The Planning Commission has one goal: to judge whether new developments and plans for Alexandria will be beneficial to the city in the long run. As the Planning Commission gets ready for a busy fall session, the group met on Aug. 18 at the AlexRenew facility to review that mission, from reexamining the basics of that role to diving into details like the accessibility of open spaces.
According to Karl Moritz, director of Planning and Zoning, the Planning Commission looks to have a busier than usual schedule for the fall as the commission tackles a variety of small area plans and addresses some of the larger questions about development requirements in Alexandria.
As the Planning Commission prepares for the fall, the group faced fundamental questions of how to operate and what their priorities as a commission should be. For some, that meant a slight change in direction: steering into controversy rather than deliberately avoiding it.
“We have to make good plans for the city,” said Nathan Macek. “That doesn’t always mean the least contentious plans. We need to be the ones who stand out and say ‘this is what’s best for the city’, not ‘this is what’s least controversial.’”
Macek pointed to the waterfront plan approved in 2012 as an example of a good plan for the city that had been hampered by bowing to public criticism.
“We tried to appease the dissent and we ended up with a watered down plan,” said Macek. “I regret that.”
This drew agreement from other members of the Planning Commission.
“Some citizens were concerned about what’s good for their neighborhood and not what’s good for the city as a whole,” said Planning Commission member Mary Lyman.
As the Planning Commission moves into their fall docket, staff member Nathan Imm said the Planning Commission is going to have to address questions and concerns about the open space policy in Alexandria. Currently, Imm said the tendency is to have private ownership of open spaces provided through development with a public easement, but the city has to face problems with inaccessibility to these spaces by members of the public.
The alternative is open space funded through development that publically owned by the city. However, Planning Commission Member Mindy Lyle pointed out how this ideal situation can end up horribly for local residents. Lyle said, where she lives, there is a large park that is completely unusable because the city only mows the property twice a year. Not only is it an eyesore, but these kinds of overgrown parks can house dangerous animals. Lyle says neighbors have encountered snakes and even coyotes in the brush of what Macek called the Wilds of the West End. Before any public space becomes owned by the city, Lyle said the Planning Commission needs to ensure that there is a feasible maintenance plan put forward by the city that can be followed through on for years.
Dirk Geratz, a planner for the city’s Development Division, also said there are issues where the open space requirements do not work for the type of site being constructed. Geratz noted that similar issues come up for developer contributions to the affordable housing fund when locating affordable housing at the development site is not feasible, but that no such mechanism currently exist for open space requirements.
City staff outlined other policy review discussions coming up in the fall, like the setback requirements for front porches for residents and attempts to make short term uses for retail space, like Halloween stores, easier to process.
One of the unanimous agreements was for the Planning Commission to push for more face-to-face meetings with the City Council. Members of the commission said a joint work session with council would help the commission understand the council’s goals for the city and get on the same page in terms of what they are looking for in new developments.
The first Planning Commission meeting of the fall will be on Sept. 5 in the Oswald Durant Memorial Center at 1605 Cameron St.