Summary of Responses to Questionnaire

Document Sample
Summary of Responses to Questionnaire Powered By Docstoc
					East Falls Church Land Use and Transportation Study
Area Walking Tour
Saturday, November 3, 2007

Summary of Responses to Questionnaire
Question: What do you like about the area?

   •   I like the commitment to keep the single-family residential neighborhood intact.
       There is no contemplation of putting in blocks of “transitioning” townhouses or
       other low-rise multi-family housing as a buffer between the single family area and
       either the commercial or the station area as we say in Ballston.

   •   I like the commitment too of the neighbors (according to the survey) to entertain
       more dense uses at the station area and other areas already commercial.

   •   I also like the history of the area and really see a challenge in essentially “putting
       back” the small commercial center that I-66 destroyed. (It’s amazing to me that
       the planners at the time didn’t try to put it back.) The story of the East Falls
       Church community reminds me of the splitting of historic neighborhoods found in
       big cities when the new express highways were put in – as in New York and
       Chicago. Here it happened on a smaller scale, but happened nonetheless. It has
       given an opportunity to plan a station that is a transition from the truly suburban
       stations to the more urban stations of the Rosslyn/Ballston corridor.

   •   Residential, tree-lined streets, sidewalks, parks, bike path. Proximity to Westover
       and Williamsburg shopping. Near to metro train, buses, I-66, (but access
       hazardous and environment harsh, unpleasant to walk and ozone/particulate/noise
       pollution is increasingly toxic).

   •   I like the fact that the area has a Metrorail station and has decent bus service. I
       think the three main reasons that people choose to move to this area are good
       schools, good government, and being within walking distance to Metrorail. I
       think the bike trail is an asset that should not be forgotten. Two other attributes of
       the area that should be preserved are the parks (e.g., Tuckahoe Park, Benjamin
       Banneker Park, Madison Manor Park) and the Four Mile Run, which does not
       always seem to be celebrated by its surrounding land uses.

   •   Sense of community among the Gresham Place townhouses and in Falls Church
       City.

   •   Proximity to I-66 and Metro, resulting in easy access to D.C., Tysons Corner,
       Reston and Dulles.

   •   Easy access to Isaac Crossman Park and trail.
   •   Availability of Four Mile Run and W&OD trails (I commend Arlington on the
       maintenance of the trails and the run itself.)

   •   Supreme: Access to W&OD Trail, Primary: Access to METRO and I-66,
       Secondary: Potential to become vibrant place with convenient services.

   •   The public transportation of metro and buses and the trails. It’s easy to use. I like
       the mix of residential with some retail, but its not totally efficient.

   •   Location: proximity to 66 and 495 and metro providing easy access to DC and
       surrounding suburbs. Some great neighborhoods with a strong sense of
       community.

   •   The area is very well served by all modes of transportation, and appears to be a
       very walkable community, although there are many conflicts between pedestrians
       and vehicles. The area would be enhanced by additional retail/commercial land
       uses, but appears to be a very popular place to live (as indicated by the housing
       prices).


Summary: In general the positive elements noted for the study area include the proximity
to multiple modes of transportation and transit, access to I-66, proximity to various
recreational amenities such as Four Mile Run, the W&OD trail, and the influx of some
commercial into the area. Keeping single-family neighborhoods intact and maintaining
the history of those neighborhoods was noted character element.
Question: What is your vision for the area 10 to 20 years from now?

   •   I would like to see a commercial area in a sort of T shape from the Station up to
       the gas station on the corner and then extend over the bridge and into Falls
       Church – and up to the Verizon building in the other direction. It should have a
       mix of neighborhood-serving retail, some destination restaurants/retail, residential
       (including some affordable housing) and office (so that there’s a mix of use on the
       Metro). It should also have more user-friendly – pedestrian and bike – access to
       the Metro station. I would see it as adding to the market for which the contiguous
       portion of Falls Church is aiming – smaller office to accommodate those who
       don’t need the space/price offered in the R/B Corridor and want the amenities of
       retail, restaurants, and nearby residential.

   •   Preservation of residential character, small retail centers, side-walks and parks.
       Integration of residential character between both sides of metro in Arlington/EFC.
       Protection by better zoning laws from the likes of Verizon, Exxon, and other light
       industrial businesses. Improvement and extension to bike-path along I-66
       including north side. Let’s recreate a vibrant village in this neighborhood.

   •   I would like to see more mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development (retail,
       office, and residential), of moderate density, around the Metrorail station. I would
       like to see improvements to the walking and biking infrastructure. I would like to
       see a civic space that would be recognized as a focal point of the community,
       preferably surrounded by mixed-use development that would keep the area lively
       and animated. About a mile north of the station, on Sycamore Street, there is a
       node of retail activity (CVS, 7-11, dry cleaners, barber shop, sandwich shop), but
       the properties are constructed to favor automobile access, not pedestrian access,
       with surface parking lots in front of the stores and restaurant. I would like to see a
       deck put over I-66, so that the two sides of the community could be re-connected.
       I would like to see some moderate and low income housing added to the area, too,
       and done in such a manner that it is mixed in with, and indistinguishable from,
       any market-rate, or upscale housing.

   •   Regarding any new buildings that get built, I would like to see high-quality
       materials used, so that building/structures do not look shabby ten years later – this
       is a problem with a lot of new buildings that get built. Also, I would like to see
       high quality design that is human-scaled, irrespective of whether the style is
       modern, traditional, or a mix of the two. I favor use of form-based code, because
       people can get a good idea of the proposed massing of buildings (unlike with
       FARs, which don’t give you a good idea of building/street envelopes).

   •   Proximity to I-66 and Metro will result in steady development of mixed-use
       projects. I doubt that demand will be sufficient to result in the development of all
       of the sites identified in the study’s area.

   •   Exiting METRO onto a generous pedestrian space(s)
   •   Complimentary mix of land uses (particularly METRO use balanced between
       residents and employees)

   •   An iconic “Western Portal” into Arlington County on Lee Highway (perhaps an
       appropriately sized and landscaped traffic circle)

   •   Safe and inviting pedestrian oriented retail streets

   •   Access to I-66 before entering EFC

   •   High-capacity regional trail connecting W&OD and Four Mile Run Trails
       bypassing the core of EFC

   •   A restored and natural Four Mile Run “greenway”

   •   Major traffic calmed streets slowing and/or diverting thru traffic

   •   High density development serving residents

   •   High density development tapering to and preserving single family residences.

   •   First, I want to see the mature trees remaining and the young new trees grown into
       mature trees. Mature trees can provide 60 to 70 times more pollution reduction
       than newly planted trees so it would be a huge mistake to remove them during any
       renovation and plant young saplings. We’d lose too much. Planting young trees
       will provide future benefits, while preserving mature trees provides benefits now.
        I’m thrilled to know the street area by EconoLodge will be turned into green
       open space with more trees in the area.

   •   A place with greater opportunities for living without a car: better mass transit and
       more local commercial, cultural and business activities within walking distance,
       and safer environments for pedestrians.


Summary: People’s vision seems to suggest the future of the area as being more mixed-
use with an increase in commercial development and higher density residential
development centered at the Metro station, coupled with strategic focus on improving
pedestrian accommodation. This includes better pedestrian connectivity to Metro as well
as enhanced pedestrian/biking infrastructure complete with wide sidewalks, street trees,
additional trail connections, and appropriately-scaled development buildings that front
streets. The need for a central civic space also was mentioned. More ambitious plans
envision a park extending across a section of I-66.
Question: What land use and transportation improvements do you want to make to
the area?

Transportation
   • The main improvement that I would like to see is to separate the pedestrian
      movements around the station from the vehicle movements. As the station was
      built on top of I-66, this is a challenging task, especially since the I-66 access
      points are so well utilized. I would also like to see the parking opportunities at
      the Metro station retained, as there is a severe shortage of spaces in this corridor
      and we cannot afford to lose any of them.

   •   I would like to see more coherent and/or better pedestrian connection from the
       Metro Station up to the area around the Westlee. I’ve been commuting to the
       Task Force meetings via Metro – and have tried a couple of walking routes and
       have found I only feel “safe” on the one that’s longest – up 19th Street. We
       learned Saturday that residents of the area use the street closer to the Bike Path –
       and maybe that’s because they are more comfortable with the area. To someone
       like me, though, this locals’ route is daunting. I want folks to be able to access
       what I hope will be vibrant retail and office better from the Metro – they won’t be
       residents either and so need a clearer, more coherent route to what will we hope
       be the center of the area. (I realize there could be connections up Washington
       Boulevard when the station area is redeveloped and/or more pedestrian-friendly
       access is made on that side. (Also – like lots of station areas, EFC suffers from
       lack of large area maps up in the parking area so folks can orient themselves
       outside the station. Bus maps – WMATA and local – would also be great outside
       – and on both sides of the station. This issue has been raised by the Riders’
       Advisory Committee of WMATA – that all stations need more maps outside. But
       perhaps it could become part of our plan as well.)

   •   I agree with either moving the station entrance to the west of the station or
       remodeling the station to have an entrance there. A question would be what
       changes – if any – WMATA might need operationally at the station given the
       advent of the Silver Line. There may need to be more bus bays, etc. They may
       also need some of the unused interior station space maybe for offices for
       personnel or some other use. We should consult with them on what might be
       needed operationally there for the Silver Line addition. But it is clear the station
       as it is now is unwelcoming and has lots of wasted space – and we shouldn’t be
       deterred in asking for changes as I truly do see it as remodeling and not a whole
       new tunnel entrance.

   •   I believe we should expand and make more coherent and accessible the kiss and
       ride. I believe WMATA’s parking stats will show a goodly number of Folks Park
       in the long-term parking at the station but come from 22205 and 22207 zip codes.
       If we recommend to diminution of long-term parking in a re-do of the station
       area, we should provide some alternatives to those who park there now and kiss
       and ride might be part, and the implementation of additional ART bus lines could
    also result. There’s no provision for good, accessible kiss and ride at any of the
    R/B stations, and this would be a great opportunity here.

•   I would also say we need to make sure there’s a goodly amount of space and
    covered waiting area for privately-operated shuttle buses. With the Silver Line
    we might see more shuttles from hotels. Plus – if we do invigorate mixed use --
    some offices nearby might want to use a shuttle for the station. The shuttle
    situation at Ballston vergers on disastrous during rush hours since the shuttles
    aren’t allowed on station land…so they stop at corners such as Fairfax and Stuart
    – both north and south intersections and so block travel lanes and pedestrians.
    Shuttles need to be accommodated on the station’s land and not on the public
    streets. A non-conflicting taxi stand also needs to be created. Moving them from
    their current location would help.

•   There are a several areas identified in previous studies for sidewalk improvement,
    etc. and they should be pursued.

•   It was obvious from today that street geometry needs to be re-thought in some
    areas.

•   I did like the idea of a sort of “fly over” to connect the station better for
    pedestrians, but I also know that it would be wildly expensive. I don’t think it’s
    an expense that will rise to the top of projects by NVTC, or WMATA or
    Arlington funding. I also don’t think we’ll be offering the FAR on sites that
    would mean we could get developers to pay for it. I would like to see other
    alternatives that could get us “close” to such a good connection, but cost less and
    so could actually be built. I would say we shouldn’t plan/suggest any land use or
    improvement that would make such a great connection infeasible in the future
    should a miracle occur. But we need to be realistic about funding for all public
    realm improvements.
•   On the transportation side, I would like to see improvements to the pedestrian and
    biking experience, e.g.,

•   Sidewalk bulbs to reduce the distance crossed by pedestrians (especially on
    Washington Boulevard and Lee Highway).

•   Cameras to discourage cars from running red lights, particularly on Lee Highway
    (at Sycamore St.) and Washington Boulevard (at Sycamore St.), though the
    problem is not as bad on Washington Boulevard.

•   A better way to bike on Sycamore St., particularly north of Lee Highway, where
    the sidewalks are too narrow for biking and bikers using the road have fast
    moving cars/trucks on their left side and parked cars (with the potential of car
    doors opening up) on their right side. This area is outside of the delineated study
    area, but I think it is close enough that it should be part of the study area.
   •   A better way for pedestrians to way to cross Sycamore St. at Little Falls and 28th
       St. This is, once again, outside of the official study area, but near the retail node
       of activity mentioned above.

   •   It would also be nice to have more protection against rain and the elements when
       waiting for a bus at the Metro station or using the kiss-and-ride lot. A second
       station entrance would be nice, particularly one that is not hidden under a
       freeway. It would be nice to have more frequent bus service, but this is unlikely
       to be sustainable, unless the area adds some density to support more bus service.

   •   The crucial need is a master plan for the North Washington Street corridor. It
       should result in fluid traffic on Washington Street itself, intersections with
       crossing streets, which are safe for both cars and pedestrians, and minimum
       disruption to the neighborhood streets.

   •   Greatly increased pedestrian and bicycle walks and paths

   •   Major METRO access added to northwest and Lee Highway, minor to NE
       redeveloped METRO parking lot; close SE entrance to Sycamore Street

   •   Free ($1) shuttle bus service from METRO west along Lee Highway (and perhaps
       north on Broad Street to METRO West Falls Church Station).

   •   Maintaining through traffic opportunities as well as access to/and from I-66, while
       improving the pedestrian situation.

   •   Generous pedestrian space share with kiss-and-ride and bus loading

   •   Better mass transit going more places more often for less money. More
       neighborhood supportive commerce within walking distance of the
       neighborhood.

   •   Transportation plan should integrate consideration of traffic on I-66/local main
       roads/side road cut-thru/pollution/public transportation. Much better protection
       for residents from I-66 noise and pollution with walls and trees. Transportation to
       weigh heavily in favor or public transportation including consideration of an off-
       metro-site park-and-ride-the-bus system for access to the station. Public transport
       ACCESS should be friendly to LOCAL residents. Easy flow to avoid back-up of
       traffic onto I-66 should be a priority to ease congestion/pollution on Wash Blvd,
       Lee highway, Sycamore, Westmoreland.


Summary: In terms of transportation improvements, the general consensus is that East
Falls Church needs more frequent bus service, better connectivity to the Metro station,
and better pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. In addition, various comments focused
on improvements to the metro station itself. These include separating pedestrian
movements from vehicle movements to enhance pedestrian safety, retaining the auto
parking, adding a western entrance to the station, providing better wayfinding,
enhancing the kiss and ride facilities, providing covered pull off spaces for private shuttle
buses, and providing better protection from the elements for people waiting for buses.


Land Use
   • Core of denser land use focuses on mini-corridor from Sycamore Street to Lee
      Highway (not loaded on top of METRO station)

   •   Increased overall residential density based on a mix of densities and types of
       housing. Increasing the availability of affordable housing near Metro. This can
       include the construction of affordable apartment units as well as zoning changes
       to allow "granny flats" and other residential opportunities that promote
       social diversity within Arlington neighborhoods (and help absorb the shock of
       rising property taxes).

   •   It would be nice to remove the parking lot for the Kiss and Ride and put in
       commercial use there – with the goal of saving the mature trees that ring that area
       of course. I also think the neighborhoods should be encouraged to remain green
       with the canopy they have.

   •   I was glad to hear that Verizon was thinking of changing their operations in such
       a way that their building/land on Lee Highway/Washington Boulevard could
       become available for redevelopment (or an addition). I do like the stone building
       that’s there – and I believe its height is in keeping with what the residential
       neighbors would prefer. However, a much larger footprint with underground
       parking could be accommodated on the site.

   •   During the walk Suzanne and I noted that adding the small apartment building
       behind the bank building at the corner to the bank site, a better parcel of land
       would be created for redevelopment. I do not generally support the destruction of
       any residential use – however, I believe the units could be replaced on site – and,
       depending upon current rents in that building – be deemed affordable in a site
       plan. The vision for the block could make clear that residential should be part of
       the mix if the two buildings’ lots were combined.

   •   As I recall, there have been long-standing issues between the townhouses and the
       car wash use at the Exxon site. I believe the car wash is there via use permit, and
       not as a matter of right. I’m sure the gas station is quite a moneymaker – but it
       would be good to try and encourage some redevelopment of the site – even if it’s
       just a portion of the site.

   •   I would say when developing the height/density land use overlay we consider
       what community benefits we want in the area (will some sidewalk
       improvements/streetscape wait for redevelopment? Undergrounding of utilities?
    Inclusion of affordable units? I would say some historic preservation, but I don’t
    think there’s anything left…) and then, with the current zoning in mind, make
    clear in the plan that we want greater height/density but that one has to “buy”
    one’s way up to that by providing the clearly-defined community benefits. This
    one would hope, discourage someone from coming in and saying “Yup, I want to
    build at that site that’s C-2, and could now go to 6 stories…but then I’ll need two
    more floors in order to provide the affordable housing you envision” or some
    such.

•   Are there any sites we’d like to see stay the same, like maybe the Coq d’or
    buildings? And could we then factor in some transfer of density within the area to
    keep that lower but have the density to add say, to the Exxon site? Or the bank
    site? Or perhaps the Exxon site would be a donor site? Of course, that always
    begs the questions – what are the donee sites?!

•   Also – what do we want to do, if anything, about sites newly redeveloped – such
    as the animal hospital? It’s a good example of something different…but it
    doesn’t seem they used all the FAR available on the site. Do we offer them
    transfer of density? Or do we just say, nice job, thanks for investing in the area?
    I don’t know.

•   And do we want to try and do something about the front part of the firehouse? Is
    there a way to join it more to the street? But – the firehouse process was recent
    and I suspect since the design battle has so recently been fought on this site, we
    could recommend some changes, but implementation would take a while?

•   I’d like to explore more the idea of making the area very bicycle-friendly – and a
    sort of destination for cyclists. After the walk, I stopped at the newly-opened hair
    salon and had my nails done – and so sat for 45 min looking out at lee highway
    where the bike trail intersects it. I watched cyclists go by…and a couple then stop
    and bring their bikes up to the side door of coq d’or…but soon leave. I thought
    about an area I’d been in quite a while ago – I think in maybe historic Vienna(?)
    where the bike trail runs…and where I remember an informal restaurant and/or
    café or two right at the trail that served as a place for cyclists to stop and refresh.
    Maybe this could become a facet of the redevelopment direction in EFC. I’m
    thinking at least we’d really need to be cognizant of getting bike racks at all new
    first floor retail areas!

•   Affordable housing included in any new construction of higher density
    construction. Zoning to remain mainly residential and density increased only if
    consistent with major improvement to transportation system. Any retail on metro
    site should favor small businesses and not harm current local shopping centers.

•   Some retail shops, including restaurants and a grocery store, around the Metro
    station. Imagine if every household in the EFC area (or Arlington) were within
       walking distance of a grocery store, so that one could walk to get a quart of milk,
       instead of having to get in a car.

   •   Some offices around the Metrorail station. Metrorail traffic at EFC is
       predominantly oriented toward DC in the morning and out of DC in the
       afternoons. More mixed-use development around the EFC station could help
       even out the passenger flows. This would also help increase the number of people
       using the EFC station, while taking advantage of unused Orange Line capacity
       traveling in the counter-flow direction.

   •   Some moderate-density (4-7 story) housing, with both market-rate and subsidized
       (low- to moderate-income) units.

   •   A civic space that could serve as a meeting place for the neighborhood. It would
       be great to have a library, or community center as part of the civic area.


Summary: The general consensus for land use in the study area revolves around
increasing the density and mixture of use around the metro station while protecting
existing neighborhoods. While density is desirable, development should be of appropriate
scale, type, and location. This includes the consideration of different housing types
(market rate and affordable), commercial and office uses, and civic/public uses. Land use
comments are consistent with transportation comments as people understand the
interrelationship between land use and transportation.
Question: What concerns do you have about the area?
  • The main one is traffic. Development will continue, resulting in a steady increase
      in traffic.

   •   That automobile will continue to travel “through” EFC to access I-66 rather than
       “to” EFC to work and play.

   •   That overweight of single family residential values will inhibit healthy and
       compatible denser multi-unit and multi-level residential and mixed-use
       development.

   •   That VDOT will resist any alterations in I-66 on/off ramp configuration.

   •   That VDOT will resist relocation of inappropriately located road maintenance
       facility.

   •   The residents will loose their commitment to change.

   •   That landowners will want a value for their land that will be very high (well,
       okay, maybe not in this market) and there will be pressure from developers to get
       more height/density than what we may envision in the plan because of the cost of
       the land (or so they will say).

   •   Parking -- I think we’ll need to be sensitive to parking concerns – residential and
       commercial. There is already, it seems, a conflict occurring at the Westlee –
       metered street spaces were put in, but residents of the Westlee are using them in
       the evenings and weekends and they need to support the retail (restaurant) that’s
       already there. While I would support taking some long-term commuter parking
       from the station area – I want to make sure that the office and retail we put in is
       attractive to the needs of small business. I hear over and over from friends who
       are in the small restaurant business that some surface parking is critical – whether
       available on the street or in an easily accessible lot behind the building. I really
       want to hear from office/retail experts to find out what they really need to make
       space viable. I know Arlington is very, very wedded to reducing marking in areas
       served by Metro – but I’m not sure that policy in the absolute will be best to
       encourage redevelopment in this area. Also, with the commitment to keeping
       single family – there needs to be a commitment to keep street spaces open for
       them. I didn’t notice a lot of driveways and/or garages at the houses. I didn’t put
       this comment under transportation as I do believe parking is not just a
       transportation issue – it has implications for land use and successful retail/office
       as well.

   •   It will become a mess, noisy, dirty, overcrowded, characterless transition zone
       between the urban villages further in and the leafy suburbs further out, with none
       of the advantages.
   •   I think much of the existing land use around the station is not consistent with what
       would be ideal to support and complement a heavy-rail station in a
       suburban/urban county that is becoming more urban (especially given the fact that
       Arlington is known for its “smart growth” efforts in the Rosslyn-Ballston
       corridor). As John Wilson stated on November 3, we should try to restore to the
       area some of the retail core/community that existed some forty or fifty years ago,
       but was destroyed when I-66 was built. As stated before, I think the area lacks a
       civic space where people can gather and meet. Also, much of the area lacks a
       sense of place and/or a connection to the area’s past.

   •   I am conflicted over the Smart Growth for the area around the metro. I recognize
       more density should be put in around public transportation, yet the area is
       primarily single family homes and those yards do provide the green space we
       need. Creating more density needs to happen in a way that preserves and increases
       open space. I also know how disturbing it is to long time residents who think of
       themselves as suburban to accept the changes of becoming more urban.

   •   Traffic: how to move it through the area and maintain the convenient access we
       enjoy without giving up too much safety and environmental quality (noise and
       pollution)? Density: how much is appropriate for a metro station area and how to
       achieve it while maintaining quality of life? Commercial development: Many
       kinds of services and retail would be useful and reduce locally generated traffic.
       How do we plan for it and ensure its success? Affordability: Rapidly rising
       land values are driving up home values (and the tax burden) making homes
       (detached, townhome, and condominium) increasingly "exclusive". Preserving
       Arlington's single family home neighborhoods may be desirable, but planners
       must take into account that it benefits only the wealthiest of Arlingtonians; we are
       no longer preserving what used to be Arlington's stock of affordable middle-class
       housing. Zoning and GLUP designations that preserve our existing
       neighborhoods should be carefully balanced by other policies and actions that
       promote the availability of housing options accessible to a broader population.

Summary: The increase in traffic related to additional development and the future
provision of parking was a primary concern of responders. The increase in traffic
contributes to other concerns such as safety and quality of life (noise/air pollution,
property values, etc.). There is an apparent conflict between the desire to preserve the
single family home character of the area while encouraging an increase in density along
some of the streets and at the Metro station. The limitations imposed by the I-66 corridor
right-of-way also were of concern.
Other: Ideas, thoughts, observations and comments!
   • I’m not really one for form-based code type design, e.g. so many windows on a
      floor, etc. But I do think we should be clear in the plan that quality materials (no
      EIFS at ground level, etc.) and materials that work with what is preserved in the
      area – natural stone, etc. We could also, in order to encourage more interesting
      architecture than we have much of the rest of Arlington’s metro corridor, consider
      unique building form/materials as a community benefit that could accrue to
      getting the new height/density.

   •   I’d also like to talk more about Four Mile Run and how the riparian area there
       could be improved/ restored. Some work was done when the Fire Station was
       built, but was harmed by last year’s heavy rains. The area along the Westlee
       seems undone and confused right now with that weird fire access lane that one
       hopes is not quite complete. There’s a lot of work being done on Four Mile Run
       in south Arlington and I’d like us to put as much attention on this part of Four
       Mile Run.

   •   I’d also suggest finding a different location – if it’s possible – for the public art
       that’s now by the Westlee. It’s not a bad piece – it’s just in the wrong place. To
       me it approaches what is known as “plop” art in the public art world.

   •   The traffic survey should be done on several weekdays since Thursday is nothing
       like the chaos of a Monday/Tuesday morning. The walking tour should also be
       done at rush hour on those busy days when the traffic on Washington blvd can
       extend back to Westover and from the intersection up Sycamore to 12 Rd.

   •   Ideally, I would like to see the study area expanded to include, as a minimum, the
       quarter-mile radius around the EFC Metrorail station. As a precedent, I believe
       that the Clarendon Sector Plan included all the land within a quarter-mile radius
       of the station (and then some beyond that). I can understand that there are
       political reasons for not expanding the study area into areas that have single-
       family, detached houses, but the existing study area already includes some areas
       with single-family attached and detached houses.

   •   Where do we want this new development to occur? Do we want development
       concentrated around existing heavy-rail stations and other transportation
       infrastructure or do we want it spread out in outlying areas far from existing
       transportation facilities (where every trip will need to be made by car)? Twenty
       or thirty years ago, the idea was that the EFC area would be a low-density,
       residential area. But I wonder whether that idea still makes sense now.

   •   The use of Metro should be maximized. The approach should include a
       combination of improved bus routes and frequencies during rush hours, bike
       access by feeder networks into the W&OD trail, and increased parking.
   •   The transportation study includes the Washington Street corridor from Broad
       Street to I-66. Thus, the developments, that are factored into the study, must
       include all future developments along Washington Street, and not just those
       northeast of Columbia Street. I recommend that the study map be modified to
       include these.

   •   Hope that Task Force (primarily Arlingtonians) will appreciate potential for
       advanced land uses on Lee Highway corridor across border into Falls Church to
       bring desirable facilities/services/institutions close and accessible to Arlington.

   •   Hope that Task Force can find consensus “model” for EFC in some area METRO
       development site (Tacoma Park, Cleveland Park, etc.)

   •   Observe that tour of other METRO station areas in region might alert Task Force
       to specific features applicable to EFC.

   •   Dream that Lee Highway between Sycamore and Broad Street could become
       “Elder Activity Corridor”.

   •   Dream that EFC might become home to a “Western Market” for farmers, small
       merchants, artists etc.

   •   I like the thoughtful way the planning is occurring. Not everyone will be pleased
       by the results but they will be heard.

   •   We have a great opportunity here to lay a foundation for future growth in and
       around EFC that is centered on the potential social and environmental benefits of
       mass transit. We probably should have been doing this 20 years ago ... but better
       late than never.

   •   The spot improvements that are currently under design for I-66 should be
       included or considered in this study.

Summary: Various comments related to the value that Metro provides to the
neighborhood and how this value may be translated into desirable development and
neighborhood character. The highest future densities should be located in the immediate
proximity of the station. Transitions between these densities and the existing
neighborhoods should be carefully considered to preserve the quality of the residential
neighborhoods. The possibility of comparing this area to other similar models in the
WMATA system was suggested. Several other items that were identified for study and
otherwise, included the establishment of design standards for future buildings in the area,
the enhancement of environmental and recreational amenities in the area to be more
inclusive of the surrounding neighborhoods, and the modification of the study area to
include key redevelopment areas along Washington Street and within a quarter mile of
the Metro Station.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:15
posted:6/7/2009
language:English
pages:14