Waterfront Development Committee Comments on Three Alternate Waterfront Proposals

The Alexandria Waterfront Development Committee considered three alternative plans for redevelopment of the waterfront at its meeting on June 29.

The alternatives did not include the staff-developed plan the committee had endorsed at its previous meeting May 26. That plan has apparently been put on hold while a new waterfront work group researches and develops advice to give to City Council.

The committee is preparing a position statement on the three alternatives, which it will transmit to the working group when it's officially established.

Old Town Alexandria Patch has obtained a copy of the draft committee position statement.

Of the three plans, the committee seemed to support Alternative 1 most strongly. This alternative, called “parks and recreation,” proposes significant expansion of parks and cultural space at the three major waterfront parcels poised for redevelopment: Robinson Terminal North and South, and the Cummings/Turner Block at the foot of Prince Street. 

Alternative 1 has projected costs of $220 million and projected tax revenues of $164,000 annually, both subject to further refinement. The statement says “there may be opportunities for funding from state and federal government sources as well as private non-private organizations, which could help to defray the cost of this (or another) Waterfront Plan alternative.”

The committee also noted that plans to pay for proposed improvements at the waterfront need to be addressed—should the improvements be “self-financing,” that is, paid for with tax revenues generated from waterfront businesses, or should other General Fund revenues be used. Significant amounts of public money being available would change the type of development that could be supported.   

The committee also thought that prioritizing which private parcels should be bought first was an important consideration, given limits on available funding—the parking lot at the foot of King Street and the parcels along the Strand, as well as the Robinson Terminals and the Cummings/Turner block.

In response to this point, Mike Young, owner of Old Town Gemstones at 6 Prince Street, noted that as an owner of a property in the Cummings/Turner block, he had no inclination to sell his property at this time. The Old Dominion Boat Club has also indicated it is not going to sell its parking lot.

The committee also expressed concern that “this alternative may not activate the waterfront enough, as it presents few opportunities for waterfront dining and commercial activities, which many participants in the Waterfront Small Area Plan-making process have requested. Similarly, any new public spaces must be carefully designed and need to provide a reason for people to use them lest they become deserted like existing assets such as Waterfront Park and the Torpedo Factory Food Pavilion.”

Finally, the committee urged the new working group to consider a wide variety of alternatives, including ways to incorporate elements of the staff-developed plan.  

The committee was much less supportive of Alternatives 2 and 3, which essentially call for current zoning to continue; the only differences were that Alternative 2 would not require special use permits and Alternative 3 would require them.

Alternative 2 was widely viewed as offering only “limited protection of community interests,” which would be the result if the city failed to develop a waterfront-area development plan. It would essentially enable developers to do anything currently allowed under zoning, including erecting more townhouses and “big box office buildings.”  The city would also be unable to control the design of the new development at Robinson North since the Board of Architectural Review control does not extend north of Oronoco Street.

Among other problems with Alternative 2: few civic improvements, and limited revenue generated to fund an art walk, historical interpretation information, and flood mitigation. Under Alternative 2, the committee thought that “Alexandria would likely suffer completely unacceptable development inconsistent with its aspiration for a world-class waterfront.”  

The committee thought that Alternative 3, which would require Special Use Permits, was marginally better than Alternative 2 but said the city would still be reacting to developer proposals rather than controlling the process from the start. In addition, the developer could choose whether to follow an SUP process, depending on the type of development proposed.

Van van Fleet, a member of the committee representing the Old Town Civic Association, suggested that Alternatives 2 and 3 be “scrubbed,” since Alternative 1 was “closest to what the people want.” However, the committee did not vote to support or oppose any of the alternatives, instead simply providing comments to include in the position statement on the three alternatives to send to the working group.  

As to why the staff-developed plan was not generating broader public support, Young from Old Town Gem Stones, in an interview two days after the committee meeting, said he thought it was “too grandiose.”

He praised the staff as hard working but said the plan was “too much for the public to swallow at one time. You mention ferris wheel and carousel, and you think ‘carnival.’ And they should never have used the term ‘boutique hotel.’ I think they meant ‘small hotel.’ That would have been better.”