City Council Approves 10-Story Rental Building by Braddock Road Metro
The 99-foot high building will include 10 units of affordable housing.
Alexandria City Council on Saturday approved a plan to build a 99-foot-high, 10-story rental apartment building on Madison Street, about 500 feet east of the Braddock Road Metro Station.
Council voted 6-0 to approve the plan, with Councilman Rob Krupicka absent from the meeting due to another commitment.
City staff had recommended that council approve an alternative plan for an eight-story, 77-foot-high building but council largely decided to go with the other option because it includes 10 units of affordable housing “to remain affordable for 40 years,” according to plan documents.
This plan for Braddock Metro Place, which will be part of the Braddock Small Area Plan, “makes sense here” said Councilwoman Alicia Hughes, including the significant height and density, although those features don’t make sense “everywhere in the city,” she said.
Vice Mayor Kerry Donley later agreed, saying: “If you’re going to have density, you’re going to want it over by the metro stations.”
The council members discussed at length the parking related to the building and expressed concern over how it could impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Ultimately, Donley said the plan could be approved with an amendment that residents couldn’t apply for a residential parking permit but guests and visitors would be eligible. The new development will have a parking garage and seeks to use other adjacent garages for the building’s future residents.
The new building will include 165 residential units and 151 parking spaces.
The Braddock Metro Neighborhood Plan establishes a maximum height of 77 feet on this site, but a section of the zoning ordinance allows an increase in height as an incentive to include affordable housing.
The plan, which is on the site of the former Parker-Gray School, includes about 10,000 square feet of open space “designed as a passive park, with pedestrian paths, an oval-shaped lawn landscaping, pedestrian-scale lighting and seating areas."
The closest grocery store will be the yet-to-be-built Harris Teeter on Madison Street about a half-mile away. Councilwoman Del Pepper said she hoped more and closer retail and other amenities would be available to the building's residents.
Hopkins House President Glenn Hopkins supported the plan: “We’re starving for affordable housing in Alexandria,” adding that those type of units have shrunk from 18,000 in the city to 6,000.
But Nancy Hughes, a past president of the Braddock Place Homeowners Association, said she preferred the 77-foot structure and characterized the project as “putting a 10-pound potato into a five-pound sack” because the building will be so tall and on a site that’s only just more than an acre.
She also objected to the new building’s party area, which includes a swimming pool, saying it could be noisy.
The final plan includes those features.
Councilman Paul Smedberg lamented that the building looks boring and said he craved more interesting detail on these new buildings. “We’re building neighborhoods here,” he said.
Mayoral candidate Andrew Macdonald (I) said the plan “doesn’t get the ingredients right” for the city, including its failure to add open space.
“There’s a separation between the concept of smart growth and what we mean by a livable community,” he said. “We’re trying to cram too much into these spots.”
Donley shot back: “I appreciate the platitudes, euphemisms and generalities…but this region has invested billions of dollars over transportation infrastructure” and noted that Macdonald testified against the plans to develop the Patent and Trademark building “which as brought in millions of dollars and created a walkable neighborhood.”
Mayor Bill Euille, who is running against Macdonald to keep his seat, asked Macdonald how many meetings related to this plan Macdonald had attended.
Macdonald said he had read all the material but had not gone to every meeting.
“I’m coming here today to express my concerns about the plan,” he said.
Katy Cannady
8:23 am on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
When it comes to attending meetings, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. I and a few others attended all the waterfront plan meetings. I mentioned that in my public testimony at the last waterfront public hearing on January 21. The Mayor did not say, "Well, in that case, we must listen to you."
Sheila Pollak
1:39 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
How many low income units are on the property that this building will replace? I suspect that 10 units will not replace those that will be lost. Also, the rendering shows another architecturally hideous structure. I cannot name 10 buildings of nice design that have been constructed in the city in the past 10 years, and suspect that what is planned for Arlandria will be true to the pattern of ugliness.
Joseph M.
8:19 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sheila, the land is un-built. http://g.co/maps/4cugq Hence, all 10 'affordable housing units' are a net gain. To be honest, if you had taken even a cursory glance at the plans, you would have realized that.
In general, I don't see how anyone could make a reasoned argument against this building. It's a stone's throw from Braddock Metro and is surrounded by non-single family homes so the density and mass is appropriate.
Andrew MacDonald's objection that it doesn't add open space is ridiculous. There are plenty of playing fields and parks within walking distance. Plus, it does in fact maintain certain open space facing Madison Street. Parcels next to Metro stations are not an appropriate place for open space.
matt tallmerq
8:19 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
To Sheila: There will be no units lost. The site currently is vacant and has been since at the Braddock Place Condo and related business buildings were built in the early-mid 1990s.
BG Del Ray
8:19 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
More highrises! More density! More cars! Awesome!
Joseph M.
9:20 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
I said above: "In general, I don't see how anyone could make a reasoned argument against this building. It's a stone's throw from Braddock Metro and is surrounded by non-single family homes so the density and mass is appropriate."
Didn't see a reasoned argument there so I guess my point still stands.
mfranceski
10:26 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Braddock Road is a woefully undeveloped Metro Station area, so what's the problem? This is density that should have been put here long ago and they are just catching up. People who simply dislike "density", particularly near transit hubs, confuse me.
JamesOnThePotomac
5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Less Council members!
matt tallmerq
9:40 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The only reasonably argument could be from residents of the Braddock Place Condo & Braddock Place Townhouses, who are going to have two major construction projects -- one directly behind them, and the other across N. Fayette Street. Good luck on exiting the cul du sac to get to work, or entering it to get home, or getting any sleep after 7 am or quite during dinner or before 9 am -- Monday through Saturday.
Jay
11:40 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
If I can be nitpicky, the article says,
"The plan, which is on the site of the former Parker-Gray School"
The school was at 1207 Madison, which would have been the first third or so of Madison as you head away from the intersection with N. Fayette. The empty space is I don't know, 1265 or something.
Also, don't be confused by the commemorative plaque that is just north of where this new building is going. It was placed there, I'm assuming, because of better foot traffic. By the way, that marker, affixed to the brick archway, is very nicely done.
Sharon McLoone
11:45 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Hi Jay,
The Development Special Use Permit says the site is located within the Braddock Place development which "occupies 7.5 acres and was the former site of the Parker-Gray school." That's where I got my information. The building proposal gives an address for the new building of 1261 Madison. Maybe it includes the former school grounds when it refers to the site and not just the building. I will have to check, but thanks for pointing that out.
Jay
5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Thanks Sharon, mostly a geeky thing on my part :-)
JamesOnThePotomac
5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Enough with the density!
Vice Mayor Kerry Donley later agreed, saying: “If you’re going to have density, you’re going to want it over by the metro stations.”
The elections cannot come soon enough and just maybe we can get rid of these density clowns.