We all want to uphold the right to protest, that is not the main issue here. Appealing the BZA is necessary for all future zoning decisions to assure this case does not set precedent. Unfortunately under current zoning what the City will get on the three properties (8.5 acres) will be residential, like Fords Landing and Harborside or offices like Canal Center. Good in design or usage for the owners, but bad for all other Alexandrians. The existing parks on the waterfront will become islands, not openly connected and with limited access. No one will feel comfortable walking around the limited space the new residences will provide on the river side. It will feel just like it does now when you walk through Harborside and Fords Landing. As many studies show, residential housing results in more cars and traffic than hotels, but CAAWP continues to ignore that fact. Mr. Walker’s ideas on what to place on these properties has been gone over before, and the question still remains, how will you pay for it? Cost for the projects supported by Mr. Walker would have a 50% increase in the City's debt burden, and an increase in taxes to pay for his ideas. It has also been shown, by experts in the area of museums, that museums in Alexandria, competing with the Smithsonian, would not attract enough visitors to pay for the operating cost, much less the debt. Again, an ongoing tax burden for the citizens of Alexandria.

I like Boyd's idea of a pedestrian mall on lower King Street. I have personally seen this work beautifully in Burlington VT, Old Town Charlottesville, and a few other small cities with tremendous cultural resources like Old Town Alexandria. It attracts business, visitors and tax revenue. I also like the idea of a performance pavilion. It can provides another cultural resource and attracts visitors who spend, thus tax revenue. It sounds like those three parcels slated for dense residential need to be rezoned. Many economic development studies have shown dense residential development is tax negative because of the cost of services-school, police, fire.
Modern urban planning has often proved that open space and tourist friendly cultural resources enhances property values and the tax base, not to mention quality of life, which has its own intrinsic value and is worth paying for..

The futue connected river walk is in the plan the city and the National Park Service agreed to in the 1980s. It will happen as properties redevelop. It does not matter whether the owners of the warehouses rebuild at a floor area ratio of 2 (what is allowed without the rezoning) or 3 , what the majority of Council members consisting of the Mayor, Mr. Donley, Mrs. Pepper, Mr. Smedberg and Mr. Krupicka approved. When the warehouses are replaced, any new structures of whatever size must be placed back from the river so as to allow a public walking area. If this is not done, the warehouse owners (all of whom signed the Park Service agreements) are in violation of those agreements.

The precedent the suporters of the city;s decision do not want is the right to protest. If the city overturns the BZA they could, as they tried to do on the waterfront, write the rezoning in such a way, using only a text amendment, so that it would be subject to any protest. Luckily the BZA saw through this and spent a lot of time discussing whether the city had specifically written map changes as text amendments. There would be no chance for citizens to appeal to the BZA as long as the city makes no changes to a map. On the second point, Dennis is also wrong, and continues the myth that the only way we would get a continuous path around new development is by moving forward with the city's plan. In 1981 it was ruled that there must be a continuous path around Robinson Terminal North and South if they were ever developed and no matter how they were developed. The US Government has an easement over what would be turned into parkland. Lastly, I have never advocated for an increase in taxes. In fact, one of my criticisms is that the developments that have been built have failed to reduce our taxes in any meaningful way. They have failed to reduce the burden on the residential tax rate, and many of the retail spaces in new development sit empty. New development should be measured in terms of qaulity of life and the contribution it is making to our community, and the cost of the proposed development on the waterfront would not improve our quality of life.

Pedestrian malls are a HORRIBLE idea. The past 50 years of 'cutting edge' planning philosophy has consistently spoken against single-use zoning. Look at Seattle, Wa., Eugene, Or., and Boulder Co., for examples. They become havens for degenerates, drug addicts and the homeless. Retailers have suffered tremendously from being cut off. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of public planning would know that this approach has been abandoned long ago and in fact many cities are now indebting their citizens to fund the construction needed to RETURN their malls to their original design. I won't even mention the parking impact that will result from removing a several blocks worth of parking. Just Google it.The information is abundant and readily available. I can't believe he's suggesting this. It's embarrassing.

If you say the Park Service agreement is the operative one, then Robinson Terminal North, as the owner contends, has the higher zoning permitted by the 1990's down zoning.

It is refreshing to hear someone describe a real "vision" for the waterfront that will serve to enhance the history and culture of our waterfront--and provide features that will draw visitors to walk rather than mill about in cars in search for "free" parking spaces. Thank you, Boyd. The Project for Public Spaces, noted worldwide in helping other waterfronts become successful, would approve Boyd's vision since it adopts their approach of green parkland connected by destinations, such as restaurants and cultural centers. This plan would present an wide, open green vista that will invite visitors to stroll from one end of the river walk to the other.

Linda- those people walking will arrive by car. Cars need parking spaces.Turning lower King into a car-free zone will remove hundreds of spaces, almost certainly displacing them further into the residential zones 1, 2, and 3.

I am trying to figure out how Boyd's vision is different from the waterfront plan other than he does not want hotels. The waterfront plan is green parkland connected to public spaces. The plan specifically encourages museums and arts. And it has a mechanism to pay for them. It also calls for the creation of a new foundation to find private funds to implement arts and historic features. The plan specifically calls for 100 foot frontage on the river instead of the smaller amount allowed under the NPS settlement agreement. The plan calls for restaurants just as Boyd has. The plan changes zoning to allow museums as a specific use so we can encourage the creation of them (hard part if working on funding and implementation which is what the new Waterfront Commission can help with). I like the pedestrian walk way idea on King, but we have to remember that retailers all lost money the last time the city closed lower king to peds. It was great for restaurants, but not so good for retail. So it needs to be done carefully. And you still have to figure out where you put the cars that now travel King or you just end up sending them into residential areas. The approved plan is very focused on pedestrians with new walk ways, etc. There is a lot of room for people to come together as the plan is implemented. And if Boyd is truly against higher taxes, he must realize buying the private land isn't feasible. So this has to be a public private partnership to actually get done.

I'd also point out, that the city plan, which was endorsed by the National Park Service, is more in keeping with their vision from the 80's than the rezoning that happened in the 90's. If you believe the Park Service was right in the 80's, the adopted Master Plan is closer to that Vision than anything else out there.

I also think it is ironic that Boyd is taking credit for the Lorien Hotel and Brabo restaurant when he sued the city to stop development on that site. His legal fight said nothing about wanting hotels instead of condos. It was about wanting good adaptive re-use of historic buildings, which I think we got. Boyd's lawsuit didn't help that at all. The irony, though, is that he is bragging about the great hotel on upper king as a better use than condos while fighting against hotels on lower king.

Are my posts visible? Krupicka essentially paraphrased my first and second posts without any acknowledgment whatsoever.

McBrinn,

I'm glad we essentially agree. I was just adding my two cents. Was trying to back up your good points.

No worries about credit, I was just wondering whether my posts were getting lost and only appearing on my machine because they'd been cached. Cheers.

Mr. Auld you have stated "As many studies show, residential housing results in more cars and traffic than hotels, but CAAWP continues to ignore that fact. " Could you provide this forum with citations of 5 such studies? Thanks, Tony Kupersmith

Mr. Krupicka - could you kindly provide evidence to support your claim that the National Park Service endorsed the city's plan? I believe that you are just plain mistaken on this point. Let's see the official letter from the NPS.

McBrinn, I was in Boulder when their Pedestrian Mall turned 25, and I think they are very proud of it and it works well. Charlottesville also has a great downtown mall, as wel as Winchester. I think sme problems with pedestrian malls are when they are closed off or isolated from other areas, and I don't really see that in terms of doing this on three blocks of Old Town. The City already blocks off the Zero block of King, and plans to pedestrianize it as well as the strand as part of the waterfront plan. The 100 and 200 block have great outdoor dining, but not enough room and 80% of the public space is given over tothe automobile. Their are alleys for deliveries and deliveries could be limited to early morning hours on the street. I would challenge you to go down to King and Union on a sunny weekend and see if you think that intersection can handle pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles and still be safe. All of the garages have entrances on the side streets, so it might actually encourage more use of garages.

Speaking of the waterfront plan, does anyone else find it sad that taxpayers will be funding the city's team of lawyers hired to drag on the waterfront plan fight endlessly now that the BZA has made their decision?

And why can't we come up with a plan that doesn't give maximum density to developers? Why is that so difficult?

Rob, the restaurants the waterfront plan supports are connected to the three hotels originally proposed, or part of the development. The restuarants I would support are in existing buildings. Also, what is going on with the food court that is sitting empty? Also, now that the Beachcomber at Zero Prince has been designated Historic why would the city not start the process of retoring it so that someone will be interested n renting it? I know you will say we don't have the money...I am ready to help create the public private partnership that was recommended by the waterfront plan, but I don't see where a museum was funded in the plan, where it will be located, etc. Most of the improvements on the waterfront recommended in the approved plan will not be done untill and unless development happens on the three parcels, so as I said repeatedly during the last year, it will be a long time before anything along the waterfront is improved. The plan passed in the 80's did not include hotels, and the continuous walkways around the 2 Robinson Terminal properties was guaranteed by a legal settlement, so the new plan did not change that. The waterfront plan did change the use, increase heights, increase density and proposes underground parking, bringing more cars to the waterfront. That is not my vision.

Rob, regarding the Lorien Hotel on upper King St., where you supported the development of the condo's that were originally proposed, the lawsuit that I was the lead plaintiff on but was supported by people like Leslie Zupan and Doug Thurman, was an attempt to save the two 90 year old buildings on either side of the Bistro. The building in the center was protected as it was already listed as a 100 year old building. We were trying to make an argument that the existing buildings could be adaptively reused. It turns out they had to be torn down to provide parking underneath. I expressed concern about false mansard roofs, which were removed, and I expressed concern about whether the retail stores on the King St. would be succesful, so the Hotel is a much better situation, as the Kimpton restaurant gorup runs the two reataurants and market, and the hotel brings foot traffic to uper King. But the underground parking below the water table on the waterfront would be a problem, especially with rising water due to global warming, and with the potential for historic resources, especially below Robinson Terminal North. The lawsuit may not have led to the hotel, economics did, but it did lead to extensive archeology being done on the site, that led to some interesting finds, and a 25,000 dontaion to Gadsby's Tavern which is being put to their Ice Well.

Mr. Rosembaum, purchasing the Carver Nursery School myself is an option I have considered, although I don't think I am in a position to do so. I am also looking for a group of investors who might be interested in it. It could be a restaurant, a day care, an architects office, or a residence. I am defintiely willing to commit time, energy and resources, as I have been doing, to to a private public partnership to improve the waterfront. Are you?

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

As you should know, tha opponents of the Waterfront through CAAWP spent their own resources, as well as the supporters for Waterfront For All. If we both put money into this public Private Partnership, I think we could accomplish a lot.

We are all concerned with the Metro site that would require a construction entrance on the GW Parkway, and I did question the 500 million expense. I have always favored Development at Landmark, although I would not support it withou adequate transit to the site. I defintely think that the current develpment plan in Potomac Yard is fine and something the communnit has worked on for at least 20 years. I never opposed that development, and I don't think I would of opposed the building in Arlandria. I was not entirely happy with the design and how it would integrate nto the neighborhood, but it adds residences which should help Arlandria. Yes, what ever was spent would not "buy" any of the properties, but it would of fnded reviving the Waterfront Festival which I hope we can revive next year.

Mr. Kupersmith, we can go around and around on statistics all day long. You well know you can pick your own argument based upon how you interpret the data. It is obvious you are against the Citys Waterfront Plan, I am for it. You choose all day long trips. It is standard practice to use peak hour, and especially peak direction as that is the concern for most people, i.e. congestion. I cannot comment on your point about the City not knowing the trip rates because they have not budgeted monies to obtain data. I assume that the City engineers have obtained, prudently, what they need to develop informed decisions.
You wish to take this argument to a larger point. Fine, let’s go there. The additional 160,000 sq. ft. gives the City leveraging abilities to obtain amenities for the citizens that would not be available should current zoning take precedence. Can you explain to me, if you are successful in opposing the City’s plan, how we will not have a Fords Landing on RTN and RTS? Having “islands” for parks on the waterfront is not appealing to me.