Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I file this under "meh". I think the neighborhood is over reacting and I don't think Sunrise will appreciably contribute to the traffic. L'Ambiance added far more traffic than Sunrise will generate. Frankly, I am for some sort of affordable housing. This area needs it more than anything else and could sustain it well.

There is already affordable housing off Great Falls Street close to this intersection. This land is zoned R-3 and should remain so. If Foust wants to do a favor for his real estate buddies let him rezone part of 22102 or 22066.

I disagree that it should remain R-3. Fairfax is urbanizing and needs more condensed housing near bus lines and metro. This is a parcel that would be great for condos.

Anonymous wrote:I'd like it a lot more if they didn't make them look like a fake victorian house. They're so ugly.

But I agree that traffic problems are a non issue. We live near a Sunrise center and there's NO traffic. Maybe a few cars come to visit on weekends or holidays, but it's not normal. And the workers don't work normal 8-5 hours (they're more on shifts), so they aren't contributing to rush hour grid lock.

+1

I think the protesters don't have the full picture, yet want so badly to posture. They are going to get their wish when something worse than Sunrise goes in there.

I'd like it a lot more if they didn't make them look like a fake victorian house. They're so ugly.

But I agree that traffic problems are a non issue. We live near a Sunrise center and there's NO traffic. Maybe a few cars come to visit on weekends or holidays, but it's not normal. And the workers don't work normal 8-5 hours (they're more on shifts), so they aren't contributing to rush hour grid lock.

Anonymous wrote:I file this under "meh". I think the neighborhood is over reacting and I don't think Sunrise will appreciably contribute to the traffic. L'Ambiance added far more traffic than Sunrise will generate. Frankly, I am for some sort of affordable housing. This area needs it more than anything else and could sustain it well.

L'Ambiance, with its name and lack of land, is more an embarrassment than whatever goes in the church lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give that Falls Churh City council only cares about tax income and NOT schools or traffic, like every other project, this one will be approved.

This is McLean, you idiot.

Indeed. It's the same McLean Citizens Association that is blockading any renovation at FCC's K-1 school. They're going to get what they ask for when Mt Daniel is sold to condo developers and the Sunrise site turns into a self storage facility. Opposition to development at all costs is destined to fail. And when they eventually ostracize their crotchety NIMBY a$$es from all reasonable civic constituencies, they're going to end up with a lot worse outcomes than if they'd just be civil and pragmatic. But then they'll die and leave their suburban detritus to the quiet majority that just sat by and let them run roughshod.

Stop babbling. In a democracy, people get to explain why they don't want your kids or your nursing home business in their backyards. There are plenty of other, better uses for both parcels.

Like condos and crap commerce. Which you'll get. Fail to see how that's babbling, but then again, you're clearly not much for rational discourse.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I file this under "meh". I think the neighborhood is over reacting and I don't think Sunrise will appreciably contribute to the traffic. L'Ambiance added far more traffic than Sunrise will generate. Frankly, I am for some sort of affordable housing. This area needs it more than anything else and could sustain it well.

There is already affordable housing off Great Falls Street close to this intersection. This land is zoned R-3 and should remain so. If Foust wants to do a favor for his real estate buddies let him rezone part of 22102 or 22066.

Where? Anyhow, we need more.

Anonymous wrote:I file this under "meh". I think the neighborhood is over reacting and I don't think Sunrise will appreciably contribute to the traffic. L'Ambiance added far more traffic than Sunrise will generate. Frankly, I am for some sort of affordable housing. This area needs it more than anything else and could sustain it well.

There is already affordable housing off Great Falls Street close to this intersection. This land is zoned R-3 and should remain so. If Foust wants to do a favor for his real estate buddies let him rezone part of 22102 or 22066.

I file this under "meh". I think the neighborhood is over reacting and I don't think Sunrise will appreciably contribute to the traffic. L'Ambiance added far more traffic than Sunrise will generate. Frankly, I am for some sort of affordable housing. This area needs it more than anything else and could sustain it well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give that Falls Churh City council only cares about tax income and NOT schools or traffic, like every other project, this one will be approved.

This is McLean, you idiot.

Indeed. It's the same McLean Citizens Association that is blockading any renovation at FCC's K-1 school. They're going to get what they ask for when Mt Daniel is sold to condo developers and the Sunrise site turns into a self storage facility. Opposition to development at all costs is destined to fail. And when they eventually ostracize their crotchety NIMBY a$$es from all reasonable civic constituencies, they're going to end up with a lot worse outcomes than if they'd just be civil and pragmatic. But then they'll die and leave their suburban detritus to the quiet majority that just sat by and let them run roughshod.

Stop babbling. In a democracy, people get to explain why they don't want your kids or your nursing home business in their backyards. There are plenty of other, better uses for both parcels.

Like condos and crap commerce. Which you'll get. Fail to see how that's babbling, but then again, you're clearly not much for rational discourse.

Wrong. Which part of R-3 zoning don't you understand?

I believe the concern is the number of staff that will be coming and going, with more "ins and outs" than a typical single-family home would have. Employees typically leave during lunch to run errands, and this facility would be located in the middle of a residential area, with the commercial district more than a mile away. Observations at sunrise facilities in Arlington and Falls Church confirmed this. This is also the case at the facility on Great Falls Street. Traffic at the beginning and end of the day there is horrific. And note a primary issue with traffic is the number of left-hand turns, which backs up traffic. With the driveway across from the Ambiance development, the concern is that this will be a cluster *f*.

Anonymous wrote:Sunrise wants to build an assisted living facility on the land where the Surge church is located at Kirby and Westmoreland. Most of us in the vicinity are strongly opposed. The land is zoned for 3 residential homes per acre and this requires a special zoning exception. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many of my neighbors, the project is far too large for that 3.7 acre site and will exacerbate traffic issues at that intersection.

The facility at Great Falls street and Chain Bridge Rd, where its only 1 lane each way, has zero traffic or congestion, plus thats the entrance area for Evans Farm, a huge development. 90 yr olds dont drive anywhere and family rarely visits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give that Falls Churh City council only cares about tax income and NOT schools or traffic, like every other project, this one will be approved.

This is McLean, you idiot.

Indeed. It's the same McLean Citizens Association that is blockading any renovation at FCC's K-1 school. They're going to get what they ask for when Mt Daniel is sold to condo developers and the Sunrise site turns into a self storage facility. Opposition to development at all costs is destined to fail. And when they eventually ostracize their crotchety NIMBY a$$es from all reasonable civic constituencies, they're going to end up with a lot worse outcomes than if they'd just be civil and pragmatic. But then they'll die and leave their suburban detritus to the quiet majority that just sat by and let them run roughshod.

Stop babbling. In a democracy, people get to explain why they don't want your kids or your nursing home business in their backyards. There are plenty of other, better uses for both parcels.

Ha. I love that the same McLean citizens that shudder at the thought that Falls Church 22043 might be conflated with McLean proper (or upper or low McLean or whatever you're using now) are also fighting the 'good fight' to prevent school improvements about which the majority of the actual adjacent Falls Church homeowners are not complaining.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give that Falls Churh City council only cares about tax income and NOT schools or traffic, like every other project, this one will be approved.

This is McLean, you idiot.

Indeed. It's the same McLean Citizens Association that is blockading any renovation at FCC's K-1 school. They're going to get what they ask for when Mt Daniel is sold to condo developers and the Sunrise site turns into a self storage facility. Opposition to development at all costs is destined to fail. And when they eventually ostracize their crotchety NIMBY a$$es from all reasonable civic constituencies, they're going to end up with a lot worse outcomes than if they'd just be civil and pragmatic. But then they'll die and leave their suburban detritus to the quiet majority that just sat by and let them run roughshod.

Stop babbling. In a democracy, people get to explain why they don't want your kids or your nursing home business in their backyards. There are plenty of other, better uses for both parcels.

Like condos and crap commerce. Which you'll get. Fail to see how that's babbling, but then again, you're clearly not much for rational discourse.

We live about 3 miles away from the Kirby/Westmoreland intersection. And traffic can be terrible there, especially at certain times of the day, e.g., 7:30 am weekdays are full of Longfellow Middle cars/buses. No one has mentioned the Little League field close by, which generates a good amount traffic in the fall and spring/summer months. Fortunately, I do not have to pass by that intersections every day.

The site for the proposed Sunrise development is mostly grass and trees, with the church and a smallish parking lot. Replacing that green space with a multi-level building bigger than the church would be a shame. I can totally understand the opposition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give that Falls Churh City council only cares about tax income and NOT schools or traffic, like every other project, this one will be approved.

This is McLean, you idiot.

Indeed. It's the same McLean Citizens Association that is blockading any renovation at FCC's K-1 school. They're going to get what they ask for when Mt Daniel is sold to condo developers and the Sunrise site turns into a self storage facility. Opposition to development at all costs is destined to fail. And when they eventually ostracize their crotchety NIMBY a$$es from all reasonable civic constituencies, they're going to end up with a lot worse outcomes than if they'd just be civil and pragmatic. But then they'll die and leave their suburban detritus to the quiet majority that just sat by and let them run roughshod.

Stop babbling. In a democracy, people get to explain why they don't want your kids or your nursing home business in their backyards. There are plenty of other, better uses for both parcels.