ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of June 13, 2015

Transcription

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of June 13, 2015 DATE: June 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Request to Authorize Advertisement of Public Hearings by the Planning Commission and the County Board in July to consider adoption of the Western Rosslyn Area Plan (Attachment 1). C.M. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the advertisement of public hearings by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2015 and the County Board on July 16, 2015 to consider the adoption of the Western Rosslyn Area Plan (Attachment 1). ISSUE: This is a request to advertise public hearings for the adoption of the Western Rosslyn Area Plan. An ongoing community concern relates to the proposed size of the planned new Rosslyn Highlands Park and its relationship to and coordination with the recreational space within the adjacent school site. SUMMARY: The Western Rosslyn Area Planning Study (WRAPS) process has provided an opportunity to plan and realize public and private improvements in a coordinated and timeefficient manner. The Plan resulting from this process advances a number of recommendations that will lead to the realization of many important goals, including a new state-of-the-art school, a new fire station, a new County park and additional affordable housing along with private redevelopment within a very short timeframe. To begin the process, the County Board adopted a Working Group Charge in May 2014, which outlined the aforementioned goals for the study. County Manager: ##### County Attorney: ***** Staff: Richard Tucker, CPHD - Planning Jennifer Smith, CPHD - Planning Leon Vignes, CDHD - Planning Richard Viola, DES - Transportation Meliha Aljabar, DPR Sarah Pizzo, CPHD - Housing Andrew Wilson, AED 45. PLA-7015

2 The County Board then established the WRAPS Working Group and initiated the planning process in June 2014 to develop an Area Plan. Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015 The study area (see Study Area Map, left) consists of five parcels located between Wilson Boulevard, Quinn Street, Key Boulevard and 18 th Street including: 1555 Wilson Boulevard, Fire Station #10 and Rosslyn Highlands Park, Wilson School (1601 Wilson Boulevard), a convenience store (1625 Wilson Boulevard), and Queens Court Apartments, located at Quinn Street and Key Boulevard. The Plan highlights the goals for the study area and indicates WRAPS Study Area Map the community s infrastructure needs. The Plan also outlines a vision for future development, conveyed by a Concept Plan and supporting Concept Plan Elements, that were influenced by Guiding Principles that were drafted during the planning process. These Guiding Principles will also serve to guide the review of the redevelopment proposals that will come forward in the future. The Plan document also contains a series of conceptual illustrations to communicate guidance on building height, uses, transportation and open space. Additionally, the Plan includes action steps to be completed to help facilitate implementation of the vision, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning changes. A series of proposed street cross sections are included in the Appendix of the document, which are intended to be implemented, over time, as new development occurs. The draft Plan is continuing to undergo community review, which may result in refinements and changes to the document. Staff will work to address all comments that are received and incorporate changes, if needed, in materials to be forwarded to the County Board for consideration in July. BACKGROUND: For a number of years, the County has identified a need to replace Fire Station #10, with the possibility that future private development in the area would fund a new fire station and other necessary public improvements. This process was initiated, in part, to assess how future private development could offset the cost of building a new fire station. Another important goal of the process was to determine the relationships between, and the appropriate locations for buildings, open spaces, and transportation improvements. The process to develop the Western Rosslyn Area Plan was initiated in coordination with the 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan public process, which, when adopted, will define and guide the future vision for the core of Rosslyn; which is located east of the subject study area.

3 At the same time, Arlington Public Schools (APS) has recently experienced a dramatic increase in enrollment, which has led to the decision to build a new secondary school at the Wilson School site; whereas prior to 2014, the Arlington County School Board had considered the Wilson School site as surplus real estate that could be made available for sale or lease. Also, the community had long seen the Wilson School property, which had not operated as a school for over 20 years, as an opportunity area to achieve more public open space in Rosslyn. Lastly, increasing the availability of affordable housing, especially within the County s key transit corridors, is a major policy objective. The Queens Court Apartments site, which currently has 39 units and is owned by Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH), a nonprofit affordable housing developer, provides an opportunity to expand housing affordability. A major goal of initiating the WRAPS process was to find a balance between these important and sometimes competing community needs and goals while planning for public and private redevelopment in the area. County Board Charge: In initiating this public process in 2014, the County Board adopted a Working Group Charge that outlined important goals to be achieved in the study area. Those goals included: A multi-story secondary school with up to 1,300 seats; Recreation and open space that is up to 60,000 square feet in size; which could include athletic field(s) and interior space within the school to be used jointly by the school and the community, and other open space that replaces the existing playground and basketball court located within Rosslyn Highlands Park or provides similar needed passive and active park and recreational amenities for use by the community; A new fire station; Affordable housing; Energy efficiency / sustainability; Economically viable, urban and vibrant development with a mix of uses, heights and densities that support achieving County goals; and Effective multi-modal transportation facilities and services. DISCUSSION: The Plan This section provides an overview of the draft Plan and identifies some issues / areas of concern that have been raised through the community process: Western Rosslyn Area Plan Overview: The Western Rosslyn Area Plan, if adopted, would provide long range planning guidance for the study area. Guidance for the subject study area had been included in the 1992 Rosslyn Sector Plan Addendum, however, more detailed and refined Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

4 guidance was needed to address the specific goals of the study area. The guidance in this Plan will supersede that which is in the 1992 document. Intent and Structure of the Document: This Plan is intended to provide guidance for future development within the study area through a series of Guiding Principles, concept drawings, and concept plan elements. Although there is some specificity in the Plan regarding heights and other important elements, flexibility is incorporated to allow for creative approaches to siting the new secondary school, increasing open space, and coordinating and planning the use of open spaces within the study area. The document is divided into five sections: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Existing Conditions, Challenges and Opportunities; Chapter 3: Plan; Chapter 4: Action Plan; and Chapter 5: Appendix. The Introduction chapter provides insight into the impetus for initiating the study and the important goals to be addressed. This section also discusses the need to balance goals while leveraging the value of the County s holdings in the area. Lastly, it outlines the community review process. The Existing Conditions, Challenges and Opportunities chapter discusses the community s facility and amenity needs, including school facilities, fire station improvements, and open space. It also discusses the opportunities and challenges that exist within the study area. The Plan chapter expresses the vision for the study area, which is intended to be a mix of high quality civic uses, including a new school, a new fire station, a redeveloped Rosslyn Highlands Park, and private redevelopment. Within this section, the Plan (vision) is expressed as a Concept Plan and an Illustrative Concept Plan (which is just one way build out may occur, consistent with the Concept Plan) that identify general locations of buildings, open spaces, vehicular or pedestrian connections and the relationships between those features. A series of Plan Elements, dealing with Land Use, Heights, Transportation, Open Space, Urban Design, Environment and Implementation, which are also included in this chapter, describe the Concept Plan in more detail. Within this section, the study area is divided into three distinct, yet coordinated, development areas: the Mixed-Use Development Area, the School Development Area, and the Housing Development Area; each having a distinct set of guidance for new development. Interwoven into the Plan section are Guiding Principles that were developed by staff and the Working Group over a series of meetings. These Guiding Principles, which express the community s aspirations for the area, were used in developing the Concept Plan and recommendations for the Plan. The Guiding Principles are also intended to guide new development that occurs, over time, within the study area. Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

5 The Action Plan chapter lists the specific steps to be taken to implement the vision, including land use and zoning changes, open space and transportation improvements to be incorporated into new development, and sustainability goals for the area. An Implementation Matrix is also included in this section to quickly identify the County agency responsible for implementation and an estimated timeline for completion. The Appendix chapter contains all of the proposed street cross sections for Wilson Boulevard, North Quinn Street, 18 th Street North, Key Boulevard, and the new north-south street to be created within the Mixed-Use Development Area. These cross sections are to be used as a guide in reviewing future development, which will occur on a site-by-site basis over time. Specific design of streets may need to be fine-tuned in the future, based on specific site conditions, which may vary. During two County Board Work Sessions, held on March 4, 2015 and May 5, 2015, staff presented a preliminary Concept Plan and other recommendations for County Board input and direction. Key topics discussed at the March 4 th Work Session included: Determining how planning for the school site should be coordinated with this process; A desire for more contiguous open space in this area of Rosslyn; A desire for the greatest number of affordable units on the Queens Court site; Concerns about use of County land as part of a joint development with the Penzance Companies; and Interest in finding potential alternate locations for a new fire station to serve the Rosslyn area. County Board Direction: At the March Work Session, the County Board determined that it would be appropriate for the Public Facilities Review Committee (PFRC) to determine the placement of the new school and associated facilities within the Wilson School site. Accordingly, this Plan makes no firm recommendation on the school siting matter; two alternative locations are shown for illustrative purposes to indicate that there is flexibility on this matter. The ongoing PFRC process will determine the final school and recreation facility arrangement on the former Wilson School site. The County Board also confirmed their commitment to the concept of joint development of the County and Penzance parcels as a means to facilitate the development of a new fire station and improvements to public open space amenities. The County Board decided, upon review of staff findings, that alternate locations for the fire station outside the study area but within the Rosslyn area would either be cost-prohibitive or have a negative impact on other open spaces. While generally agreeing with staff s recommended preliminary Concept Plan, the County Board also directed the County Manager to look at ways to increase both the amount of public open space within the joint development site and the number of affordable units on the Queens Court apartment property. Subsequent to the County Board Work Sessions, staff conducted additional analysis and presented an updated Concept Plan at the May 5, 2015 County Board Work Session. At that meeting, staff reported on a revised joint development scenario that resulted in a larger public Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

6 open space, and enhanced pedestrian circulation; which also held open the possibility of coordinated planning and development of park and field spaces. Staff also reported that the draft Area Plan would include a recommendation for land use and zoning changes that generates additional affordable housing at the Queens Court site. The County Board generally supported staff s recommendations at the May County Board Work Session. These recommendations are captured in the draft Area Plan document, the subject of this report. Community Process: Staff worked with the WRAPS Working Group over the course of 13 meetings to develop the draft Area Plan. During those meetings, the Working Group reviewed ideas and concepts, developed Guiding Principles, and identified key questions and challenges to be addressed. As well, a Community Workshop was held in November 2014 to obtain broader input on preliminary development concepts that informed discussions of new ideas, opportunities, and trade-offs. Community Comments and Concerns: The Working Group discussions and broader community input have centered on three main issues: 1) how and whether to incorporate a new fire station into new development within the study area; 2) whether it is appropriate to allow high-density joint development of the County parcel; and 3) the amount and quality of public open space and how best to coordinate the planned open spaces on the County and APS parcels, to maximize recreational opportunities for the school and the community. With respect to #1 and #3 above, it has become clear through the course of Working Group discussions and the County Board Work Sessions, that open space needs are to be balanced with the other important goals of the Plan. In addition, the County remains committed to leveraging the value of the County s land through joint development with the Penzance parcels as a mechanism to achieve a new modern fire station and improvements to a new Rosslyn Highlands Park. There continues to be significant discussion, however, about the size, nature and quality of the open space to be provided within the new Rosslyn Highlands Park and how the park will relate to the recreation space to be constructed on the school site. Some in the community have requested that the school recreation space be expanded onto the County park in order to achieve a full-sized Ultimate Frisbee (Ultimate) field, which is the only team sport for the HB Woodlawn program. This request, and subsequent community discussion, has led to the examination of how well community recreational needs can be met if the field space is increased at the expense of community park space. Staff believes that flexibility has been incorporated into the draft Plan to allow for further exploration of these open space issues, and the County remains committed to working with APS to analyze whether an alternate arrangement of building footprints would facilitate the development of a full-sized Ultimate field. As part of this analysis, an alternate development plan that shifts the orientation of the proposed office building will be explored. A critical variable in this evaluation is the location and size of the future school building, which will be determined through the PFRC process. Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

7 Advisory Commissions: Staff met with the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission (LRPC) on two occasions, on February 25, 2015 and May 27, 2015, to receive additional input on the planning process and the draft Plan document. The draft Plan has also been reviewed by several advisory commissions, including the Environment and Energy Conservation Commission (E2C2), the Urban Forestry Commission, the Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Housing Commission. In updating the commissions on the WRAPS process, staff s recommendations, and the elements of the Plan document, there was general support for the advertisement of the draft Plan. However, several questions and comments were received regarding specific elements of the Plan, the planning process, and other broader concerns relating to County policies and/or priorities. These questions and comments were on topics as varied as: the implementation of school athletic facilities and County park space; the school planning process that is currently ongoing through PFRC; how best to implement the new street that is planned in the Mixed-Use Development Area, in terms of width and components; what goals should be achieved through the proposed open space planning process; and, how/whether elements of the Rosslyn Section Plan Urban Design Guidelines should apply to the easternmost portion of the Western Rosslyn Area Plan study area. A complete summary of the major comments that have been received in this recent phase of the community review process, as well as staff responses, can be found in the attached Comment Matrix (See Attachment 2). The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the draft Plan at their upcoming meeting on June 23 rd. Their comments and questions will be added to the Comment Matrix, and any changes to the Plan document, if deemed necessary, will be incorporated prior to the County Board s final action in July. FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that community benefit contributions associated with private development in the study area will cover design and construction costs for the new fire station, transportation improvements and new open space/park. Redevelopment of the Queens Court Apartment complex will likely require AHIF funding. CONCLUSION: The draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan provides guidance for future development in the area through a set of Guiding Principles and a series of Concept Plan drawings and Elements that express the vision. The vision, Guiding Principles and Concept Plan Drawings/Elements are responsive to the community process and County Board guidance. Therefore, it is recommended that the County Board authorize the advertisement of public hearings on the draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2015 and the County Board on July 18, Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

8 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE JULY 6, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE JULY 18, 2015 COUNTY BOARD MEETING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE WESTERN ROSSLYN AREA PLAN. The County Board of Arlington hereby resolves that the draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan, identified as Request to Advertise Attachment 1, dated June 5, 2015, shall be advertised for public hearings at the July 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and the July 18, 2015 County Board meeting. Request to Advertise Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan PLA-7015

9 Draft Western Rosslyn Area Plan Comment and Response Matrix Note: Items shaded blue are items that may result in further changes to the final draft Plan that will be finalized in July Comment # Source Question/Comment Staff Response / Action 1 LRPC member Identify that the Queens Court is on the HRI. 2 WG member Need to include a reference to the Public Spaces Master Plan (PSMP). 3 WG member Joint use of public facilities should be captured as a big idea in the plan. 4 LRPC member How would the school building siting and orientation decisions be made? 5 LRPC member Consider moving the new street further east in order to achieve an east-west orientation of the private development that is planned to be west of the new street. 6 LRPC member Can an ultimate Frisbee field be included in the Plan? There is currently no mention of it. 7 WG member The alternative development layout (p.22) should be the desirable solution and preferred concept. Staff agrees. Language has been added to Chapter 2 that states that Queens Court is on the HRI. (see page 13) Staff will evaluate this further. No change is proposed at this time. Staff agrees. Language has been added to Chapter 3 that highlights this point. (see page 31) These decisions will be made by the County Board as part of the Use Permit review process, which will be guided by the ongoing Public Facilities Review Committee and Building Level Review Committee processes. Staff is cautious about this suggested change. An important goal of this planning process, as outlined in the County Board Charge, is to include feasible private development that supports the County s goals. Moving the street further east will impact the potential density to be achieved and the marketability of the overall development. Yes. Language has been added to Chapter 3 to address this point. (see page 22) At this time, staff does not know the viability of this alternative concept, given the site development constraints that would be placed on the School Development Area. Through further discussion with APS staff, a better understanding of this issue may arise. Staff believes the Plan adequately describes this alternative and finds it to be generally consistent with the main Concept Plan. This alternative, if proved viable, could be pursued further if the County Board and School Board can reach agreement on the real estate transaction(s) that would be deemed necessary to implement the alternative concept in a timeframe that meets APS schedule. No additional language is 1 Attachment 2

10 needed in the Plan document to support/promote this outcome. 8 WG member The Illustrative Concept Plan shows a parallelogram-shaped building in the Mixed-Use Development Area. Is this type of floorplate likely to occur? 9 APAH, WG member Add specific goal of 250 units of affordable housing as discussed in the Working Group process for the Residential Development Area and that it should be permitted through a GLUP note and related ZO amendment. 10 APAH The GLUP designation for the APAH site is both High-Medium and Low-Medium Residential. The outline designating the WRAPS boundaries is not consistent with the property line. The language should acknowledge that half of the site is designated High- Medium Residential currently. 11 LRPC member Need to be more specific about the proposed school and APAH density. 12 WG member Retail should be consistent with what is planned in the Arlington County Retail Plan. 13 APAH, WG member Clarify how heights should be calculated, including development in the Housing Development Area. The intent of the Illustrative Concept Plan is to provide one view of how build-out could occur within the study area, and often, some creative expression is offered in depicting buildings, architectural details and site layout. At the same time, it is not staff s intent to confuse the reader. The Illustrative Concept Plan and Concept Plan Illustrative Models have been revised to show a simpler building form. (see pages 22 and 23). Staff agrees. Language has been added to the Land Use Element. (see page 27). Staff has determined that the current land use designation for the Queens Court site is Low-Medium Residential (16-36 units/acre). Staff agrees; however the Zoning Ordinance does not specify density for parcels zoned S-3A which is the school site s designation. Language has been added to the Land Use Element to outline the potential density for the Queens Court site. (see page 27). Staff agrees. Language has been added to the Land Use Element to be consistent with the draft Arlington County Retail Plan. (see page 26). Building height is determined to be the distance between average site elevation to the main roof of the building (top of the highest occupiable floor) and does not include the penthouse. 14 LRPC member, WG member Heights of other buildings in the surrounding area should be noted in the plan. A note has been added to the Heights Element of the Plan to indicate how this measurement is determined. (see page 28). Staff agrees. The Plan document will be updated to include a map, showing a broader context, with heights of existing buildings, as well as the proposed building heights incorporated in the Western 2 Attachment 2

11 Rosslyn Area Plan and the 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan with the final draft Plan to be developed in July. 15 WG member 28 stories is too high here. Proposed heights within the WRAPS study area are consistent with the heights proposed in the 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan and are proposed as a means to better achieve the goals of this Plan. 16 WG member Height for penthouses should be mentioned in the plan. 17 APAH Key Boulevard should be included as a secondary street, so that garage and loading dock access from Key Boulevard is possible, as the grade makes this the most sensible location. 18 LRPC member Why not have the same street cross sections for 18 th Street and Wilson Boulevard as in the Rosslyn Sector Plan? Staff agrees. A note has been added to the Heights Element of the Plan to address this point. (see page 28). Staff agrees. Language has been added to the Urban Design Element to address this point. (see page 33). There is no recommended street cross section in the draft 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan that corresponds to the segment of 18 th Street between the eastern boundary of the Western Rosslyn study area and Oak Street. The recommended street cross section for Wilson Boulevard in the Western Rosslyn Area Plan is consistent with the street cross section recommended in the draft Rosslyn Sector Plan. 19 WG member Are there plans to widen Wilson Boulevard? 20 WG member / Transportation Commission member Plan needs to address short-term parking needs for quick drop-off situations. Where will this occur? 21 APAH There should be flexibility for the location of the public park in the Residential Development District No. Generally, staff does not recommend widening streets and, in fact, is commonly reducing space allocated for vehicular traffic. Rather, staff proposes traffic management and transit improvements, as well as changes to encourage other travel modes. Staff agrees. Language has been added to the Urban Design Element address this point. (see page 33) Also see the responses to the Planning Commission comments (2a. below) regarding street cross section and the proposed components of the new northsouth street, which could be reconfigured to incorporate onstreet parking. Staff continues to recommend that the public park should be located on the corner of Quinn Street and 18 th Street North to increase visibility, although the draft Plan has been revised to allow flexibility for the park location along 18 th Street. The overall shape and configuration can be determined through the site plan review process. Language added indicating flexibility for the park along 18 th Street. 3 Attachment 2

12 22 APAH Clarify that the park on the APAH site will not be required to go through the same park planning process as the other open spaces, and that this space will include a tot lot open to the public but also serving the residential building. 23 LRPC member The plan needs to be clear that the open space in the Residential Development Area is usable by the community. 24 LRPC member, WG member The plan needs to be clear that the rooftop recreational facilities on top of the school is available to the community. 25 LRPC member If the entire Mixed-Use Development Area has underground parking, does the Plan need to address the depth of soil above the parking to accommodate true canopy trees? 26 WG member The plan needs more coordination language among parties in the open space section. 27 WG member How and when will the community weigh in on the use of the APS field? 28 WG member Passive space in the public parks is needed. There should be opportunities for shade trees in the new park. 29 APAH Exclude the APAH site from the general list of architectural requirements/design guidelines. Staff recommends that a coordinated park planning process be initiated, in the short term, to provide guidance on the specific amenities to be included in the park spaces within the study area. Staff agrees that the Plan could indicate a preferred use for the proposed park on this site. The Open Space Element of the Plan has been updated to indicate that the proposed park space within the Housing Development Area could include a children s playground. (see page 31). The Plan identifies this park space as a public park. During the Public Facilities Review Committee process, it will be determined whether rooftop amenities will be included in the school design and how public access can be achieved. Staff agrees that, should rooftop amenities, such as basketball or tennis courts, be included in the school design, efforts should be made to achieve public access to the rooftop spaces consistent with the Guiding Principles. The Open Space Element has been updated to address this point. (see page 31). The Plan includes a Guiding Principle that address this point in the Implementation Element. Staff agrees. Language has been added to the Open Space Element to address this point. (see page 31). The community can participate in the ongoing Public Facilities Review Committee process. Ultimately, the Use Permit application for the school will be considered at a County Board Hearing, at which the public may provide their comments. Staff agrees. The park planning process, which is proposed as a follow-on process, is the appropriate venue to discuss this matter. Staff does not agree. The Urban Design Element of the Plan has both area-wide and site specific guidelines that will ensure coordinated and high quality development. However, staff is open to discussing refinements to this Element as the community review process continues. 4 Attachment 2

13 30 APAH Exempt APAH from the aboveground parking restrictions, or provide additional flexibility in screening types, particularly when significant grade changes are at play. 31 LRPC member, WG member 32 LRPC member, WG member Why not apply the Rosslyn Sector Plan design guidelines here? The proposed buildings along 18 th Street and Wilson Blvd should have the step-back requirements as the Rosslyn Sector Plan for those streets. Staff does not agree. The Urban Design Element of the Plan has both area-wide and site specific guidelines that will ensure coordinated and high quality development. However, staff is open to discussing refinements to this Element as the community review process continues. Staff does not agree. 1) The Western Rosslyn planning area has different goals than the Rosslyn Sector Plan planning area. In this planning area, a major goal is the achievement of a new fire station and significant park improvement through joint development. 2) One objective of the step-backs that are recommended in the 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan is the preservation of views primarily to the east towards Washington, DC. As the Western Rosslyn study area is at the western end of the high-density Rosslyn core, and buildings to the west will not be any taller, step-backs are not necessary to preserve view corridors to the east. 3) The inclusion of 15 building step-backs would impede feasible, viable development for the Mixed-Use Development Area, which impacts the ability to realize construction of a new fire station. 33 LRPC member, WG member 34 LRPC member, WG member Tower separation (51 ) should be consistent with what Rosslyn Sector Plan is calling for (60 ). This 51 feet separation may be a tight space. Build-to-lines should be consistent with what the Rosslyn Sector Plan is calling for. There would be at least 60 of tower separation within the Mixed-Use Development Area between developments across the proposed new street. This Plan incorporates proposed street cross sections that are generally consistent with the street cross sections proposed in the 2015 Rosslyn Sector Plan. 35 LRPC member Should a fencing standard be stated in the Plan for the School Development Area? 36 WG member Design guidelines for retail should be in the Plan. 37 WG member The dimensions for building façade composition is too explicit and should be removed. Staff agrees that a fencing standard should be included in the Plan document. The Urban Design Element has been updated to address this point. (see page 34). Staff agrees that the draft Arlington County Retail Plan should be referenced in the Plan. The Land Use Element has been updated to reference the draft Arlington County Retail Plan. (see page 26). Staff agrees. The Urban Design Element has be revised to address this comment. (see page 32). 5 Attachment 2

14 38 APAH Remove the target of carbon neutrality for the Housing Development Area and other areas of the plan based on the cost implications not making it achievable. 39 APAH, LRPC member Add that all processes related to the APAH site require a flexible timeframe, given reliance on County funding and the LIHTC schedule. 40 LRPC member Need a phasing plan. Staff agrees. Staff will evaluate this further. No change is proposed at this time. Staff will evaluate this further to determine how this point can be addressed. No change is proposed at this time. 41 WG member HALRB should be more involved in the BLPC/PFRC processes. 42 Transportation Commission member Why include a north-south pedestrian thoroughfare through the County/APS parcels if there is a desire for more park space? A Phasing Plan will be added to the Implementation Element of the Plan. HALRB has been invited to participate in these processes. The pedestrian pathway, which currently exists and extends from Wilson Blvd to Key Blvd, is recommended to continue as part of future development. This pedestrian connection links open spaces through these blocks. 43 Transportation Commission member 44 Urban Forestry Commission member 45 Housing Commission member When and how was the decision to locate the HB Woodlawn program made? How would the Transportation Commission and other advisory group get involved in the siting processes for schools. Plan should include space for the planting of tree groves, which would contribute to the reduction of the heat island effect - not just street trees and other planting around the new development; Will there be on-site affordable units within the Mixed-Use Development Area? In late 2014, APS conducted a several-month-long process to identify school development projects to help alleviate the school crowding issue. The decision to locate the HB Woodlawn program, and associated programs currently located at the Stratford School site, was reached in December The County and APS are currently conducting a Community Facilities Study to, in part, develop recommendations for future siting decisions for schools and other public facilities. No change is proposed This objective will be difficult to achieve given that underground parking and/or below-grade building spaces are proposed in each of the three development areas. The affordable housing contribution attributable to special exception development within the Mixed-Use Development Area will be determined during the site plan review process. 6 Attachment 2

15 Planning Commission Recommendations from June 1, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting and Staff Responses On June 1, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the County Board advertise the draft Area Plan for public hearings by the Planning Commission and County Board in July. In addition, changes to the draft Plan were recommended for County Board consideration. The table below lists those recommended changes and staff s responses. Note: Items shaded blue are items that may result in further changes to the final draft Plan that will be finalized in July Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action 1 Amend the Concept Plan (pages 21-23) as follows: a. Establish the Wilson Boulevard frontage as the location for the primary entrance for the new school building and remove all text, maps and illustrations related to any alternate primary entrance frontage along 18th Street North. At Work Sessions held in March and May 2015, the County Board determined, that the decision to site the school building on the Wilson Boulevard or 18 th Street frontage would be determined through the Public Facilities Review Committee process. b. Rotate the smaller of the two buildings in the Mixed-Use Development Area shown on Map 3.1, Concept Plan (page 21), so that its longer dimension parallels Wilson Boulevard and is located at the back of the sidewalk on this frontage. Any increase in open space on the 18th Street North side of the building should be added to the park. The Plan is written in a manner that either location would be acceptable. The Plan acknowledges that one possible alternative to the recommended Concept Plan would be to rotate the westernmost building within the Mixed-Use Development Area. By doing this, the building encroaches partially into the School Development Area. Further analysis and review of this alternative is warranted, and County staff will work with Arlington Public Schools staff to examine this further; with the goal of developing recommendations to the County Board and School Board on how, or whether, to move the idea forward for implementation. c. On Map 3.1 (page 21) in the Housing Development Area, establish the 18th Street North frontage as the principle frontage of the proposed affordable housing development, set as a minimum building length along this frontage of 80 percent of total 18th Street North frontage, and locate the principle entrance along this frontage. During the planning process, staff evaluated the placement of a proposed park in the Housing Development Area. Consistent with the draft recommendations in the Rosslyn Sector Plan to create a corridor of multiple open spaces along 18 th Street through Rosslyn, and consistent with Guiding Principles established in the WRAPS process to achieve contiguous open spaces, the park was sited along 18 th Street. This frontage creates a degree of connectedness between the open spaces planned on the south edge of 18 th Street school fields and a rebuilt Rosslyn Highlands Park. The park is planned to be approximately 9,000 square feet in size and, as such, would likely span at least 50 percent of this frontage depending on the final residential building layout also planned 7 Attachment 2

16 Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action for this site. The park would have better solar exposure along 18 th Street than if it were placed along N. Quinn St. or Key Boulevard. It will be important for the building facades adjacent to the park, as well as along all street frontages, to be designed with quality materials and, to the degree possible, activating elements such as building entrances. Staff will work with the property owner during the development review process to achieve these elements. For these reasons, staff does not support the inclusion of specific recommendations that would call for more building mass along 18 th Street as this would reduce the ability to achieve a new park. Furthermore, staff views N. Quinn Street, 18 th Street, and Key Boulevard as viable street frontages for the primary entrance to a new housing development. To accommodate this idea, the Plan has been revised to allow flexibility for the placement of the main building entrance. However, as noted above, staff will continue to work with the property owner during the development review process to ensure that the building design facing the new park and any public open space on the School Development Area offers quality design elements. In addition, staff has revised the Plan to allow flexibility regarding the location of the new park along 18 th Street. Changes related to these points are reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June (see page 33). 2 Amend the Transportation Element (pages 29-30; appendix, pages 45-52) as follows: a. Expand the street space of the new street from the 51 feet building face-to-building face width to a minimum of 60 feet with any space needed to realize the greater width achieved by widening the eastern side of the street; reduce the depth of the planting strip from 6.5 feet shown on the new street cross-section (pages 30, 52) to the county standard depth of 5 feet; expand the number of lanes from two shown on the cross-section (pages 30, 52) to at least three with at least one lane for parking and other curb space uses, including pick up and drop off at the residential building. b. Relocate the service and loading entrance of the residential building from 18th Street North shown on Map 3.5 (page 29) to the new street. Staff continues to recommend a 51 foot cross section for the new street. Staff also recommends that temporary parking be addressed within the garages of private development and through the creation of short-term parking zones along the street frontages of new buildings, where possible. This detail can best be addressed during the site plan review process. A change related to this point is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June (see page 33). In developing the Concept Plan, staff evaluated the trade-offs between locating service and loading functions on 18 th Street versus the new street. Since the new street will have retail and a County park along it, it was determined that the new street would most benefit from not having the service and 8 Attachment 2

17 Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action c. Show bicycle lanes on the Transportation Plan, Map 3.2 (page 29). loading functions. Staff continues to hold this position. No change is proposed. Staff agrees. This change will be reflected in the final draft of the Plan document to be developed in July. d. Ensure that the cross-section(s) of 18th Street North in the Western Rosslyn Area Plan, Locations 6 and 7 (pages 50-51), continue and are identical to the cross-section of 18th Street North between N. Oak Street and the boundary of Rosslyn Sector Plan and the Western Rosslyn Area Plan. There is currently no recommended street cross section in the Rosslyn Sector Plan for the segment of 18 th Street between the eastern boundary of the WRAPS study area and N. Oak Street with which to be consistent. In response to the Planning Commission at its June 3 rd meeting, however, staff will be developing a recommended cross section for the segment of 18 th Street east of the WRAPS study area for inclusion in the Rosslyn Sector Plan. This design will be coordinated with the WRAPS proposed cross section and, if any changes occur, these refinements will be represented in the final draft [Western Rosslyn Area] Plan to be developed in July. 3 Amend the Open Space Element (pages 31-32) as follows: a. Ensure that the park and open space comprehensive master planning effort (page 31) include representatives of the surrounding civic associations (North Rosslyn, Radnor-Ft. Myer Heights, Colonial Village, and North Highlands) and the Park and Recreation Commission. Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 31). b. Add a paragraph establishing the intent for open spaces in all three development areas to be planned collaboratively to ensure the best range of facilities without unnecessary duplication. Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 31). c. Add a paragraph to establish the expectation that all recreation facilities in the study area will be open for public use, including regular unstructured public use of school facilities not needed for school activities. d. The County Board should direct staff to develop strategies to enhance tree canopy on the site. Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 31). Through the implementation of the Plan, streetscapes throughout the study area will be improved, adding numerous street trees. In addition, within the public park spaces, which will be planned in a public process that will follow the adoption of the Area Plan, there will be an opportunity to create new active and passive spaces that can contribute to the area s tree canopy. Through the subsequent planning processes, recommendations for other opportunities to plant trees can be evaluated. 9 Attachment 2

18 Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action e. Add information to the Concept Plan to indicate the sizes (dimensions) of open spaces, the size and proposed position of the Ultimate Frisbee field, and note the design and maintenance requirements of a park over a parking garage to ensure that the new Rosslyn Highlands Park meets the Plan s goal of high quality open space. Typically, Area and Sector Plans generally indicate the location and approximate size of any open spaces to be developed in the study area. This Plan does indicate the approximate sizes of the proposed Rosslyn Highlands Park (~18,000 to 22,000 SF), within the Mixed-Use Development Area, and the new public park (~9,000 SF) to be included in the Housing Development Area. The exact dimensions of these spaces will likely change during the design and engineering phases for the associated redevelopment projects. The Plan has been revised to indicate that the shape of proposed open spaces is an important consideration so as to accommodate the maximum use of the public open space. (see page 31) Staff agrees to show an illustration showing an Ultimate Frisbee Field in the context of the alternative Concept Plan shown on p.22 of the Plan. f. Add a paragraph to establish that recreation facilities be both designed and constructed to facilitate public use taking into consideration access points, sight lines, connections between County and school spaces, and openness at grade and street level. g. Add language explaining that programming of new County or school open space should be limited by the Department of Parks & Recreation to allow for maximum casual use by the community. This change will be reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be developed in July. Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 34). Staff does not believe that Area Plans are the appropriate place to proscribe DPR programming and operations. Programming and operations are dependent on many factors, needs, and current circumstances. The level of investment in certain amenities will also weigh in on programming and operations decisions. However, staff is cognizant of the desire for drop-in, community use of park facilities. Upon engaging the community in the planning and design of open spaces within the study area, staff will develop the appropriate schedule to ensure that the park meets community needs. 4 Amend the Urban Design Element (pages 32-33) as follows: a. For the Mixed-Use Development Area, replace the urban design elements and establish through reference that the Rosslyn Sector Plan guidelines will apply. Note that exceptions to these The urban design guidelines from the draft Rosslyn Sector Plan are not consistent with the goals of the WRAPS process and the application of these guidelines, including build stepback, tower separation, and taper provisions were not vetted 10 Attachment 2

19 Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action guidelines could be sought as part of a special exception site plan application. during the WRAPS Working Group review process. In addition, the impact of such provisions on anticipated development have not been analyzed. The step-back provisions in the Rosslyn Sector Plan were intended to preserve views to the east (to the Potomac River and Washington DC). As the WRAPS study area is on the western edge of Rosslyn at the top of the hill and no taller buildings are planned to the west, the step-back provisions are not needed for this purpose. b. With respect to historic preservation (last paragraph, page 32), explicitly indicate that the existing structures are the 1910 Wilson School building and the Queens Court Apartments. c. Under Service / Parking / Streetscape (page 33): Revise to indicate that 18th Street North is not a preferred service and loading location. Amend Map 3.5 (page 29) to reflect this change. Delete the final bullet related to short-term drop-offs. d. Under Open Space/Recreation (page 33) add a bullet(s) that establishes design standards for any fence/containment system surrounding the school field so that it does not detract from the quality of the physical environment and successfully contains activities and equipment within the field area. 5 Amend the Environment Element (page 34) as follows: Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 32). See 2.b. above. Staff agrees. These changes are reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 34) a. For the mixed use and residential development areas, because of the significant loss of embodied energy and materials, that any new development must meet LEED Gold standards. Staff has determined that LEED (green building) standards cannot be mandated. Currently, the County s green building aspirations are encompassed in the Green Building Policy, which incentivizes more environmentally responsible development by offering bonus density in exchange for the different levels of LEED attainment and implemented on a case-by-case basis with special exception development applications. Development within the study area will be eligible for consideration of bonus density in exchange for LEED, consistent with the County s green building policies. The Plan, on page 34, addresses this issue through Guiding Principles that are consistent with County policy and encourage best practices with respect to environmentally sound development practices. 11 Attachment 2

20 Comment # Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response / Action b. County Board should direct staff to replace language relating to Carbon Neutrality with language from the Community Energy Plan. Staff agrees. This change will be reflected in the final draft of the Plan document to be developed in July. 6. Amend the Implementation Element and Action Plan (pages ) as follows: a. Amend Recommendation 2 (Land Use), Item C, by removing any reference to the physical location of the open space symbol within the Queens Court property. As noted in 1c. above, staff recommends that the new park be located along 18 th Street, and that the location, although preferred at the corner of Quinn Street, is flexible along the 18 th Street frontage. b. Amend Recommendation 5 (Open Space) by replacing the phrase, shared use by the community in off-peak school days and hours, to shared use by the community, including unstructured use, when not required by the school for its programs. c. Amend Recommendation 6 (Open Space) by deleting the phrase, along N. Quinn and/or 18th Street. d. Make changes consistent with the preceding proposed amendments to the table on pages This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see pages 31, 38 and 40). Staff agrees. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 39). Consistent with changes noted in 1c. and 6a. above, this phrase has been removed to allow flexibility for the siting of the new park in the Housing Development Area. This change is reflected in the draft of the Plan document to be forwarded to the County Board for advertisement in June. (see page 39 and 41). The Action Plan has been updated to be consistent with the Implementation Element of the document. (see pages 40-41). 7. Append the Long Range Planning Committee report to the letter to the County Board. 12 Attachment 2