be illegal. Moving the election was a smart (but as I believe, cynical) move.
- Local elections were previously held in April (no snow storms, hopefully).
- Not looking for anyone to have an advantage, I just don't agree with flat statements about "elections have consequences, so get over it" - because it drowns out a significant portion of the city who is currently lacking representation. It's still the citizens' rights to make their voices heard any way they can.

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

5:03 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Dang, I forgot one question mark. Oh well. Good debate everyone, you guys exercised my brain today.

Comment_arrow

OT insider

6:51 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I'm not sure what your point is Callimachus. Are you saying that you don't believe in democracy and direct elections? Look, I don't like one party controlling city government either, and not everyone I voted for won but I have to get over it. I especially don't like the fact that we are going to see an indefensible property tax increase this year, but I will have to get over that too. The WFP was a significant issue during the campaign. Candidates who supported it won and people who are against it will just have to get over it.

Politics is politics. Elections DO have consequences. The people ARE accurately represented. Whether they voted for candidates because they agree with them on local issues or because they were democrats in an overwhelmingly democratic town is just not relevant. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. Get over it.

Comment_arrow

Callimachus

10:54 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Isn't the Vice Mayor ( the Councilwoman who won the most votes) the expected minority vote in the predicted super-majority on the WFP? Doesn't that say something about how the town feels on that issue?

Hey, I'm with you. I don't like the idea of a one-party council. And I don't want higher property taxes either. But I'm discouraged by your resignation that just because an election was lost, that the minority's opinion needs to be silenced for three years. That was the point of my original comments - that the minority opinion should continue to be voiced, either through direct petitions, forums like this, or reasonable civil cases. I think we can agree that (along with direct elections) is the essence of a strong democracy. The moment that the passionate decide to "get over it" is the moment that a large portion of this city loses its voice.

Comment_arrow

Gail G

9:25 am on Friday, March 8, 2013

Local elections were previously held in May, not April, but that's a minor point. The R's lost in part because of large turnout in a Presidential year election but that wasn't the only reason. Unfortunately, there are many "low information" voters in Alexandria. Here's some interesting info...On election day, the Obama campaign made strong efforts late in the day to ensure that Virginia went for Obama. They made calls throughout the state went primarly to African American women. In Alexandria, those women turned out, but they also voted for Alicia Hughes, the Republican imcumbent council member who was tainted by personal finanical troubles. She was, in fact, the top vote getter after the Democratic sweep, coming in at number 7 in the council race. That shocked me until a Dem operative explained to me what had happened. Even I thought that Frank Fannon would have a strong shot at holding on to his seat. Next time, in off year elections, Frank might have a shot again. I doubt the Rs will put Alicia on their ballot again but who knows. Bob Wood wasn't a bad candidate but I didn't think he had a real shot. He ran a good campaign though. I got to know him during the campaign season at various events and I personally thought he was an okay guy.

Gina Baum

9:41 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

When will these 18 opponents, their threats, their harassment, and lawsuits etc. ever go away and STOP victimizing an entire community, the majority? This is the privileged entitled generation. No one has ever told these people NO and they will not accept NO. The well heeled and polished ladies of the me generation. They knock on doors making outlandish claims....it is unbelievable what some people will stoop to? And now some stupid website...really? If you don't like what is going on here so much MOVE. Go Away. These people complain and complain...file law suit after lawsuit. They only show up when there are cameras there take their pictures and promote themselves. They do nothing else in this City. They don't volunteer.... NOTHING...no civic service, no community boards, no voluteerism.....Here is what is WWW.REALLYNEXT dot com -- Please move and if you are so disturbed by more acres of park land, a continual promenade from North Old Town to Jones Point, an Art & History walk, and 300 hotel rooms. For the betterment of the community...do us a service...Go!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Del Ray Ray

1:25 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

agreed Gina, Andrew MacDonald is becoming the cranky old man who yells at everyone to get off his lawn. The majority spoke via the election outcome, where the waterfront was a major issue. Let's move on and start the process of redevelopment! Those opposed can make all the excuses about November elections, Obama sweeps, and uneducated voters they want - but at the end of the day the outcome was the outcome.

Comment_arrow

Haunches

10:54 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

How do you propose cleansing people from the city? How do you propose going about identifying people who should be cleansed from the city? Are there only certain issues which warrant expulsion form the city, or just he ones you feel strongly about?

Katy Cannady

10:30 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I first attended a Planning Commission in the mid 1980s because land directly across the street from the house I owned then was being redeveloped. I have attended many since then. Last Tuesday was by far the worst meeting I have ever attended. There have been plenty of meetings where I was on the losing side, but no meeting like this one where the Chaiman and some members of the Commission continuely demonstrated disrespect to those testifying by talking with each other through their remarks and in many cases arguing with those remarks after the speaker's three minutes were up. Speakers of course were not allowed to answer.

As for volunteering, since my retirement I have spent six years tutoring public school children, three years on the board of the Alexandria United Way Chapter, one of those as chairman of the subcommitte which awards grants, and I am currently on the Archeology Commission. Many of the people I have met for the first time during these last two years are also engaged in demanding volunteer work.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Dennis Auld

5:41 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Seriously Katy, you are basically wrong about the Commissioners actions with the speakers. I was also at the hearing and observed a minimum of discussion between Commissioners, which is common and appropriate. They were attentive to the speakers. They all were in attendance for the entire meeting which went to after midnight. They allowed speakers to go past the 3 minute limit. You can call a different point of view an argument, but the Commissioners were well within their authority, and respoinsibility to respond to a speakers comment (or portion of a comment) that was factually incorrect. Speakers were given every opportunity to say what they wanted to say. And you might recall, at the beginning of the meeting, the Chair had to admonish those opposed to the plan for making inappropriate and loud noise.

Gina Baum

10:39 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Minus You Katy of course....! We will keep you. The others can go.

Reply

Gina Baum

10:52 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

And you don't go knocking on people's doors in Old Town like some do....constantly harassing people telling them their neighbors will ostacize them from the community if they don't sign their petition......

Reply

Katy Cannady

11:45 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Actually, I am seriously considering leaving. I am not wealthy. The assessment on my small house plus the probable increase in the property tax rate make living here much too expensive and outweigh most of the good things this city offers. It's funny really, since I came here in the early 80s, every new development was going to solve any financial problems the city might have. None of them ever did.

Reply

Gail G

11:45 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013

But the doyennes of Old Town create jobs! Who else shops at all those boutiques, goes to all those spas, lunches at all those restaurants, etc.? If they all moved away who would be left to protect such sacred spots as the place where George Washington's horse once peed?

Reply

Katy Cannady

12:03 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I do not live in Old Town. Since I am not close enough to walk to them, I don't go to the restaurants and shops except rarely. I can not find parking. It will be the lack of parking that will destroy Old Town. The shops and restaurants can not survive just on the patronage of those near enough to walk to them.

Reply

Ruben Duran

12:33 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Yea Katy, it really does come down to parking. There are numerous "small area redevelopment plan" going on throughout the city. Every single one has taken a density level of say 4 houses to 20 townhomes, a warehouse to 50 plus townhomes or condos and with every new development parking continues to get worse in said part of the city. Everyone is only caught up with their own little nook and cranny within the city, but when you all start driving and walking around the city limits like I, then you won't come across as hypocritical. I easily drive 35 miles a minimum on our city streets and do a fair amount of walking in different quadrants as well. The Waterfront is a wonderful plan on paper, but nothing more. Even in 5 years, and should the city budget hit the $750,000,000 mark, they'll still be saying there is no money for anything

Reply

Gina Baum

12:59 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Parking doesn't get better when you privatize the waterfront by only allowing Townhouses and their driveways.....OR mixed use of stores with condos above and parking only for residents. The other options have NO PARKING. So I guess you are saying because the parking isn't exactly meeting the oppositions demands the waterfront should be privatized to condos and townhomes. Listen, until you people have a better solution or a plan that includes ALL of your outlandish unrealistic demands please take your opposition to a new community. Most of us deal in reality, not Never Never land, or the generation of me, and if it's not my way I throw a fit and sue everyone.

Reply

Mess

2:50 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Old Town -- It's so crowded; nobody goes there anymore!

Reply
Comment_arrow

oldtowner

4:10 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

to Mess... How could it be crowded if nobody goes there?

lynnhampton

4:39 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

I think Mess is really Yogi Berra - it is nice to see some humor in this string.

Reply

Ruben Duran

5:12 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

My only question for Gina is, are you on a developers payroll. In the end, I will look forward to doing a large dog group walk on the new waterfront. You missed my point or perhaps it was on a different article posting. The Hotels at Robinson North should never have been an issue, I only take issue to Robinson south. As for the "Art League warehouse," I have to admit that is a parcel hard to argue against. In the end, when I moved to the city in'94, the talk was always to have a continuos walkway from Tidelock Park to Windmill Hill Park/Jones Point. When I saw the model a couple of years ago, where was the boardwalks around the hotels.

Reply

Ruben Duran

5:12 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Ugh, where were the boardwalks around the hotels. They appeared to be on the street side and not the river side, like Ford's Landing OR Potomac Crossing. And there are more than 17 people oppossed to the plan, they are just the most vocal and at the forefront of the opposition. I have lived on Route 1 at Henry, Rosemont, Northeast Old Town, and currently near the Landmark Mall.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Gina Baum

6:20 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Ruben you are wrong my friend it is 50 ft of H20 front promenade!

Ruben Duran

8:03 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

Thanks, followed the plan and went to a few meeting up to a year or so a go. I know the plan called for more promenade, a larger Marina area which I thought would be a nice addition and could potentially allow the Old Town Art Festival thingy to be moved to the Marina. Somewhat like Santa Barbara, Ca does on Sundays during their sidewalk arts sale along the beach on Cabrillo Bl. Spring to fall. Regardless of the assumed outcome, personally I think Union and Lee streets south of King should be changed to oneway streets to allow more parking and or north/south bound bike lines. On Union Stree it would likely allow widening of the sidewalks on a few blocks vs. This silly plan the city is pushing for 100 S. Union St.

Reply

Gina Baum

10:54 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

What???? That is what is already being done w/ the Union St corridor plan --- widening sidewalks will
happen well before the WFP is implemented. Check please!

Reply

OT insider

10:54 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

This is from some great reporting by Derrick Perkins in this weeks' Alex Times:

"After hours of renewed debate about the much-maligned waterfront redevelopment plan, longtime planning commissioner Stewart Dunn stepped down from the podium, grabbed a microphone and circled a model of the city’s future Potomac shoreline."

"'I want to point this out: When you look at this [plan] you hear the horrors that have been presented by the waterfront plan as it now stands, but as you look at this it’s hard to see those,' said the normally subdued Dunn. 'What we have here is we’re going over the same arguments we were going over before. … As far as compromise — we hear about this compromise — as far as I can see the compromise has been all one way.'"

Frankly Mr. Dunn has far more experience on city planning issues than anyone opposed to the WFP. I trust his judgement.

Reply

Benny

10:31 am on Friday, March 8, 2013

Can we now please start redeveloping the Del Ray area?! The single family homes are wasting space suitable for high density development!

Alexandria needs more hotels and high rise condo buildings and Del Ray is a prime location for it.

Reply

Leave a comment