Plan Lee Highway - Land Use Scenario Area 2

Previous community input can't be the only basis for these zoning changes intended to transform Lee Highway's housing, economy, transit, public spaces, and sustainability. There is very little description of what data informs the two 'preliminary' scenarios. This presentation says that the zoning changes "could allow" some changes to occur, but there's no explanation of why it is reasonable to expect only the hoped-for results.

I see lots of change, but few, if any improvements from the community's perspective. Our problems are overcrowded schools and overloaded infrastructures. We have plenty of retail and restaurants. Nobody wants a skyscraper in their back yard. Nobody wants to add traffic at out biggest existing chokepoints. Overdevelopment of Lee Highway is not the answer to our problems, its a great way to precipitate out failures--long after the decision makers (and the builders) could be held accountable for imposing unwanted costs on the community.

This section of Lee Hwy is not serviced by a metro stop - both Ballston and East Falls Church are driving distance. It is deceiving to keep pushing the "promotes mass transit" language here... this is not Clarendon or Pentagon City where all can easily walk to a metro stop. Instead this plan pretends to create a walkable oasis where no one will need cars - this will not be the case.

First, the Survey is hard to use in a phone. I understand the need for more housing for a variety of families (including my son who is firefighter). Taking the project with modest changes suggested in scenario A with lower-height/lower density (2-family) is in keeping with the neighborhood. Good to bring business/jobs to the Highway but don’t price out current business. They are the heart of the hood and we should encourage small business development.

Is this field of dreams policy? What jobs will remain after the construction is completed? Will the area attract the same corporate cookie cutter businesses everyone else has?

What new community facilities are planned? Schools? Park space? You can't count a business as a "community facility," since non-patrons can be ejected.

Walkability sounds good until people have a third bag of groceries, or a tired kid, or other errands, etc. Rich people only walk when they have the time to do it.

How, exactly will this be accomplished? Is the County going to become a landlord?

The plan's meager open spaces allowance--shared with rainwater runoff--provides little new. And it's not accompanied by an estimate of the increased population in meed of the green space. In several areas, it doesn't look like all of the residents of the adjoining development could stand in it all at once.

Cause and effect gap. Larger tax base doesn't enhance well-being, it's a milestone of achieving well-being.

As residents of 26th Street for 16 years, the idea of a parallel street network on our neighborhood street to alleviate Lee Hwy traffic/congestion is not only counter-intuitive but despicable. 26th Street is narrow and already over-burdened by cut-through traffic - so much so that the County installed speed bumps in an effort to dissuade these drivers. Now Arlington County is going to completely reverse course and PERSUADE our street's use as a preferred alternative roadway?? And this will all be done at the cost of 26th Street owners - both quality of life-wise AND in dropped property values if street parking is removed. Many of us do not have garages or long driveways - where are we supposed to park? Our area is already dealing with the ill effects of I-66 being turned into a toll road - let's not forget the pre-Covid congestion we were seeing on Lee Hwy, which will surely return when a normal work/commute schedule resumes. Change is normal and development needs to happen but it needs to be done SMARTLY in a way that will not overburden our neighborhoods and infrastructure including schools. It took years to ease our neighborhood's school overcrowding problems - Discovery was not built overnight. In addition YHS is already currently operating over-capacity with no more space to build on. Let's see a commitment from the School Board and County (who infamously NEVER work together) to build a fourth public high school before entertaining grand ideas of seven story apartment buildings filled with street level mattress stores and doctor offices...

Let's not artificially turn this into a civil rights issue pitting classes of transportation users against each other. The vast numbers of Lee Highway users are in personal motorized vehicles easily capable of exceeding the speed limit. The road should be optimized for that use and speed of transit expectation. Bus friendly, sure. Bus lane only? Not so much? Mixing slow transportation with fast transportation tends to cause problems, with the slowest paying the highest price. Gotta keep them separated. Had Lee Highway been build with better setbacks, maybe we could have a set-up that adequately manages four modes of two way traffic. But much of the "equitability" seems to be code for taking space from many cars and handing it over to few users in other categories. That will push more traffic into the neighborhoods...because vehicle traffic isn't going away. It might be electric, it might be owned by somebody else, but it will endure as long as it offers a much better use case for commuters.

Please provide maps that show how buildings of the proposed heights will shade the adjoining lots in the mornings and afternoons.

The minuscule amount of open space in either plan virtually assures that the proximate neighborhoods will become the defect green space for the development. Mall patrons already run through yards and jump fences rather than to walk around on existing sidewalks. They also dump their trash over the walls.

What possible use is there for this small plot of land? It will be shaded by a five story building. How many square feet per person here?

This plot and the plot next to it are hardly ever used by people because they are too small to be of practical use. Shine without substance.

Is this green space suitable for camping? - Displaced former residents...

A flat green block misses the point that this space is on a hill abutting a highway. It's practically useless. How many usable square feet per person?

This is a laughably small amount of green space to support the increased population density. Instead of just pictures, tell us how many square feet per person!

Don't expect that two family homes will be "affordable." That's up to the market. Smaller apartments may cost "less" than bigger apartments in Manhattan, but neither meets common definitions of affordable. Arlington's collection of boutique high end shops and restaurants keep living costs high, regardless of the rent. People save money at Walmart, not at boutiques.

This looks like downtown DC development in the Waterfront, Navy Yard corridor where single family homes in historically black neighborhoods were raised to make luxury apartments that the displaced could never afford.

These seven stories could tower some 80 feet over their neighbors' back yards? What do the neighbors think of that? What will life in their new, very expensive houses be like after they are put in a shadow all morning long?

How much of this very, very small "open space" be covered in water...or in provisions for run off?

The community can welcome duplexes and triplexes, but consolidating a block of single family homes to create a mixed use building and extending 25th street to Harrison Street will only push traffic to quiet residential streets without sidewalks - defeating the purpose.

What effect will this new road have on Lee Highway traffic?

There is no point in ranking priorities because all of them are stacked in favor of choosing Option A or B. Of the two, I would prefer Option A, but even A is too much, especially at the Western end of Area 2. There is nothing on the slide deck that acknowledges any negative impact of these two options--rather, we are told only how Options A and B compare to each other. It's great that PLH is seeking community input, but I worry that the process of getting community input will result in statements accompanying the final plan like, "reflects community input," without transparently informing the County Board about negative feedback. Feeding this concern is the fact that the survey questions force the respondent to choose an answer that favors the desired outcome (A or B). All the objectives to be prioritized feed into one of those two options. And again, the lack of any assessment of whether the objectives could be achieved through existing means or less dense development, the lack of any attempt to project costs, population growth, or infrastructure impact and compare those to the anticipated benefits, and then to compare Options A and B against a no-action or less-action plan is so disheartening--it's like we're running blindfolded toward an oncoming freight train.

If we want intersection improvements, the County should pay for it upfront. We are opening Pandora's box if we want to give developers the right to build higher and denser buildings. There has been NO serious examination of the impact not the schools, only repeated promises that "we are coordinating with APS." APS has to beg and plead to get land and money from the County. Yet people are attracted to Arlington for the good schools. Our school system is at a breaking point already, bursting at the seams. There is precious little land available for new schools, and building on top of existing buildings is not an answer--again, there are psychological detriments to crowding that PLH has not even begun to consider, and they will probably hit our school-aged population hardest. This plan is going to turn Arlington into an upscale community with a substandard school system--it will attract upper middle class families who can afford to send their children to private school. That is so far from the community most people moved here to enjoy.

The green spaces shown on these maps are aspirational. There is no guarantee. Moreover, PLH hasn't provided us ANY type of cost-benefit analysis to show why we are better off giving developers massive new rights, and bearing the unquantified but no doubt high costs down the road, versus having the County pay for some of what we want up front. Either way, we're going to pay more taxes. But if the County takes on some of this work, the tax increase will be transparent--we know what we're paying for and how much. If we allow developers to have their way, we will be asking for an unquantified negative impact for years to come, which undoubtedly will lead to higher taxes to pay for the impacts on schools and infrastructure. No developer is going to undertake a project that doesn't reap a good profit. The natural consequence of that is that the new housing that replaces existing housing will be much more expensive than what we have now, only we'll have a lot more of it. It will not be affordable.

This is way too much height and density for this block. What ever happened to the idea of tapering from the 2016 charette? This block is the last block before a section of SFH right on Lee Highway that is not marked for any upcoming. This block should be less dense and feature lower building heights than areas closer to Lee and Harrison.

We have quite a lot of existing affordable MFH on both sides of Lee Highway in Area 2, much of it on the south side between Illinois and Kensington. If this is upzoned for denser development, there is no way a developer will offer this many affordable units. We will be gentrified and homogenized, and our local businesses will no longer be able to afford this location. We really do not need any coffee roasteries here.

This block of N. 25th St. is currently a "front porch community where block parties happen." In fact, my neighbors and I coined this phrase. However, even Scenario A would destroy that reality for us because it would double, triple, or quadruple the number of cars on our street by allowing multifamily housing in place of existing SFH on a very small block. 4-5 stories of mixed use right on Lee Highway would not be overly disruptive but raising the height and allowing more than one or two families on any single lot right on N. 25th St. would materially change the character of this street for the worse, replacing green lawns and gardens and trees with more impervious surfaces and high end housing. No one on this block is going to live car-free. It is a great block to love on, so close to Lee Highway, parks, etc. But it's great because it's a quiet block right next to many amenities.

Judging by the relatively low number of comments here (positive or negative), there hasn't been a great enough push to get residents this information, particularly in the communities within a few blocks of the corridor. I learned about it from our civic association's Facebook page, but you would think the county would employ other means to reach its residents directly. Some of the people most affected by these proposals (seniors, lower-income families) aren't on social media 24/7 and might not even have internet. Others are too busy to keep up. Has there been a mailing, flyers, or other traditional means of reaching people directly?

There was a comment on the presentation along the lines of "while there are no plans to extend Emerson street, there are ways to make it more walkable," which kind of sounded like a potential footpath to connect the various pieces of Emerson? If that's being considered, there's one half-block of gap on unused county property, but the other gaps are on privately owned residential property, and the idea of constructing a footpath on these properties and increasing foot traffic between private properties (or on an easement) would be a huge concern.

Many of these small businesses are well-patronized because they have convenient parking out front, and you don't have to park in a garage to get to them. Preston's is a great example. We understand the county is trying to encourage a car-free diet, but there are times when you need to pick up a 35-pound bag of dog food or take your elderly mother to get a flu shot. If aging in place is as important as the county suggests, convenient parking can't disappear!

I've been an Arlington homeowner for more than 20 years, and we've lived in the Yorktown neighborhood since 2006. One of the greatest strengths of Arlington is the tight-knit communities -- built around kids, dog walkers, block parties, small businesses -- and it's why so many of us are willing to pay a premium to live here. Both scenarios presented would devastate some of our thriving, walkable neighborhoods -- ironically, in the same of walkability. We support revitalizing the Lee Highway corridor -- after all, we're the community that has supported it for decades, and more improvements can be made for the good of all. But both Scenario A and Scenario B don't consider what's already here (with the exception of a couple of county-owned properties), and after talking with many neighbors, I know we're not the only ones who feel these options have been dropped on us, totally out of left field. Particularly for those of us who live within a couple of blocks of Lee Highway, these changes would indeed destroy well-established residential communities, force out more of our renters, and continue to erode the tree canopy under the guise of being forward-thinking, equitable, and green. New street trees, stormwater detention ponds, and "Main Street" storefronts can't ever replace what will be razed. We support a different approach, one that enlists the owners of the major commercial properties (as others have suggested) to consider improvements, and is sensitive to the current small businesses, ensuring that they have input into the plan as well as an affordable place to continue doing business. They, after all, are part of the draw to live here, and they are part of the community. None of this will require the recommended "upzoning" that would upend our residential neighborhoods. None of it would require knocking down existing homes. The county says it won't use eminent domain, but we've seen how this can work, once one or two houses are sold to developers -- domino effect. If you put developers in the driver's seat, it's not a "market-based" solution, it's guaranteeing they will build the largest, cheapest, greatest ROI they can. We already are seeing this in the infill homes they're building -- 4000 sq ft on 6000-ft lots -- while renters get forced out and would-be homeowners get forced out of every bidding war. The developers are not truly invested in our communities. We, the taxpayers, are. Please continue to engage us (you need to do a better job of this) so the *best* solutions for all (not just the most lucrative solutions for developers) can be found.