Falls Church - Say no to Sunrise signs?

[Anonymous]

I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

[Anonymous]

The proposal is for a 2 story building at 35-40' high with a walkout level on one side which brings that side's height to around 50-55'. The height of a new single family house with the roof is about 35' and often the height in the rear is 50'. So this proposal is in line with the height of single family houses. I'm not sure where people are getting information that the building is proposed at 6 stories.

[Anonymous]

You'll be happy to move in there when it's time and you don't want to be moved further away from your own neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

It's the wrong place for yet another AL facility in that area, but it appears Sunrise's lobbyists have found this site. Most neighbors are opposed.

[Anonymous]

Consider how many people this would help in an aging community. I'd much rather have this addition to our neighborhood than all the "McMansions" that
are popping up everywhere and changing the friendly atmosphere that we once enjoyed. Creating more traffic is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn't old people be moving to areas that are walkable or in florida?

[Anonymous]

Sunrise asked to postpone the hearing on its application for a zoning exemption until the fall. Apparently, they knew they would lose if it came up for a vote any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't old people be moving to areas that are walkable or in florida?

Florida's overrated. My 67-year-old friend does nothing but complain about all the tourists and vacationers ruining her senior lifestyle. She says they have no respect for the vacation rentals (which happen to surround her own luxury condo), they constantly pollute the environment (because they're on vacation), and they're loud - especially the families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drove by there this evening and there are now giant pro-Sunrise signs, but only on the parcel that the Korean church wants to sell to Sunrise. The surrounding neighborhoods are full of signs against rezoning the R-3 parcel to allow Sunrise to built a nursing home there.

If the county gives Sunrise a zoning exemption, I expect to see all the county Democrats lose their seats in the next election. This is an area that regularly gives the Democrats a majority in McLean/Falls Church, and if they see Foust et al giving breaks to developers against their wishes, they'll just vote Republican next time. At least that way they'll get lower taxes.

Doubtful. Why would someone vote for or not for a person for one relatively minor rezoning vote? That does not seem sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

Actually, there are not plenty of facilities and the ones that exist are basically full. The largest one, Vinson Hall, has restricted enrollment. I am kind of curious as to why the neighborhood in uproar about this site did nothing to prevent the expansion of Vinson Hall, which was much larger and impacts traffic to a greater extent since all of those new units are for independent living (Eg people who still drive).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

Actually, there are not plenty of facilities and the ones that exist are basically full. The largest one, Vinson Hall, has restricted enrollment. I am kind of curious as to why the neighborhood in uproar about this site did nothing to prevent the expansion of Vinson Hall, which was much larger and impacts traffic to a greater extent since all of those new units are for independent living (Eg people who still drive).

The fact that you think residents should have objected to one facility that generates traffic doesn't mean they should roll over for another one that would add even more traffic.

As others have pointed out, this area is already saturated with assisted living homes. If there's a need for more, let them build it in Great Falls or Vienna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

Actually, there are not plenty of facilities and the ones that exist are basically full. The largest one, Vinson Hall, has restricted enrollment. I am kind of curious as to why the neighborhood in uproar about this site did nothing to prevent the expansion of Vinson Hall, which was much larger and impacts traffic to a greater extent since all of those new units are for independent living (Eg people who still drive).

The fact that you think residents should have objected to one facility that generates traffic doesn't mean they should roll over for another one that would add even more traffic.

As others have pointed out, this area is already saturated with assisted living homes. If there's a need for more, let them build it in Great Falls or Vienna.

It will not add any noticeable traffic. The study that has been cited as indicating an uptick in traffic clearly shows that the total incremental traffic would be almost unnoticeable against the existing volume. Something like one extra car every ten minutes. People using the traffic argument make themselves look stupid and invalidate the rest of their argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say a definite "YES". It's a much needed project. Others have not caused a traffic problem. Also, it would be a significant improvement from the way the property has looked for a long time.

.



Aren't there plenty of these facilities in the area? Why is it needed?

Actually, there are not plenty of facilities and the ones that exist are basically full. The largest one, Vinson Hall, has restricted enrollment. I am kind of curious as to why the neighborhood in uproar about this site did nothing to prevent the expansion of Vinson Hall, which was much larger and impacts traffic to a greater extent since all of those new units are for independent living (Eg people who still drive).

The fact that you think residents should have objected to one facility that generates traffic doesn't mean they should roll over for another one that would add even more traffic.

As others have pointed out, this area is already saturated with assisted living homes. If there's a need for more, let them build it in Great Falls or Vienna.

It will not add any noticeable traffic. The study that has been cited as indicating an uptick in traffic clearly shows that the total incremental traffic would be almost unnoticeable against the existing volume. Something like one extra car every ten minutes. People using the traffic argument make themselves look stupid and invalidate the rest of their argument.

Incremental traffic is incremental traffic, and MOST local residents don't want this facility in their neighborhood. I'm sorry if your lobbying for Sunrise isn't getting you what you want, but this facility will not be built there. Sunrise has already requested a postponement of consideration of its request for an exemption, and at some point it will pull the plug. As it is, Sunrise is just throwing good money after bad by continuing to pay lawyers and lobbyists to press a losing case.