City Council Passes Controversial Waterfront Plan
After a day-long public hearing, council moves to adopt small area draft plan.
Alexandria City council members heard more than 100 speakers on Saturday and then voted to pass the plan.
After three years of public hearings, meetings, work groups, letters to the editor and more, council agreed to move forward by voting 5-2.
During City Council debate on Saturday, members strengthened language related to the arts, parking controls, and limited the number of hotel rooms to 300 on the waterfront. They also added more specificity on building height restrictions.
"The new zoning is clearly giving us more control," said Councilman Rob Krupicka, adding that he respects the skepticism of those who want more details in the plan. "Let's make sure that we roll our sleeves up and that this gets implemented."
Mayor Bill Euille acknowledged that the plan wouldn't please everyone, but it offers flexibility and is a good starting point.
Councilman Frank Fannon said both lobbying groups Waterfront for All and Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan both love the waterfront and that's why those groups were formed.
He added that he is concerned over the density outlined in the waterfront plan.
"What are we legally going to be able to deny or approve?," Fannon said. "We live in a great city here...This plan could fundamentally reform everything that's down there." He voted against the plan.
Councilwoman Alicia Hughes agreed with Fannon about Waterfront for All and CAAWP, adding that she also has concerns over the plan.
"I am a lover and great respector of historic preservation," Hughes said. "The flip of that is development...I look at Carlyle...I look at BRAC" where there are some good things and some bad things. "Sen. Ticer said tonight that this is not ready for prime time...I can not support this plan."
However, she does support a boutique hotel on the waterfront, Hughes said.
Councilman Paul Smedberg praised the work of the Waterfront Plan Work Group and said at the plan's core it "hits upon several key areas that are dear to us as a community."
Smedberg said the city has special gifts - it's historic nature and the waterfront.
"I'm committed to making sure we do this right," he said.
Vice Mayor Kerry Donley said it's important to point out that "what has come before us comes from good work" that has been improved through discussion.
"I'm going to vote for the plan today," he said.
Mayor Euille thanked the citizen groups. "Nobody likes 100% of the elements in the plan and that's why we'll keep working at it," he said. "If we don't act on it, it becomes a political issue. If we act on it, it's a political issue."
Councilwoman Del Pepper says that she has long believed that the highest and best use of waterfront is to have grass and trees, but has come to feel that there are more exciting things that could be done.
"I want something that would be beautiful...but something that is reflective of a community that is thriving and advancing and moving ahead," she said, adding that she will vote for the plan.
vineeta anand
9:36 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
You left out the most important bit of information in the story--how the councilmen voted. I'd like to know, as it will influence my votes in the next elections.
Beth Lawton
10:15 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Council members Frank Fannon and Alicia Hughes voted against the plan.
vineeta anand
8:38 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
Thank you. That's helpful. I'm very glad someone had the guts to stand up to the council's dreadful plan.
JB
10:16 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Read closely. Fannon and Hughes were the two of five that voted no.
JB
Follow The Lead
7:59 am on Sunday, January 22, 2012
There's a story within the story. A commenter on The Alexandria Times is alleging that one of the council members (Krupicka) voting on a public land issue may have misused public land himself by absorbing a public alley into his own residential lot. If true, that's taxpayer funded property to which he would be enjoying exclusively and to which he is not paying taxes on.The Patch should look into that. Again, if true, it's egregious.
Rob Krupicka
6:06 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
If you want to spread allegations you should be willing to use your real name. This allegation is false. There is an unimproved city alley behind my house and all the other houses on my street. I try to weed it and provide basic upkeep since the city doesn't and hasn't for decades. Others on my street do the same thing. I threw some seeds back there to keep weeks down. But it isn't a part of my yard. If it were, I'd have a lot more room to play soccer with my girls. Everything growing in it (grass and weeds I don't get to) is easily removed if the city ever wants or needs to use it. I talked to the city about this years ago and they have never had plans to use this alley for anything. What this has to do with the waterfront isn't clear. People have the right to have different views on the watefront or anything else, but all of this hyper-partisan finger pointing really harms our city's history of civic discourse. If you want to talk further, contact me using your real name and don't hide your identity.
doug redman
11:58 am on Monday, January 23, 2012
Shame on you....hopefully no one else will "follow the lead" on your mudslinging. The vote was made. For now it's over. The opposing sides should now work together with the city to ensure the best possible outcome for our waterfront.
K. Hayes
9:41 am on Sunday, January 22, 2012
No, Fannon and Hughes were two of SEVEN -- the mayor and six council members -- who voted.
Jim Roberts
2:40 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
I am sure the mayor and council members who voted for this plan meant no harm, but it's harm they caused. They are personable and polite but our city needs a better, smarter cadre of elected officials than these individuals. They have been in office too long. 'Tis time for a set of fresh horses, six in total counting a new mayor.
Gail G
9:44 am on Monday, January 23, 2012
People who want to throw stones should have the guts to use their own names. I did not attend Saturday's meeting, but I did email all members of council in support of the waterfront development plan. On Saturday, I tweeted and posted about the isse on Facebook. Apparently someone didn't like what I had to say, because sometime Saturday night into Sunday morning, a coward dumped a bunch of shattered auto glass all over and around my car, which was parked on the street in front of my house. Two other cars my family owns were untouched. Neighbors heard nothing. What kind of person does that? I filed a police report but there isn't much the police can do.
Gina Baum
8:22 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Gail -- I encourage you and anyone who else who has been victemized to report any and all incidents that are unusual.
Katy Cannady
12:50 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
I always use my full name when I post on this site. It annoys me when others do not. Nothing has been decided in actual fact and supporters are celebrating too soon. The opponents of the plan filed a legal protest petition of abutting neighbors. The zoning code provides for this. The planning director ruled the petition invalid. That is her right. The petitioners sent a lawyer with an appeal of her decision request to the planning office on Friday. By law they may appeal the decision of Council to the Board of Zoning Appeals and by law the planning staff accepts this appeal and places it on a docket for a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing. On Friday the planning department staff refused to accept the appeal document. On Saturday, the lawyer again offered the document to the planning director and she refused to accept it. That means she violated a plainly stated provision of zoning law. Her refusal suggests to me that she knows the appeal is valid and would succeed if it were heard. Ms. Gordon, I once had my tired punctured. I am sure the vandals were near neighbors. They were mad because I filed a complaint with animal control over their leaving their cat outside on freezing nights. If I were you, I'd look closer to home for your vandals.
Gina Baum
2:31 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Katy,
The appeal was rejected because Zoning had yet to render its decision about the petition. It wasn't until Saturday when that decision was made. I think you would agree you can can't appeal a decision that hasn't been made. The City is willing and able to accept that appeal, however, no one has shown up with the documents during City Hall's normal business hours. See article below.
http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/articles/zoning-appeal-could-change-landscape-of-waterfront-debate
Gail G
1:36 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
Ms. Cannady, I am on excellent terms with all of my neighbors and we socialize regularly and I spoke with them; no one heard anything. It's possible it was some kids but it was clear that only my car was targeted and because I no longer have a child in an Alexandria Public School, it's unlikely that it was related to that. I'm not claiming that I'm 100% certain it was related to my tweets, etc., about the waterfront plan, but that's really the best guess at this point.
Karen Gautney
1:48 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
The threats and accusations made against our elected officials by the plan opponents, and the nasty push poll from late last week, are disgusting. Tactics like this (which apparently didn't end with the vote) speak louder than the merits of any ongoing argument. Shame on you, "Follow The Lead," and shame on anyone who follows your lead.
Katy Cannady
2:06 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
Ms. Gordon, you have no knowledge of who attacked your car other than that they were nasty vandals. Therefore, you should stop making accusations. I was a recipient of the push poll call. I can say with complete certainty that Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan has no involvement in this push poll. It could easily be the work of supporters of the waterfront plan who want to discredit us. Some of the questions asked and statements the robo announcer makes have no relation at all to anything CAAWP has done or hopes to do. We do not publish any document, flyer, ad or anything else that does not have names and contact information on it. The robo call carefully does not identify who is behind it.
Katy Cannady
2:48 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The zoning code provision regarding a protest petition of the near neighbors is that the planning director may rule it deficient in some way, which she did. The petition with sufficient signers was submitted on Thursday and that is when the decision to reject it was made. On Friday before 5 p.m., the attorney for the petitioners arrived at the planning department with the appeal document to appeal the planning director's decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. By law, the planning director was supposed to accept that document and schedule a hearing at the Board of Zoning Appeals. That hearing is supposed to take place before the City Council public hearing. By refusing to execute a function mandated by law, the planning director ensured that the Council could hold the public hearing. In the long run that may not matter. It still says terrible things about the way this city is being run.
Gina Baum
4:07 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thats not accurate. Everyone was trying to get an answer to the decision on the petition prior to the meeting...I asked work group members who said decision hadn't been made....you can't appeal a decision before its been made.