DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING, HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 TEL 703.228.3525 FAX 703.228.3543 www.arlingtonva.us DRAFT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Arlington County Planning Commission Anthony Fusarelli, Jr., AICP, Planning Division, DCPHD DATE: May 4, 2017 11 th Street North and North Vermont Street Special General Land Use Plan Study [S-GLUP-5-17] OVERVIEW: This memorandum will serve to record the findings of the recently conducted Special General Land Use Plan ( GLUP ) Study of a proposed GLUP amendment request for the northern portion of the block bounded by Fairfax Drive to the north, North Utah Street to the east, 11 th Street North to the north and North Vermont Street. As submitted, the request is to change the existing GLUP designation for the subject area from "Low-Medium" Residential (16-36 units/acre) to "High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use" (up to 3.24 F.A.R., or floor area ratio). The area in question is currently zoned R-5 "One-Family and Restricted Two-Family Dwelling District." An associated rezoning to R-C "Multiple-Family Dwelling and Commercial District" would also be proposed by the applicant in conjunction with a future site plan special exception application. The site location and its surroundings are depicted in Map 1. Map 1. Study Area, 11 th and Vermont Streets Special GLUP Study Note: The applicant also controls property north of 11 th Street North which is part of the development application, however no GLUP change is requested for that area and it was not part of the study. 3.
DRAFT Based on staff s analysis of the relevant planning documents, adopted policies and input provided by the Long Range Planning Committee ("LRPC") of the Planning Commission through a special review process involving three (3) meetings, staff has concluded that the proposed GLUP amendment from "Low-Medium" Residential to "High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use" for a portion of the site is appropriate, as part of GLUP amendments recommended by staff that would change the designation for a broader area and add more specific guidance through a GLUP note. As detailed further in this memorandum, such GLUP amendments are recommended by staff to: More accurately reflect the overall vision for this area of North Ballston, as it has been predominantly implemented through development built in accordance with previous special exception site plans and rezoning approvals by the County Board; and Allow potential development and rezoning proposals for the subject site to be evaluated based upon Ballston Sector Plan guidance that calls for flexibility in determining the appropriate limits of "R-C" zoning, consistent with how such guidance was used to evaluate similar proposals for neighboring properties. Leadership of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, in which the site is located, participated in all three LRPC meetings and submitted written comments to staff and the committee during the process. BACKGROUND: In 2008, the County Board adopted the "Policy for Consideration of General Land Use Plan Amendments Unanticipated by Previous Planning Efforts", which calls for a community review process where a requested land use change is inconsistent with an adopted plan or when the request is in an area without an adopted plan. (See Attachment 1). In practice, this policy ensures that GLUP amendments unanticipated by or inconsistent with previous planning efforts is thoroughly reviewed to evaluate its appropriate, prior to and independent of a more focused review of an associated final site plan proposal. In this instance, the 1980 Ballston Sector Plan provides general guidance pertaining to the appropriate GLUP designations between Fairfax Drive and 11 th Street North, without specifying an exact location for where development reflective of "High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use" should transition to "Low-Medium" Residential development. Specifically, the sector plan states, The zoning line separating these densities should be based on the merits of subsequent requests for rezoning and site plan approval. The high-medium area along Fairfax Drive should be planned and buildings situated to achieve a transition into the lower density areas immediately to the north. Consistent with this guidance, site plans and rezonings have been approved in this area over time with development comprising "High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use" densities and building heights in locations designated "Low-Medium" Residential on the GLUP. In 2013, however, a set of Zoning Ordinance amendments to the R-C District unintentionally created a conflict with this established approach to evaluate development proposals in this area, that effectively requires a site to be at least partly designated "High-Medium Residential Mixed- Use" in order to be rezoned to the R-C District. Based on the 2008 resolution on GLUP amendments, staff found that a special study to evaluate the request was warranted. The primary purpose of the study is to determine whether the County Board should consider advertising the requested GLUP designation, or other GLUP designations that may be appropriate, based upon the Special GLUP Study. -2-
DRAFT GLUP Study As required under the aforementioned policy, staff initiated a review process led by the LRPC (see study scope and process document in Attachment 1). This Special GLUP Study is unique compared to previous Special GLUP Studies in that the staff analysis and subsequent committee review and discussion will ultimately lead to a staff recommendation to advertise public hearings to change the GLUP for an area larger than the specific site that is the basis for the request. This study was addressed by the LRPC at three (3) of its meetings, held on December 20, 2016, February 22, 2017, and March 30, 2017. These meetings involved staff presentations of its analysis and related materials, LRPC discussion, and opportunities for public comment. The objective of the Special GLUP Study was to analyze the site in the context of the surrounding area obtain feedback from the LRPC on the appropriateness of the requested GLUP change, and to evaluate whether other GLUP changes may also be appropriate. The scope of the study included: The History of GLUP and Zoning designations for the study area; Existing GLUP and Zoning designations for the study area; Existing environmental and topographical features, land uses, densities, building heights for study site and its surroundings; Recommendations of established County plans and policies, as applicable; Allowable uses, densities, building heights, etc. for the requested GLUP designation and other GLUP designations to be studied; 3-D computer modeling of the study site s existing conditions, and various scenarios reflecting the requested GLUP designation and other GLUP designations to be studied; and Preliminary transportation analysis for the study site and its surroundings. ANALYSIS: The applicant is seeking to amend the GLUP to "High-Medium Residential Mixed- Use" (up to 3.24 F.A.R., or floor area ratio). The area in question is currently zoned R-5 "One- Family and Restricted Two-Family Dwelling District," and an associated rezoning to R-C "Multiple-Family Dwelling and Commercial District" would also be proposed in the future by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a preliminary proposal for a residential development south of 11 th Street North with a seven (7)-story mid-rise building and four-story townhomes along the south frontage of 11 th Street North. As part of the same project, the applicant is also proposing townhomes for a parcel it controls across 11 th Street North, however no GLUP change has been requested for that parcel which is currently designated Low-Medium Residential. The 35,669 square foot site is currently developed with low-rise buildings most recently used as a church, rectory, and Montessori school. The requested "High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use" GLUP designation typically corresponds to the R-C zoning district. Table 1 outlines the uses, heights and densities permitted within the R-C District. -3-
Table 1. Characteristics of the Zoning District Typical of High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use Zoning District Density (planned maximum per GLUP/Zoning) Building Height (maximum per Zoning) Use Office Residential R-C 0.62 square feet for every square foot of residential (Up to total project density of 3.24 FAR) Up to 3.24 FAR (if other uses included, total project limited to 3.24) 95 feet DRAFT NOTES: 1. Modeling of form and massing studies may include base scenarios, in addition to scenarios that reflect a certain level of bonus density that might be achieved with the project. 2. Although not applicable in this instance, another provision in R-C allows density to increase up to 3.5 FAR with up to one square foot of gross floor area with each square foot of gross floor area of multifamily residential where: 1) Sites have a minimum site area of 50,000 square feet; 2) Have a minimum of 200 feet of continuous frontage on a principal arterial, minor arterial, or local principal street; and 3) Are across a principal arterial, minor arterial, or local principal street from a C-O-A district. The following table shows the maximum potential development under the current and proposed GLUP categories. Table 2. Maximum Development Potential for Existing and Proposed GLUP Designations GLUP Designation Density (planned maximum per GLUP/Zoning) Maximum Development Potential under Typical Corresponding Zoning Districts EXISTING: Low-Medium Residential (site area: 35,669 sq. ft., or 0.82 acres) PROPOSED: High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use (site area: 35,669 sq. ft., or 0.82 acres) (via site plan approval) 16-36 units per acre R15-30T: 25 residential units (at 30 units per acre) Up to 3.24 FAR (if other uses included, total project limited to 3.24) R-C: approximately 115,568 square feet of development NOTES: 1. This unit count does not reflect potential bonus density that could be achieved through the site plan process. 2. R15-30T is applied in this study as it is the prevailing zoning for townhouse development in the North Ballston area, recognizing that an alternative district such as RA8-18 would reach the upper limits of the planned densities for this GLUP designation (at 36 units per acre). General Land Use Plan History of the Site The GLUP is the primary policy guide for the future development of the County. Prior to the establishment of the GLUP, by the 1930s this area of Ballston was generally developed with a pattern of single-family dwellings with a few commercial buildings in close proximity to the former rail line that previously operated along the location of Fairfax Drive. On the County s first GLUP map (Map 2), which dates to 1961, the subject site and surrounding area was shown as -4-
DRAFT Undetermined Uses. In the 1964 and 1967 GLUP maps (Map 3), the subject site and surroundings were designated High Medium Residential (14-39 dwelling units per acre) with the exception of the Fairfax Drive and North Glebe Road frontages which were designated General Business. Map2. 1961 GLUP Map Map 3. 1964, 1967 GLUP Map Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. Fairfax Drive Fairfax Drive By 1975, the GLUP map (Map 4) showed the site and much of the surrounding neighborhood as Low Medium Residential (16-30 units/acre), except for the Fairfax Drive frontage which was designated Service Commercial and the site immediately to the west that was designated Medium Office-Apartment-Hotel. In 1979, the GLUP map (Map 5) still showed the site as Low Medium Residential (16-30 units/acre), except the frontage along Fairfax Drive and Glebe Road was designated as High-Medium Residential (72-90 units per acre residential, 72-135 units per acre hotel.) Map 4. 1975 GLUP Map Map 5. 1979 GLUP Map Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. Fairfax Drive Fairfax Drive The County Board adopted the Ballston Sector Plan in May 1980, which established more detailed planning guidance for the station area. During the sector plan review, the Economic Development Commission recommended a potential expansion of the High-Medium Residential area along Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street North, to be addressed as part of a future study. In December 1980, the County Board approved adding High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use as a new GLUP designation, and changing the High-Medium Residential designation fronting the Fairfax Drive frontage to High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use. At that time, the County Board made no change to the existing Low-Medium Residential designation south of 11 th Street North. It was -5-
DRAFT noted in the County Board staff report at that time that the existing GLUP pattern for the area supported the sector plan s intent to provide flexibility to encourage consolidation and redevelopment of the area. The County Board s actions in 1980 regarding this area are reflected in the 1983 printing of the GLUP map (Map 6). Since then, the general pattern for the five blocks from Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street North between North Vermont Street and North Randolph Street have remained the same, as reflected in the 2016 GLUP Map (Map 7). However, between the 1983 and 1987 printings of the GLUP map, the symbol for High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use changed from brown with cross-hatching to purple, and the block immediately west of the subject site was amended from High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use to Medium Office-Apartment- Hotel. Map 6. 1983 GLUP Map Map 7. 2016 GLUP Map Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. Fairfax Drive Fairfax Drive Relevant Established Plans The site is located in North Ballston as described in the 1980 Ballston Sector Plan. At that time, the sector plan noted that this area is generally depicted as High-Medium Residential along Fairfax Drive and Low-Medium Residential along 11 th Street North. The sector plan also notes that: The boundary between the High-Medium designation along Fairfax Drive and the Low- Medium designation along 11 th Street North is viewed as general, and no attempt has been made to describe a specific line for zoning purposes. The zoning line separating these densities should be based on the merits of subsequent requests for rezoning and site plan approval. The High- Medium area along Fairfax Drive should be planned and buildings situated to achieve a transition into the lower density areas immediately to the north. (Ballston Sector Plan, page 41). The sector plan also recommends that the County Board should consider rezoning commercially zoned properties to the new (at that time) R-C district to help facilitate redevelopment consistent with land use policy set forth in the plan and the GLUP. As a new zoning district, the sector plan included a recommendation for the Board to monitor the effectiveness of the R-C district in its ability to encourage desired consolidations and rezoning requests to advance land use policy in this area. As it pertains to the Low-Medium Residential designation along the south side of 11 th Street North, the sector plan recommended that designation to allow for residential infill development, specifically townhouses or low-scale buildings, and to reinforce the residential preservation planned for the area immediately north of 11 th Street North. -6-
DRAFT Relationship between General Land Use Plan and Zoning Patterns The GLUP currently designates approximately the northern two-thirds of these blocks from North Vermont Street to North Randolph Street, including the subject site, as Low-Medium Residential (16-36 units/acre). The balance of the blocks fronting Fairfax Drive is designated High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use. Since 1980 the County Board has approved numerous rezoning applications and site plan redevelopment projects in this area. Based on Ballston Sector Plan guidance that includes explicit flexibility regarding the exact limits of where the zoning boundaries may be established, the County Board approved several rezonings to R-C and site plans that have occurred in areas designated Low-Medium Residential on the GLUP. In two of these cases, the R-C zoning was extended fully to 11 th Street North. These patterns are evident in Map 8. Map 8. Existing GLUP Designations and Zoning Districts, North Ballston 11 th Street N. Fairfax Drive The results of the Ballston Sector Plan as effectuated through individual County Board actions on site plan and rezoning applications in this area have provided a mix of building types directly fronting the south side of 11 th Street North. Of the five block faces fronting the south side of 11 th Street North between North Vermont Street and North Randolph Street, two blocks are developed with special exception site plan townhomes, two blocks are developed with special exception site plan multi-family buildings, and the fifth is the subject site. Although the zoning and building typologies vary across the four completed redevelopment projects, the common characteristic among these projects is that the building forms step down to three to four stories along the 11 th Street North frontage. In this way, each project is consistent with the vision for this area set forth in the Ballston Sector Plan. This also suggests that the aggregate County Board actions over time in this area make clear that the land use categories do not need to correspond with the typical zoning districts as reflected in the GLUP legend, and that achieving building form and massing that provides the desired transition, and restricting land use to residential in this area, is more important than limiting development strictly to densities and zoning districts typically associated with Low-Medium Residential GLUP designations. -7-
DRAFT Building Form and Massing Studies As a key element of the Special GLUP Study, for LRPC Meeting #2 staff generated 3-D computer modeling reflecting various potential development scenarios for the study site, with the existing and requested GLUP designations, and the existing conditions. These building form and massing models were generated to show development consistent with GLUP and zoning maximums (with bonus density potential where applicable), forms compatible with surrounding development, and reflect sound urban design principles to the extent possible. The GLUP designations that staff modeled, along with the estimated development potential for each, are listed in Table 3. Table 3. 3-D Modeling Development Estimate Assumptions Low-Medium High-Medium Residential Residential Mixed-Use (BASE) Site Area (sq. ft.) 35,669 35,669 35,669 Site Area (acres) 0.82 0.82 0.82 High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use (BONUS) Dwelling Units 25 townhomes 105* multi-family 144* multi-family Gross Floor Area - 115,568 158,727 (sq. ft.) Floor Area Ratio - 3.24 4.45 NOTE: For High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use Scenarios, the estimated number of units are based on an approximate conversion factor of 1,100 gross square feet per residential unit applied to the estimated gross floor area modeled. All form and massing model scenarios generated for this study depict potential townhouse development on the north parcel of the preliminarily site plan application associated with this Special GLUP Study, which is consistent with the applicant s proposal to maintain the existing GLUP designation of Low-Medium Residential for the parcel north of 11 th Street North. Axonometric views from the northeast for the three GLUP scenarios outlined in Table 3 are illustrated in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1. Northeast Axonometric Views for LRPC Meeting #2 Models Low-Medium Residential High-Medium Residential M-U (base) High-Medium Residential M-U (bonus) At the second meeting, LRPC members commented on the merits of the three scenarios depicted above. While no official votes were taken, based on LRPC input it was clear to staff that the High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use scenario with bonus density was too dense and bulky for -8-
this site given its surroundings. Correspondingly, staff removed this particular scenario from further consideration as additional massing model studies for LRPC meeting #3 were prepared. DRAFT At that meeting, staff also received input suggesting that future modeling studies should more deliberately consider and account for the manner in which existing site plan development to the east tapers down from Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street North. Furthermore, staff also received input that the northernmost limits of building modeled for the subject site along 11 th Street North should generally be consistent with development along 11 th Street North east of the subject site. Based on additional staff analysis, revised modeling for LRPC meeting #3 incorporated a 20 sidewalk and streetscape zone for each scenario depicting multi-family residential development. For purposes of matching the established taper pattern in the general area, staff conducted further analysis of existing conditions to better understand the manner in which each building transitions down to three to four stories along 11 th Street North. Through this analysis, staff found that while each site handles the transition differently, the projects consistently do not rise above 40 feet in height until a horizontal distance of approximately 85 to 110 feet from the 11 th Street North curb. These conditions are depicted in the cross-sections illustrated in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2. Cross-Sectional Studies of Building Step-downs and Set-backs to 11 th Street North xonometric Views for LRPC Meeting #2 Models At LRPC meeting #3, staff presented updated modeling for the High-Medium Residential Mixed- Use base density scenarios based on prior input. These four options explored slight variations to advance certain design decisions, such as: 1) Keeping building heights as low as possible while reaching the target modeling density of 3.24 FAR; 2) Including the 10% landscaped open space requirement in the R-C District as a public pocket park; and 3) Sculpting building mass in a way to create more relief (i.e. light, air, separation) between development on the subject site and the existing Westview residential buildings to the south. Axonometric views from the northeast for the updated GLUP scenarios as describe above are illustrated in Exhibit 3. -9-
DRAFT Exhibit 3. Northeast Axonometric Views for LRPC Meeting #3 Models In general, the revised High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use model scenarios depicted above were well received by LRPC members at the March 30, 2017 meeting. These updated models informed a fair amount of LRPC discussion about potential preferences and tradeoffs among each of these iterations. Ultimately, discussion of these scenarios helped the LRPC identify a set of parameters it would like to see considered with future development on the subject site, should a GLUP change for the site be considered in the future. More detailed discussion about these parameters are addressed later in this report. Transportation Department of Environmental Services staff analyzed the recommendations of the Master Transportation Plan and other relevant transportation policies as part of this Special GLUP Study. The site is well-situated to transit, being located approximately 900 from the Ballston Metrorail Station with Orange and Silver Line Metrorail service. The site is also 450 from the planned western entrance to the Ballston Metrorail Station, which is programmed for funding in the County s Capital Improvement Program where approximately half the funding is secured. The site is also served by over five (5) Metrobus and seven (7) ART Bus routes with stops in the vicinity. The site is located within several blocks of access points to the Custis Trail and Bluemont Junction Trail. In terms of the surrounding road network, the Master Transportation Plan classifies North Vermont Street, North Utah Street, and 11 th Street North as non-arterial Urban Center Local streets. Farther from the site, Fairfax Drive is classified as a Type A arterial street, and North Glebe Road is classified as a Type B arterial street. Based on counts recorded in 2015, average daily traffic -10-
-11- DRAFT (ADT) for 11 th Street North near the site ranged from 1,616 to 1,961 trips, whereby North Vermont Street abutting the site had an ADT of 1,481 trips. Staff analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the redevelopment of this site. Based on recent counts, the estimated number of automobile total peak hour trips for the existing parking lot and school is 136. For the build out scenario under the existing Low-Medium Residential GLUP designation, an estimated eight (8) automobile peak hour trips and 11 non-automobile peak hour trips were generated. With the requested GLUP of High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use scenario, an estimated 32 automobile peak hour trips and 46 non-automobile peak hour trips were generated. Finally, in a High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use bonus density scenario, an estimated 44 automobile peak hour trips and 63 non-automobile peak hour trips were generated. Long Range Planning Committee Input The Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) of the Planning Commission held three meetings on this study between December 2016 and March 2017. The purpose of the first meeting held on December 20, 2016, was for staff to provide the LRPC with pertinent background information regarding the subject site and associated request, and to solicit LRPC input on whether the proposed scope and process for this Special GLUP Study was appropriate and complete. Seven (7) LRPC members were present for this meeting, and were joined by a representative from the Ballston Virginia Square Civic Association. Following a staff presentation, the LRPC discussion touched upon a number of key points, including: The importance of having information at future meetings that clearly convey the approved, as-built densities for projects on surrounding blocks; Requests for exhibits that show several cross-sections along multiple points in the block to better demonstrate various ways in which transitions could work; and Recognition that there are a variety of ways in which the GLUP and/or zoning could be amended if there is interest in further considering such a GLUP change, and that it would be helpful at future meetings for staff to present a range of options. The main purpose of the second LRPC meeting held on February 22, 2017, was for staff to receive feedback from the LRPC on the building form and massing studies generated for the existing and requested GLUP scenarios. At this meeting, staff presented three (3)-dimensional modeling of various potential redevelopment scenarios and a transportation analysis. The five (5) LRPC members (and one Ballston Virginia Square Civic Association representative) present then discussed initial reactions to the model studies, including comments and request for further study, including: A request that future modeling more carefully examine what might be the most appropriate height and density limits for the site, and to consider whether open space should be incorporated into the site; The general agreement that the model for the High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use scenario with bonus density is simply too much development for the site, partly due to the small size of the site and the inability to distribute the density over a larger area; and Further deliberation about the pros and cons of considering potential changes to the GLUP and/or zoning should the requested GLUP change be advanced beyond the point of advertising public hearings. The third and final LRPC meeting for this study was held on March 30, 2017. In its presentation, staff shared responses that addressed follow-up items from the previous meeting, along with further refined additional 3-D modeling of the scenarios associated with the requested GLUP
-12- DRAFT designation. For preliminary consideration, staff also presented updated alternatives for how the GLUP and/or zoning could be addressed should there be a future interest in considering the requested GLUP change. The six (6) LRPC members (and one Ballston Virginia Square Civic Association representative) present then discussed their reactions to these updated model studies. As a group, the LRPC generally agreed that the requested GLUP change is within the realm of consideration, but suggested several parameters be tied to the proposed land use designation change. The LRPC members suggested the following parameters: Precluding the consideration of bonus density for any site plan fronting the south side of 11 th Street North in this area due to the challenges it would present for achieving the desired transition to the north, especially for smaller sites; The need for any redevelopment on this site to complete the overall taper across the block from Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street North; Separation between future and existing buildings should be a minimum of 20 feet, and even greater if possible; Building heights should be limited to 40 feet for the first 80-100 of block depth from the southern curb of 11 th Street North; Building heights should generally be limited to a maximum of 6 or 7 stories on the southernmost portion of the site; Attention should be given to providing adequate sculpting in building form of new buildings in relation to the adjacent Westview buildings; and Consolidated green space need not be sought for this site so that heights could be kept as low as possible. Related to staff s presentation about potential GLUP and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments, LRPC input generally stated a preference for GLUP amendment scenarios that considered potential changes across a broader area between North Vermont Street and North Randolph Street, rather than solely for the subject site. At this meeting, LRPC members in attendance communicated a preference not to amend the Zoning Ordinance as part of this study as a quick fix, for a variety of reasons. Community Input and Concerns The subject site and surrounding area is located within the Ballston Virginia Square Civic Association (BVSCA) boundaries. As indicated above, a representative of the BVSCA was invited and participated in all three LRPC meetings related to this study. Between LRPC meetings, BVSCA leadership submitted written comments to staff in responses to presentations and discussions from the previous meeting. In summary, these written comments identified several key community concerns, which staff took into consideration in preparing for LRPC meeting #3, including: Concerns about potential adverse impacts in a scenario with a site plan seeking bonus density above 3.24 FAR should the current GLUP change; Concerns that modeling shared at LRPC Meeting #2 did not adequately respect the tapering along 11 th Street North; and Transportation issues and concerns about the overall demands on the network today and in the future need further attention. Beyond the correspondence submitted by BVSCA, staff and LRPC have also received written comments from residents and several homeowners associations. A compendium of correspondence received through May 3, 2017, is provided in Attachment 2. Additionally, a local resident established an on-line petition collecting signatures of those who oppose the requested
DRAFT GLUP amendment. In total, the written comments and on-line petition convey a range of concerns and perspectives about the prospective GLUP change. A summary of recurring comments expressed through this correspondence is presented below, along with brief staff responses that briefly address each of the following concerns: That a property owner or applicant can request that the County Board consider a GLUP amendment for one s property as a special land use exception; Staff Response: As a living document, the GLUP may be amended through one of two processes: 1) As part of a long-range planning process for a designated area, or 2) As a result on an individual request for a specific change. For the latter, staff first reviews the individual request to determine whether the County Board s 2008 Policy for Consideration of GLUP Amendments Unanticipated by Previous Planning Efforts applies. In a case such as this where the policy applies, staff works with the Planning Commission and LRPC to develop a specific process to study the site and/or issues related to the requested GLUP amendment. This process ensures that the requested GLUP change is fully evaluated as to its potential appropriateness before any potential GLUP amendment is made. To be certain, amending the GLUP through either of the wellestablished processes outlined above allows for the County to update and refresh its overall land use and development policy and vision as needed, and is not a special land use exception. That a GLUP change for the site could result in development that would disrupt the existing character and pattern of development in the neighborhood along 11 th Street North in North Ballston; Staff Response: Staff understands the concerns regarding how development on this site could either fit in with or disrupt the overall character of this part of North Ballston along 11 th Street North. To address this concern, staff undertook additional urban design and form studies to address comments shared at LRPC meeting #2 and incorporated the findings of those studies into updated 3-D form and massing models for LRPC meeting #3. As the southern frontage of 11 th Street North in this area has been developed with a mix of multifamily residential buildings and townhomes, these studies indicate that either building typology could maintain and reinforce the neighborhood character, so long as certain urban design parameters are maintained, such as sidewalk and streetscape widths, building heights along the street frontage, and the manner in which buildings taper up/down between the residential neighborhood to the north and mixed-use development area near Metro to the south. That additional traffic generated by more residential units on the subject site inevitably will increase congestion on arterial streets and through nearby intersections in the area; Staff Response: As part of the study, staff prepared a preliminary transportation analysis that, among other things, compared the estimated peak period trip projections under the existing and requested GLUP designations, for comparison with existing trips associated with the current use of the site. The results of this analysis, which was based on actual data on mode-splits surveyed for five residential buildings in the Ballston Station Area. Based on the results depicted in Table 4, all potential GLUP scenarios would have no more than one-third of the automobile peak hour trips generated by the site today, and total peak hour trips for all scenarios would also be less than current conditions. -13-
DRAFT Table 4. Total Peak Period Trip Counts and Projections Scenario Automobile Peak Hour Trips Non-Automobile Peak Hour Trips Total Peak Hour Trips Existing Parking Lot/School 136 0 136 (Counts) Existing GLUP 8 11 19 (Projections) Requested GLUP 32 46 78 (Projections) Requested GLUP w/ Bonus (Projections) 44 63 107 That additional density on the subject site would exacerbate certain transportation challenges facing the neighborhood today, such as stopped delivery trucks, Capital Bikeshare vans, and rideshare vehicles blocking one lane of traffic when stopped for periods of time, as well as additional pressure on limited available on-street parking in the neighborhood; Staff Response: Staff appreciates and understands concerns raised by neighborhood residents regarding the challenges associated with navigating streets where a lane is temporarily block or finding on-street parking where there seems to be limited supply. Rideshare cars are prohibited from using temporary taxi parking, and as a result must find other locations to pick-up or drop-off passengers. Arlington County Police Department does not typically enforce parking regulations on delivery vehicles idling and clearly stopped only on a temporary basis. Regarding on-street parking, residents of any development approved by special exception site plan are ineligible for the residential permit parking program, which should help limit any additional demand generated by the subject site for on-street spaces in the neighborhood. That redevelopment of the subject site would displace existing privately-owned open green space and surface parking lot (on the northern parcel that is outside of the Special GLUP Study area); Staff Response: While the subject site has included large lawn areas and a surface parking lot and playground (across 11 th Street North) since originally developed, these private amenities could be displaced by development under the existing GLUP designation (or even through by-right development). That views that exist today from the units of the adjacent Westview buildings will be blocked; Staff Response: Like many areas throughout the County, the subject site is located in a continuously urbanizing Ballston Metro Station Area and Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor. Since redevelopment occurs site by site, and incrementally over time, it is often the case that residents may enjoy certain views for a period of time until a subsequent development nearby obstructs those views. As is often clarified through long range planning efforts in various parts of the County, such privately held views from residences are not legally protected and subject to obstruction at any time by development that conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and/or legislative actions by the County Board on site plan special exception redevelopment projects. -14-
DRAFT That additional development at this site would only worsen school crowding and enrollment challenges facing Arlington Public Schools (APS); and Staff Response: After submitting a request form for proposed residential development student estimates to APS, staff shared the estimated number of APS students generated on the subject site by GLUP scenario. Countywide, the average single-family attached unit (that would be allowed with the existing GLUP designation) generates 0.27 APS students, whereas the average apartment unit in a market rate elevator building (allowable under the requested GLUP designation) generates 0.05 APS students. When applied to the modeled number of housing units in each GLUP scenario, the estimate for total APS students generated by development on the subject site ranges from three (3) to seven (7), as shown in Table 5. Table 5. Estimated Number of Arlington Public Schools Generated On-Site Scenario K-5 Students 6-8 Students 9-12 Students TOTAL APS Students Housing Units Existing GLUP 1 1 1 3 25 Requested 2 1 2 5 105 GLUP Requested GLUP w/ Bonus 3 1 3 7 144 NOTE: This development project is zoned for the following school districts: Ashlawn Elementary, Swanson Middle, and Washington-Lee High. Source: APS, response to Proposed Residential Development Student Estimates Request Form That potential exposure of nearby residents to more potential disruption, nuisance and physical damage associated with construction. Staff Response: As an urban community with an established history of redevelopment to implement transit-oriented development and smart growth policies, construction activities are inevitable to achieving the County s land use vision and community development goals. To mitigate adverse impacts experienced by neighbors during periods of construction related to development projects, the County includes specific conditions addressing construction as part of the Board s special exception site plan legislative approvals. These situations are not unique to the subject site, and are acknowledged as a necessary temporary condition to evolve and advance the County s vision. Staff Recommendation As a result of its analysis, and with the input of the LRPC, staff finds that the High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use designation requested for the site could be appropriate subject to Note guidance that clarified the preferred vision for the south frontage of 11 th Street North. Furthermore, staff s preliminary recommendation for the County Board to advertise future public hearings on the GLUP amendment extends beyond the subject site to include the group of blocks between North Vermont Street, North Randolph Street, 11 th Street North, and Fairfax Drive. As recommended by staff, approaching a prospective GLUP amendment in this way would more clearly communicate the County s overall vision for this multi-block area of North Ballston and more closely reflect the predominantly built conditions that have been implemented through the County Board s actions to approve special exceptions site plans in this area since 1980. -15-
DRAFT Specifically, staff recommends that the County Board advertise future public hearings to amend the GLUP for North Ballston as follows: Change the pattern on the GLUP (Exhibit 4) between North Vermont Street and North Randolph Street so that the southern two-thirds of the block depth is designated as High- Medium Residential Mixed-Use and the northern one-third remains designated as Low- Medium Residential, and Add GLUP Note 25 (Exhibit 4) to provide additional guidance on the preferred vision for development fronting the south side of 11 th Street North that tapers down to the street and completes the overall block transition from up to eight-story office buildings to the south and three to four-story residential buildings to the north. This guidance would relate well to development that has already been achieved through site plan approvals and to potential development that may be pursued for the subject site through future site plan applications. As described above, if approved concurrent with future site plan and rezoning applications, the GLUP amendment envisioned through staff s preliminary recommendation could translate into an updated GLUP for this area as generally reflected in Exhibit 4. By amending the GLUP in this manner, the expansion of the High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use designation northward would more closely align with the established zoning pattern and development densities and form resulting from legislative actions on site plans and rezonings since the 1980 Ballston Sector Plan. Furthermore, by maintaining an area of Low-Medium Residential along the southern edge of 11 th Street North across these five blocks and adding GLUP Note 25, it reinforces that the height and form of development, regardless of density, must step down to meet 11 th Street North in a manner that establishes an appropriate transition to the primarily townhouse neighborhood north of 11 th Street North, and that uses should remain exclusively residential along 11 th Street North. Exhibit 4. Preliminary GLUP Amendments recommended for future public hearings NOTE 25: Development along the south side of 11 th Street North between North Vermont and Randolph Streets should complete and reinforce the overall transition envisioned by the Ballston Sector Plan from Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street by: Limiting building heights along 11 th Street to 3 to 4 stories for the first 80 of block depth; and Encouraging sufficient separation between buildings on adjacent sites. -16-
DRAFT An alternative approach discussed at some length during the LRPC process involved a potential Zoning Ordinance amendment that would negate the unintended consequence resulting from the amendments approved in February 2013 as part of implementation actions associated with the North Quincy Street Plan Addendum. In practice, one way to potentially achieve the amount of density and rezoning requested by the applicant pursuant to the original Ballston Sector Plan would be to re-insert the previously removed phrase or compatible GLUP designations into the R-C District purpose statement. This change would thereby allow the development proposal envisioned for this site to be considered without a GLUP change, similar to previous site plans in this area, most notably, Site Plan #187 (Summer Walk), approved by the County Board in 1981. However, staff recommends that a GLUP amendment would clarify and more closely reflect the pattern of development achieved through site plan and rezoning approvals over the past 37 years, and as such would be more appropriate than re-inserting ambiguous language about the potential GLUP designations needed for the County Board to consider a rezoning to the R-C District. In terms of transportation impacts, this site could accommodate additional density. It is located approximately 900 from the Ballston Metrorail Station with its Orange and Silver Line service, and is approximately 450 from the station s planned west entrance. The site is within several blocks of numerous Metrobus and ART bus routes. The site is also located near several major arterials and Interstate 66, and offers convenient access to shops, restaurants and other amenities existing and planned in Ballston. In addition to nearby access to the Custis Trail and Bluemont Junction Trail, the site is located within an area that is accessible via bicycle lanes and other facilities. Therefore, it has adequate transit, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for the higher density development envisioned by the Ballston Sector Plan. A mix of High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use and Low-Medium Residential development in this location would be consistent with and in keeping with good planning principles that encourage smart growth and sustainable, walkable development close to Metrorail corridors. With respect to potential implications of a GLUP change for other sites, this subject site is the last remaining site fronting the south side of 11 th Street North in the Ballston Station Area to not yet be redeveloped. Furthermore, there is effectively only one remaining site in this multi-block area of North Ballston partly designated Low-Medium Residential that has not yet redeveloped. However, as that prospective site is partly designated High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use today, an applicant could pursue a rezoning and site plan application for that site without any further change to the GLUP. Therefore, at this time, staff does not anticipate that the envisioned potential GLUP change would have any meaningful implications for other sites. Next Steps Following the May 2017 Planning Commission meeting at which it is expected that the Commission will take action on this memorandum, staff will forward any additional guidance resulting from the Commission s meeting along with a copy of the Planning Commission letter regarding this subject to the County Board for its future consideration. Staff anticipates issuing a staff report for the June 2017 County Board meeting that outlines the proposed GLUP amendment request, with the findings of this memorandum and staff s recommendation regarding advertisement of GLUP amendments as described in this memorandum. Authorizing the advertisement of an amendment would not imply that the County Board supports the proposed change, but that it is within the realm of consideration. If advertised, staff would expect that final -17-
DRAFT consideration of the GLUP amendment would occur at a time concurrent with the County Board s consideration of the rezoning and site plan application for the subject site. CONCLUSION: Based on staff s analysis of the relevant planning documents and adopted County policies and the feedback staff received from the LRPC during the course of this Special GLUP Study, staff recommends that High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use is an appropriate designation for a portion of this site (subject to an appropriate site plan), that could be as part of recommended GLUP amendments for a multi-block area in North Ballston between Fairfax Drive and 11 th Street North. -18-
ATTACHMENT 1 11 th Street North and North Vermont Street Special General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Study Scoping Document (Final 3/30/2017) BACKGROUND Applications In August 2016, NVR, Incorporated submitted to the Arlington County Zoning Office a formal application for a Special General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Study for the property located at 1031 N. Vermont Street in conjunction with a future special exception site plan to be filed at a later date. The subject property is located along the south side of 11 th Street North, between North Vermont and N. Utah Streets, located in a portion of the Ballston Metro Station Area located north of Fairfax Drive. The subject property for the GLUP amendment request is currently improved with a church developed as of right in 1976. The subject area of this application is labeled as "Study Site" in Map 1. Map 1. Study Site of GLUP Amendment Application Study Site -19-
DRAFT Table 1. GLUP Amendment Application Subject Site Characteristics NVR, Incorporated Site Property Address 1031 North Vermont Street RPC #s 14-017-005, -006, -018, Site Area 35,669 square feet (0.82 acres) Current GLUP "Low-Medium" Residential (16-36 units per acre) Designation Proposed GLUP "High-Medium" Residential Mixed-Use (Up to 3.24 F.A.R., including associated Designation office and retail activities) Current Zoning "R-5" One-Family and Restricted Two-Family Dwelling District Proposed Zoning "R-C" Multiple-family Dwelling and Commercial District Conceptual A multi-family residential project (spanning multiple properties across 11 th Development Street North) comprising a 7 story tower on the southernmost portion of the Program site, with four story townhomes flanking each side of 11 th Street. STUDY OBJECTIVE The main objective of the study is to determine whether the County Board should consider advertising amendments to the GLUP for this property. To address this, staff will analyze the subject sites in the context of the surrounding area and obtain feedback from the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission (LRPC) on the appropriateness of the requested GLUP designations, or possibly other GLUP designations that may be appropriate for these sites. With this input, staff will develop a recommendation to the County Board regarding the potential advertisement of a GLUP amendment for this area. STUDY AREA For this study, potential GLUP designations will be analyzed for the property that is the subject of the proposed GLUP amendment as requested by NVR, Inc. The surrounding area will be considered for contextual purposes to help inform recommendations for the study area proper. SCOPE OF STUDY The 1980 Ballston Sector Plan provides general guidance pertaining to the appropriate GLUP designations between Fairfax Drive and 11 th Street north without specifically indicating a recommended location for the transition between High-Medium Residential Mixed-Use and Low-Medium Residential. Based on GLUP designations established in the 1980s consistent with the sector plan, the subject GLUP request varies from what has been approved to date. Consistent with the Board s resolution adopted in 2008, staff will lead a special study to evaluate the request, working with the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) of the Planning Commission to do so. The primary purpose of the study is to determine whether the County Board should consider advertising the requested GLUP designation, or other GLUP designations that may be appropriate. The scope of work for this study will address the following, at a minimum: History of GLUP and Zoning designations for the study area and its surroundings; Existing GLUP and Zoning designations for the study area and its surroundings; -20-
DRAFT Existing environmental and topographical features, land uses, densities, building heights for study site and its surroundings; Recommendations of established County plans and policies, as applicable; Allowable uses, densities, building heights, etc. for requested GLUP designation and other GLUP designations to be studied; 3-D computer modeling of the study site s existing conditions, and various scenarios reflecting requested GLUP designation and other GLUP designations to be studied; and Preliminary transportation analysis for the study site and its surroundings. Potential 3-D Modeling Scenarios In addition to existing conditions, staff will generate 3-D computer modeling for several potential development scenarios for the study site reflecting a range of GLUP designations. The GLUP designations that could be modeled, along with maximum planned densities and building heights, are listed in Table 2 below. Additionally, Table 2 notes the basis or rationale for including each of these GLUP designations in the modeling scenarios. The modeling scenarios could include scenarios with one GLUP designation across the entire study area, as well as scenarios that reflect several different GLUP designations across the study area. The 3-D modeling will generally consider development consistent with GLUP/zoning maximums, provision of appropriate amounts of parking spaces, and development forms that are compatible with surrounding development and reflect sound urban design principles. In some cases, the modeling may achieve planned maximum densities for GLUP designations in building heights lower than the maximums permitted by associated zoning districts. Table 2. GLUP Designation Development Scenarios to be Modeled GLUP Designation Scenario Typical Zoning District Density (planned maximum per GLUP/Zoning) Building Height "Low- Medium" Residential "High- Medium" Residential Mixed-Use Office Res. Hotel (maximum per Zoning) Basis for Study RA8-18 --- 36 u/ac --- 40 feet Existing GLUP R-C Up to 39% of total project density Up to 3.24 FAR (if other uses included, total project limited to Up to 39% of total project density designation 95 feet Requested 3.24) NOTE: Modeling of form and massing studies may include base scenarios, in addition to scenarios that reflect a certain level of bonus density that might be achieved with the project. GLUP designation LRPC REVIEW PROCESS County Planning and Urban Design staff will lead this process, which will include LRPC meetings and members as the main forum for conversation, and may include a representative from the affected civic association. Other County staff will be involved as needed, with representation including, at a minimum, Community Planning, Housing and Development (CPHD) and Department of Environmental Services (DES). -21-
DRAFT Barring any unforeseen issues, this study is anticipated to entail approximately three LRPC meetings over the course of four to six months, beginning in late 2016. Notification of the LRPC meetings will be provided on the County website, and staff will work with local civic association leadership to request they electronically distribute information to their member listservs. While the specific agenda for each meeting will be established jointly between staff and the chair of the LRPC (or assignee for this study), the main subject and objectives of each meeting could reflect the following approach as outlined in Table 3. Table 3. Tentative LRPC Meeting Agenda Items (Subject to Change, all meetings may not be necessary) Meeting Potential Topics Meeting #1 Overview of the Special GLUP Study process; (Nov.-Dec. 2016) Background information on the site; Preliminary site analysis; Discussion and refinement of process and scope (study boundary, modeling scenarios, etc.) Meeting #2 Presentation of initial 3-D modeling; LRPC discussion and direction (Jan.-Feb. 2017) Meeting #3 (Mar.-Apr. 2017) Presentation of final modeling scenario (if applicable); LRPC discussion and input STUDY OUTPUT The product of this study will be a Special GLUP Study document, produced by staff and informed by LRPC input, that captures the planning highlights of the analysis and process discussions. This Special GLUP Study document will also serve as a foundation for any future staff reports and associated recommendations regarding which GLUP category or categories may be most appropriate for the sites. Should any site plan applications be filed subsequently for this site, the County Board will be presented with a staff report, informed by and referencing the Special GLUP Study document, recommending or not recommending advertisement of the requested GLUP amendments. A potential product for this study could include a study document that primarily consists of the following elements (subject to change): Narrative text providing introduction, background, and other key features of the study. Discussion of GLUP scenarios explored and any key planning principles that may have emerged from LRPC discussion on these scenarios; and Summary of findings, with recommendations on what GLUP Designations could be appropriate within the study area. -22-
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 2 Written Correspondence Received by Staff and the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission On The 11 th Street and Vermont Street Special General Land Use Plan Study (Received Through May 3, 2017) -23-
Anthony Fusarelli From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Dana Gerk <danagerk@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:11 AM Anthony Fusarelli; Commissioner Elizabeth Gearin; Commissioner Erik Gutshall; JM Schroll; Commissioner Jane Siegel (janesiegel@icloud.com); Commissioner Kathleen McSweeney; Nancy Iacomini; Commissioner Stephen Hughes; Commissioner Stephen Sockwell 11th St N and N Vermont Street Email Response Needed Dear LRPC Commissioners and Members, Thank you very much for your efforts to carefully review and analyze the Special General Land Use Plan (GLUP) study and review of the builders proposed plans, as well as the community feedback regarding this project. I would like to present and reiterate some of my thoughts to you as I know as fellow residents of Arlington we share a common goal in creating the best planning for the future of Arlington residents. The builder purchased the property of a specific zoning with the intent to push to request an exception to that law without regard to the detriment of the existing properties and established residents. The residents of the community "love" Arlington. Arlington residents pay more in taxes, support local businesses because of the atmosphere and life style than other counties. Several HOA's in the area have joined Westview residents because they want to maintain this particular piece of property within the zoning code. Speaking as a resident of Westview, I can tell you that Westview is a unique building. If you would take the opportunity to visit the property, you will notice that Westview buildings are unique as they are built with either open balconies on the lower levels and all glass sunrooms on the outside of the buildings. One of the biggest selling points of this property is that feature which will now will be adversely affected by the "exception" requested by the builder. Please understand that we are not opposed to progress, merely opposed to profit for a builder at the expense of the neighboring community. That being said, approximately 500 residents have openly voiced their opposition on a petition with many attending the planning meetings. Community residents have even posted signs in opposition to the proposed change in zoning. Added to that, research has shown that the builder already has lawsuits pending with the EPA and DOJ. This fact does not reassure the residents that promises will be kept or compliance of the laws will be maintained. Studies presented at the meeting on traffic and transportation are from 2015. Due to current changes in funding and ridership, the study does not take into consideration the current swing to the use of Uber, Lyft, and ride sharing which has increased traffic flow and has diminished metro ridership. Additionally, at the former Carpool site, the plan has been released for a building with 330 units and 264 parking spots resulting in 66 units without parking. As we addressed in earlier meetings, our area is already a nightmare in terms of traffic and parking. This building has already been approved by the county, so, can we really justify granting THIS (11th St N and N Vermont St) special use exception to this builder to further add to the already existent congestion in this area? https://www.arlnow.com/2017/04/18/a-look-at-the-building-replacing-carpool/ Please consider the fact that this builder purchased the property with a specific zoning code, they are asking for an exception to break that code and they will significantly harm the residents of the area with this proposed structure. We are asking that they build a structure within the code that can be a welcomed addition to our existing community. Thank you. Kind Regards, Dana Gerk 1
Anthony Fusarelli From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Barbara Gerk <barbaragerk@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:11 PM Anthony Fusarelli; Commissioner Elizabeth Gearin; Commissioner Erik Gutshall; JM Schroll; Commissioner Jane Siegel (janesiegel@icloud.com); Commissioner Kathleen McSweeney; Nancy Iacomini; Commissioner Stephen Hughes; Commissioner Stephen Sockwell Fwd: 11th Street N and N Vermont GLUP special use exception request Email Response Needed Dear LRPC Commissioners and Members, My husband and I have attended several of the meetings regarding the GLUP study and review of the plans proposed by the builder. We thank you for taking the time to review these plans in the interest of Arlington and its residents. We love Arlington, have family there, and plan to purchase a residence in the area after our current home sale. We all believe in progress, however, an individual builder should not prosper at the expense of the community and the neighboring residents. Westview is an interesting property and the entire building consists of either open balconies or glass sunrooms which will be adversely affected by a towering structure built in close proximity. I would venture to say the very reason owners purchased these units was the sunrooms and the open surrounding view. Having a building at one point 20 feet from an open sunroom is invasive. That being said, it is clear that the neighboring HOA's, residents signing petitions and posting signs in their yards shows the discontent for this particular plan. Parking and traffic are always an issue in this area. Additionally after research of the area, there is a proposed plan for a building (current site Car Pool) in the area with 330 units and only 264 parking spots. Those are just residents then add to that family and friends visiting and the parking issue is out of control. The Arlington area is abounding with lovely spots to eat and spend money, however as in many communities, if there is no parking, people will go elsewhere where they can easily park and enjoy the restaurants and shops. The builder purchased the property with a specific zoning code and now he is requesting to build a structure several stories higher. He should have purchased a different property in a different area. Residents appear to be very accepting of the structure which complies with the current zoning code. Add to that the fact that the builder has several lawsuits pending with the EPA and DOJ, residents are not confident that compliance to standards and laws will be maintained during construction. Again, thank you for taking the time to review over and over these proposed plans. We hope that you will allow the builder to build within the current zoning regulations as we are confident that this plan would be in the best interest of the entire community and its residents. Kind Regards, Barbara Gerk 1
March 28, 2017 Anthony Fusarelli, Jr. AICP Principal Planner Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Anthony: The Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association (BVSCA) met again with members and residents living closest to the 11th and Vermont Streets Special GLUP Study. The following are our comments in response to the presentation you made at the LRPC meeting of February 22, 2017. In view of the modeling presented on February 22nd, BVSCA is very concerned residents living closest to this site have little or no protection from potential bonus density which can be pursued by developers should the current GLUP change. We feel very strongly this potential bonus density constitutes too great a departure from the character this area has enjoyed under the current GLUP pattern in place for the past 36+ years. BVSCA further believes it is unfair to residents there to leave their neighborhood wide open to such dramatic after-the-fact changes to their current way of life should the GLUP be changed. Base modeling presented on February 22nd does not respect tapering along 11th Street which BVSCA strongly feels should be maintained Transportation issues and concerns remain unanswered A petition, started by concerned neighbors (not BVSCA), opposing any land use changes here has already been signed by nearly 300 and growing Thank you again for very carefully considering these concerns. We look forward to continuing to work positively and constructively with you and our residents throughout this process. Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Nia R. Bagley President
Anthony Fusarelli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dana Hofferber <dlobelle@gmail.com> Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:08 PM Anthony Fusarelli LRPC comments - 11th and Vermont Special GLUP study Comments for LRPC meeting March 30, 2017.docx Dear Mr. Fusarelli: Attached please find commentary regarding the 11th and Vermont Special GLUP study. If you would forward these comments to the LRPC ahead of the March 30 meeting, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Dana Hofferber 1
Anthony Fusarelli, Jr., AICP Principal Planner Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 March 21, 2017 Dear Mr. Fusarelli: Thank you for your time and interest in hearing public comments regarding the Special GLUP Study for the property located at 11 th and Vermont Streets. I am writing to express my strong support for maintaining the current GLUP designation. In keeping with the theme of your February 22, 2017, presentation to the LRPC, I would like to highlight the pros and cons of this option, as follows: Pros o Consistent with the GLUP designation that has been in place for many decades. o Consistent with the overall pattern of development on neighboring blocks, in that it reflects a step-down in density as one moves toward 11 th Street from Fairfax Drive. See the modeling on slides 33, 36, 39 & 42 of the February 22 presentation. o Consistent with the goals set forth in the Ballston Sector Plan provision (slide 11 of Feb. 22 presentation) that states: The zoning line separating the[] [high-medium and low-medium] densities should be based on the merits of subsequent requests for rezoning and site plan approval. The high medium area along Fairfax Drive should be planned and buildings situated to achieve a transition into the lower density areas immediately to the north. The parcel at issue in this GLUP study has no frontage on Fairfax Drive. The Fairfax Drive portion of the affected block has already been developed with high-medium density, consistent with the Sector Plan. Page 1 of 3
The existing development, consistent with the Sector Plan, has established a transition toward low-medium density by tapering down to a height of 50 feet. Maintaining the low-medium designation on the parcel at issue would permit development up to 40 feet tall, thereby completing the intended transition into the lower density areas immediately to the north. o Reflects the goal, as set forth in the GLUP, that the northern portion of the block from Fairfax Drive to 11 th Street (AKA the south side of 11 th Street) remain low-medium residential in order to reinforce the preservation planned for the area immediately north of 11 th Street. (See slide 11 of Feb. 22 presentation). o Allows development consistent with the direction set forth in the GLUP that townhouse infill would be appropriate for the entire area on the south side of 11 th Street. (See slide 11 of Feb. 22 presentation). o Maintains the neighborhood feel that is highly valued by the existing neighbors, as shown by their petition bearing more than 300 signatures. o Does not necessitate any GLUP notes or zoning changes that would further complicate what was intended to be a simple plan. Cons o (From the developer s perspective) Limits the available zoning options in favor of consistency with the explicit goals of the GLUP and the Sector Plan. In addition, I would like to highlight three cons to the proposals you set forth on February 22: (1) Contrary to your statements, each of the options presented would affect the long-established GLUP pattern for the area. a. While some of your proposals maintain the color pattern on the map, each of them would undermine the specific guidance provided regarding the type of infill that is appropriate for this portion of the block. Page 2 of 3
i. The GLUP speaks of densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre on the south side of 11 th Street, but your proposals would allow these parcels to be zoned R-C and developed at much higher density, so long as the height immediately abutting 11 th Street did not exceed 40 feet. ii. This type of provision invites gamesmanship by developers and does not reflect the long-established pattern set forth in the GLUP. (2) Each of your proposals would have the effect of allowing the entire parcel at issue to be rezoned R-C, making the entire parcel available for development at high-medium density despite any color pattern to the contrary. (3) Designating any portion of the parcel at issue for even the BASE level high-medium density would permit heights up to 82 feet, creating a gulley rather than a taper as one transitions toward 11 th Street from the neighboring buildings reaching only 80 and 50 feet, respectively. (See slides 34, 40 & 43 of the Feb. 22 presentation). I hope that this analysis will be helpful to the LRPC as it continues to formulate its recommendation, and I ask that you please include it in their materials for the March 30, 2017, meeting. Sincerely, Dana Hofferber 1024 N. Utah Street #224 Arlington, VA 22201 dlobelle@gmail.com Page 3 of 3
Mr. Erik Gutshall Chairman Arlington County Planning Commission Arlington, Virginia March 25, 2017 Dear Mr. Chair, Madam Vice-Chair, and Commissioners- I want to begin by thanking you for your service to Arlington. As fellow residents we certainly appreciate your time and effort for the benefit of the community. I write today to share with you in written form my views on the Special General Land Use Plan (GLUP) study and more generally on the 11 th and Vermont Street property. I would also share based upon conversations over the last few weeks in the community, that my views are aligned with many of those in my Arlington Forest neighborhood as well as with many others in the Ballston-Virginia Square area, and particularly those immediately surrounding the aforementioned property. Generally speaking, while Arlingtonians enjoy living in one of the greater communities in the country, Arlington has its challenges like any locale. As you probably experience as well, many if not most of Arlington s current challenges stem from rapid growth, overcrowding, and insufficient resources to handle density, congestion, and development. More specifically, we are now reaching somewhat dire condition in areas such as school capacity, traffic congestion, and density. As someone who has lived in the Virginia Square Ballston area continuously area since 2002, I can personally attest, these problems are not longstanding issues but have arisen and intensified in the last five years if not even more recently than that. Just a few months ago there was a contentious school boundary adjustment which forced several hundred students to be relocated in emergency fashion from the current Washington-Lee High School(W-L), even though their homes sat square in the W-L district that their parents had purposely purchased homes in so they could attend that school. This situation is not unique to W-L, virtually every elementary and middle school is at or well over capacity with the situation getting worse. For the first time ever, this year, the School Board has indicated it must receive more than the annual tradition of 48% of the County budget due to the burden of overcapacity and the overburden on resources, just to not be overrun by the exploding student body. Beyond our schools, the roads in Arlington are log jammed. When I first moved here I could quickly drive from Ballston to Clarendon to Rosslyn, now this is a bumper to bumper affair much of the day, with the intersections of Glebe and Fairfax and Glebe and Washington now being among the most congested in the area. Given the current situation in Arlington, the time is significantly overdue for the County Board, but also the just as critically, other administrative bodies such as the Planning Commission, to take stock of its analysis for new development proposals for projects like the 11 th and Vermont plot. 1
As I stated at the Planning Commission meeting in in February, what continue to be lacking in the entirety of the analysis and posture of this evaluation is consideration if/how will this benefit Arlingtonians and Arlington in general? I am also concerned the County Staff analysis and presentation seems to be presented from a lens of predispose support for a change to the GULP and approval for some variation of the proposal, when in fact the proposal has significant community opposition and drawbacks and no stated benefit beyond developer profit as of yet. Specifically, the County Staff presented Pros and Cons for several approaches at the February meeting. However, these pros and cons are not pros and cons relating to the expected effects on Arlington and its residents but rather are pros and cons from a bookkeeping or administration perspective instead. Pursuant to the Arlington Way, the first threshold in considering whether or not to make a recommendation, positive or negative, is to consider the expected positive and negatives on Arlingtonians and the community interest. In considering whether the Planning Commission should recommend a change that permits more people, more cars, more use of resources in an already dense and highly congested area, consideration should be given as to whether there are strong Arlingtonian interests that weigh in favor of making a change to the GLUP before such a recommendation that disrupts longstanding zoning constructs could even be considered. Finally, I respectfully provide the following bulleted further for your consideration as you consider this issue. In view of the following, the balance of interests in Arlington seems to weigh heavily in favor of recommending NO CHANGES to the GLUP and maintaining the current zoning construct. Community Squarely Against A Change That Would Enable Larger Scale Development Due To Variety of Detrimental Effects: It is clear immediately adjacent neighbors as well as those in the general Ballston and Arlington community feel a change in the GULP is detrimental to the community for a variety of reasons. Below is a link to a petition signed by approximately 350 Arlingtonians and counting, opposing making changes to the GLUP that would allow development of this site beyond its current zoning with further details of the specific concerns of the signers. I respectfully ask you review the arguments a large number of Arlingtonians have already signed their names to. https://www.change.org/p/arlington-zoning-committee-arlington-county-deny-zoningexception-allowing-high-rise-on-11th-st-n-n-vermont-street Removing Second Requirement of the GLUP, Concept Raised in Brainstorming By Commission at February meeting, Worst Possible Outcome For Community: While I appreciate the Commissions creative thinking and suggestion that many concerns raised by residents relate to the specific development concerns of 11 th and Vermont property, removal of the second requirement in the GLUP specifically put in to create a further gatekeeper function, would be the worst outcome for Arlington residents. Further, the comments made by residents are in fact fully connected to the considered actions on the GLUP as it is only through a change to the GLUP whether by note or amendment that increased and enhanced development would be enabled, the very thing residents are opposed to. As such, the concerns by residents tied to this specific property in question are part and parcel with an analysis of potential changes to the GLUP. 2
Traffic Study Is Not Focused On Actual Impact: A change to the GLUP and enablement of significantly more units to this parcel and area will without doubt add traffic and congestion. Many more people equals many more cars. If that weren t the case, Arlington would not require underground parking in these buildings. The purported traffic analysis thus far seems to focus on only a few side streets adjacent to the building but any car that leaves the parcel in question must, no matter where in the world they go, enter Glebe, Fairfax or Washington, three of the most travelled and congested streets. There is no other way to leave the parcel due to the street layouts. As such, the traffic analysis identified by the County really does not identify the actual impact and again seems predisposed to focus on the wrong issues to suggest numbers as being smaller or to provide a less detrimental effect. Current Zoning and Development On The Block Of Site Has Already Taken Into Account Cascading Downward Transition to the North : The Westview Building has already incorporated the downward transition envisioned and set forth by the GLUP provisions. Permitting increased density and height, even if only the base level increase proposed, would wholly destroy this transition and result in and up-down-up-down skyline. The northern most portions of the Westview complex has a variety of much lower structures at the northern most portions and any change to the GLUP allows the developer to build up higher and destroy the existing transition of the Westview building. This smooth transition was a strong consideration of county planners and a reason why whole blocks were done at once in the area. Here, allowing the developer to ignore the transition trends and existing height of lower most portions of Westview to create an equally high or taller structure north of any portion of Westview wholly destroys the zoning theme and drivers in the area and fosters a race to the bottom or more accurately here a race to the top for any future development. Thank you for your time and consideration and I encourage you to consider closely the important gatekeeping function of the zoning constructs, the GLUP, and the planning commission all serve in ensuring Arlington remains a desirable place to live and work. Sincerely, David Gerk Arlington Forest 3
Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association Arlington County Long Range Planning Committee 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 March 28, 2017 VIA EMAIL: afusarelli@arlingtonva.us RE: 11 th and Vermont Streets Special General Land Use Plan Study Dear Mr. Fusarelli and Members of the Long Range Planning Committee: We are writing on behalf of the Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association (VBHA) to express additional concerns with the proposed change to the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) to facilitate development at 11 th and Vermont Streets. VBHA is comprised of 14 townhomes on the corner of 11 th and Utah Streets, immediately across the street from the proposed development. Pictures of VBHA figure prominently in the Ballston Virginia Square Neighborhood Conservation Program (1984). This letter addresses concerns raised at the Long Term Planning Commision meeting held February 22, 2017. 1. General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Amendment VBHA supports the current use expressed in the GLUP, and opposes any change to the GLUP. The GLUP requires tapering down to surrouding residential areas to limit the impacts of highdensity development. Based on the modeling presented at the February 22 nd meeting, neither the base nor the bonus scenarios achieve this goal. VBHA s position remains that the appropriate modeling for the taper should go from the lowest floor of the building on Fairfax Drive. It is simply impossible to approve the proposed change and retain the feel of the neighborhood and the values of the condominiums and homes in the area that the tapering was intended to protect. Moreover, once the modeling is revised to include the elements that the Ballston Sector Plan requires for effective transition including plant materials, balconies, open space, walls and fencing, the modeling will simply not support a change for density any greater than the current R15-30T district. = 2. Zoning Ordinance Revision VBHA shares the position expressed at the meeting that if the Committee removes the requirement in Section 7.3.1(A)(2) for the R-C District, which states it is designated as a highmedium residential mixed-use area, this would unnecessarily remove a barrier that protects area residents from inappropriate development. We strongly oppose this approach, which would effectively give the developer a green light to move forward to the site plan review. 1
First, this approach effectively punishes Arlington residents for engaging in this process. It was understood by some in attendance that justification for sending this to the site plan process was that the Committee felt many of the concerns expressed by local residents could be better addressed at that stage. Many of us are engaging in this process for the first time, and voice concerns not realizing at what stage those concerns are likely to be addressed. But the fact that citizens are engaged in the process and may bring up issues that are appropriate for the site plan should not justify ignoring those concerns that should be addressed at this stage namely the transportation and tapering issues. The transportation and tapering issues raised are sufficient reasons in and of themselves even without other issues to deny the proposed GLUP change. To justify sending this forward due to the breadth of concerns raised is simply punishing local residents for expressing legitimate issues. VBHA encourages the Committee to look carefully at the revised modeling. There is no way to approve a GLUP change taking into consideration the tapering and other elements of an effective transition, and without that there is no basis for the developer to proceed to a site plan for an R-C District. If the modeling only supports a site plan under the R15-30T then in fairness to the residents who have relied upon the GLUP and the zoning restrictions in purchasing their properties and sustaining the quality of life and feel in the neigbhorhood, the developer should only be able to proceed to a site plan under that designation. Moreover, at the meeting Staff indicated that there were very few sites zoned as R-C. Perhaps instead of allowing the developer to continue down that path, it should be highlighted that this is an inappropriate designation for most spaces as evidenced by the limited number of designations at this point in time. No justification has been provided for the land use change at this location. 3. Transportation As multiple residents noted during the meeting, the slides describing transportation are inaccurate for a number of reasons. Please take the following into consideration: One lane on 11 th Street is clogged with FedEx and UPS trucks between Utah and Vernon Streets multiple times each day. These trucks park and then deliver the majority of packages to the condominimum buildings on Utah Street, who do not provide parking for them, as well as townhouses in the area. Attached are photos from an accident that occurred on March 3, 2017, which shut down the road to through traffic for hours. One lane between Utah and Taylor Streets is also clogged multiple times per day, including in the evening hours, for the BikeShare vans to service the 11 th and Utah Street Bike Share station. The dead end of Utah on 11 th Street frequently serves as a pick up point for Uber drivers. It is not unusual for drivers to pull in front of what is now the church parsonage and wait for individuals to walk down from Utah Street (which is a one way street) or from the metro to meet their drivers. (See pictures attached). None of the houses or townhouses along 11 th Street have parking on 11 th Street. For many of these properties, including some VBHA homes, the only entrance is from 11 th Street. As a result, residents frequently park their cars in violation of no parking 2
regulations for periods of time to, for example, carry in heavy items or to pick up individuals who are physically impaired. As mentioned during the meeting, comparing the number of school drop offs to the car traffic associated with the proposed development is misleading because the school traffic occurs on a regular schedule during school days only. Residents have learned to avoid that area during those times, and the school has worked with their parents to avoid blocking traffic. There is no such limitation if you replace the school rides with new residents. Also as mentioned in the meeting, exiting the neighborhood via Vermont Street to Fairfax Drive has become difficult. There is no light or marking on Fairfax Drive that allows the Vermont Street traffic to enter. Many cars going south on Vermont need to immediately turn left onto Glebe after turning right onto Fairfax, which requires crossing three lanes of traffic. This is complicated by the number of cars on Vermont Street blocking traffic flow for the businesses on the corner. In sum, this area is already strained with the current number of local residents. There are really only two close exits from the neighborhood for residents in this area East onto Glebe Road, and South onto Vermont (described in the prior bullet). 11 th Street East of Vermont is difficult to maneuver because the light stops traffic and there is essentially a three way coordination effort with the exit from the underground parking garage from the South and Vernon Street traffic coming from the North. It also is already strained with the current residents. Street parking is difficult to find in this area, even as currently zoned. The church parking on the North side of 11 th Street has served as overflow for visiting friends, second cars and the CrossFit across Glebe Road. While that may be developed as a matter of right, it leaves a negative net sum game for the visitors or vendors to the proposed development and current residents. Please do not move forward assuming that because parking is prohibited and it is a two lane road that it can absorb additional cars from newly constructed residential properties. Additional enforcement efforts ticketing cars for parking or speeding violations will not improve the community. Rather, VBHA encourages you to limit the growth of local residents relying upon this road. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association Board of Directors Kristine Kassekert Tyler Wilson Ryan Powell Attachments: Photos 3
Impeded Traffic Flow The pictures on the left show 11th Street between Vermont and Vernon Streets. A car turning left from Vernon Street appears to have hit a UPS truck parked on 11th Street. Given how narrow the street is, there is not enough space to allow traffic to pass. As a result, the street was shut down on March 3rd with traffic diverted on side streets to Fairfax Blvd or Washington Blvd. Local residents are concerned that adding density in this area will result in more accidents and more street closures. 4
PARKED COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Note the number of delivery trucks parked on 11 th Street during the day. The first two pictures were taken on February 24 th at 10:23 a.m. and 5:10 p.m. The FedEx truck delivery is from February 23 rd at 2:51 p.m. Each of FedEx and UPS have multiple daily delivery stops. In the background also note the bike share, which is maintained by multiple vans parked in this area, particularly in the evening. While current traffic patterns have adapted, the area cannot support significant additional car traffic on 11 th Street. The delivery trucks do not have another place to park to deliver to current residents. 5
BELOW: Uber drivers (see the sticker on the back passenger side door) frequently wait for and pick up individuals at the corner of 11 th and Utah Streets. There has been a marked increase in the number of Uber drivers since Metro began its safety inspections. Note the width of the street even a compact vehicle ties up half of the street. 6
Anthony Fusarelli From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony Fusarelli Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:23 PM Anthony Fusarelli FW: Letter From Arlington Resident Re 11th St N and N Vermont ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dana Gerk <danagerk@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:14 PM Subject: Letter From Arlington Resident Re 11th St N and N Vermont To: erik@gutshall.net, janesiegel@icloud.com, Stephen.T.hughes@gmail.com, Berternie.iacomini56@gmail.com, jatel@me.com, mcsweeneykathleen@gmail.com, jmschroll@gmail.com, sock3@verizon.net Dear Mr. Chair, Madam Vice-Chair, and Commissioners, Thank you very much for your careful review and analysis of the Special General Land Use Plan (GLUP) study, and review of the community comments and feedback regarding this subject. As fellow residents of Arlington, it is our common goal to do what is best for our town and our community as a whole. As you are aware, a petition was created and has rapidly gained support from the community. The petition highlights some of the key reasons residents are opposed to the granting of the special use exception to change the zoning to high-medium residential. There are over 402 signatures and counting. Please find link to petition below. https://www.change.org/p/arlington-zoning-committee-arlington-county-deny-zoning-exceptionallowing-high-rise-on-11th-st-n-n-vermont-street As indicated in the petition, we are opposed to the granting of the special land use exception as it is not what is best for the town or the community as a whole. One of the most critical questions posed at the last LRPC meeting was, what added value or benefit would this building and the deviation from existing zoning bring to our Arlington community? One of the key reasons we believe the exception should not be granted is the fact that this building deviates from the existing tapering along 11th Street N and N Vermont Street. The WestView has two key areas or wings of the building that already taper down in height as they move toward 11th Street N and N Vermont Street. The approval of the special use exception will enable the builder to 1
completely disrupt the consistent tapering of the block creating a "gully" between the buildings. This will simply give our beautiful neighborhood a choppy, up-and down view that is inconsistent with the original plan for Arlington. The builder, NVR, originally described the project as a relatively modest in-fill development that s in keeping with the urban townhouse neighborhood that surrounds it. After seeing the latest drawings at the most recent meeting which included the "Bonus" option, it is evident that the initial description has simply ballooned into something that is not in the vicinity of "modest," nor would it blend in with the neighborhood it surrounds. Additionally, according to the most recent 10-Q (Quarterly public filing) submitted by NVR, they are currently under an ongoing investigation by the EPA and the DOJ regarding a storm water discharge practice in connection with a homebuilding project. (Please see link to 10-Q below, along with the Commitments and Contingencies area of the filing copied and pasted.) Arlington prides itself on being an environmentally friendly town. The question is, how can we trust a company that has already disclosed they are being investigated over an alleged violation to the Clean Water Act? 13. Commitments and Contingencies In June 2010, the Company received a Request for Information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The request sought information about storm water discharge practices in connection with homebuilding projects completed or underway by the Company in New York and New Jersey. The Company cooperated with this request, and provided information to the EPA. The Company was subsequently informed by the United States Department of Justice ( DOJ ) that the EPA forwarded the information on the matter to the DOJ, and the DOJ requested that the Company meet with the government to discuss the status of the case. Meetings took place in January 2012, August 2012 and November 2014 with representatives from both the EPA and DOJ. The Company has continued discussions with the EPA and DOJ and is presently engaged in settlement discussions with them. Any settlement is expected to include injunctive relief and payment of a civil penalty. Although there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached, the Company has recorded a liability associated with an estimated civil penalty amount on the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of both September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The Company and its subsidiaries are also involved in various other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. 2
Link to Full 10-Q: https://www.sec.gov/archives/edgar/data/906163/000156459016026452/nvr- 10q_20160930.htm I have faith that the health and safety of the citizens of Arlington will be put first before giving leeway to a company with an already spotty track record with the EPA and the DOJ, and various other litigations arising in the ordinary course of business. Again, I want to thank you for your time and careful review of all of the details pertaining to this matter. As you can see, we are very passionate about our neighborhood and Arlington, as a whole and want to make certain it remains a wonderful place to live, work and enjoy life! Thank you! Kind Regards, Dana Gerk WestView Condo Owner 3
Anthony Fusarelli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dana Gerk <danagerk@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:13 PM Anthony Fusarelli Additional Written Comments Re 11th and Vermont GLUP Study (Meeting Tomorrow) signatures_1490816264.pdf; comments_1490816289.pdf Hi Anthony. I wanted to send over the list of signatures as of Wednesday afternoon and the written comments that were attached to the petition. My apologies for the late reply as I know you are working to compile materials for the meeting tomorrow. Please include the 2 pdf files attached in the written comments area as many residents and neighbors included their comments directly on the petition. If you have any trouble opening the files, please let me know. Thanks so much! Kind Regards, Dana Gerk 1
Recipient: Letter: Arlington Zoning Committee and Arlington County Board Greetings, Arlington County: Deny Zoning Exception allowing High Rise on 11th St N & N Vermont Street Name Location Date John Venners Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jason Sadler Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jeff Hoffner Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Ramin Kermani Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Tim Hong Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 teddy rojanadit Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Chris Swemba Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Leslie Edwards Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jose Garcia Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Brennan Wergley Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Taran Kermani Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Marialina Bello Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Lynne Hsu Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Min Han Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Nicole Morson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Mary Tran Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Di Meng Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Allison Grinc Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 jamie chen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 megan stinson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Maria Diaz Alexandria, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jossie Guthrie Falls Church, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Eldar Omuraliev Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Janet Braziel Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Dana Weber Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Elizabeth Srygley Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jimmy Cesario Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Alena Davis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Travis Srygley Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Doug Williams Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Michaela March Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Katie Ollice Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Signatures Name Location Date Dana Gerk Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Stanley Hofferber Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Brennan Barker Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Robert Eftekari Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Erin Harroun Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Kimberly Moogalian Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Barbara Gerk Bethany Beach, DE, United States 2017-01-07 Ronald Gerk Bethany Beach, DE, United States 2017-01-07 Mary Black Bethany Beach, DE, United States 2017-01-07 Barbara McNally Bethany Beach, DE, United States 2017-01-07 Nancy Eick Dunn Loring, VA, United States 2017-01-07 Kait Phillips Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-08 Elizabeth Pittman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-08 Roberta Pittman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-08 Kyle Williams Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Wesley Smith Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Kevin Chaney Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Brigid Quinn Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Patrick Quinn Dallas, TX, United States 2017-01-09 Zachary Spradlin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Connor Faust Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Sean Lillard Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Jared Lord Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Karim Youssef Fairfax, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Andrew Onufrychuk Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-09 Ian Graham Washington, DC, United States 2017-01-10 Caitlin Quinn Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Dana Hofferber Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Daniel Kenny Washington, DC, United States 2017-01-10 Diana Weisberger Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Name Location Date Laura Spead Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Junyi Wang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Michael Ziolkowski Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Beth Wodarski Alexandria, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Andrew Brennan Spring, TX, United States 2017-01-10 Heather Sajeski Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Clay Daniels Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Melissa Guerro Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Janice Lee Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jason Murphy Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jessie Brecher Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Caroline Kramer Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Alex Galkin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Melissa Heintz Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Courtney Moore Falls Church, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Tim Noonan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Julie Berestov Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Anthony Piedmont Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Patrick Chauteh Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Ryan Legard Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Maria Dimopoulos Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Ryan Hubert Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Alexi Dimopoulos Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jeremy Mason Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Kira Moore Falls Church, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Patricia Woodbury Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 rosalie nedrich Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Kelsey Fogle Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Chris Owings Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Kaitlin Hardy Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Kathryn OBrien Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Leo Stinson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10
Name Location Date Brigid Quinn Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Stephanie Chang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Julie Farnan Royersford, PA, United States 2017-01-10 Carolyn Heminger Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 John Pav Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Carol Waddoups Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Julisara Mathew Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jennifer Gewertz Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Nadim Owais Silver Spring, MD, United States 2017-01-10 Rachel Faulise Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Jutharat Palevitz Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Chris Jollay Alexandria, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Kim Barbano Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Bregrealco, LLC/David & Nancy Annandale, VA, United States 2017-01-10 Miller Mike O'Brien Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Yuna Peng Frisco, TX, United States 2017-01-11 Joseph Freet Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 David Robbins Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Chelsea Harnett Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Heather Geier Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Margie Rowe Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Robert Francisco Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Judy Noble Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Libby Williams Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Jamie H Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Melanie Porter Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Christopher Newton Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 George Dimopoulos Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Veronika Pav Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Andie Srivastava Naples, FL, United States 2017-01-11 M Ryan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Name Location Date Eileen O'Casey Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Heather Weir Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Jonathan D'Souza Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Mary Rousselot Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Allison Chen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Kieran Carter Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Michael Cieslak Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Jenna Stegmann Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Liz Vance Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Thomas Vilms Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Anne Marie Munson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 JANET IRWIN Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 James Matthews Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Allison Kennett Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Christine Brennan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-16 Rose Aquilino Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-17 David Gerk Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-17 Kristin Vranicar Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-17 Conor Courtney Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Santos Ramos Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Allison Kelly Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 John O'Kieffe Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Emily Boyd Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Virginia Harvey Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Sean Courtney Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Sandy Robinson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Will Hochul Washington, DC, United States 2017-01-18 Rachel Peck Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Phyllis Amdur Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Spencer Johnson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Matt Prebble Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Sharon Allison Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Name Location Date Lindsey Ruhe Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Joseph McGrath Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 pattie spencer Fresno, CA, United States 2017-01-11 Mark Summers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Erin Breen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Matt Bryant Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Linda Rogers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Brandon Ruhe Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Steven Carroll Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-11 Patricia Martin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Catharine Matthews ARLINGTON, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Michelle Moebus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Jennifer McHugh Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Lindsay Ollice Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Richard Gibbons Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Rachel Gerstein Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Sara Rooney Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-12 Maria Gonzalez Oxford, OH, United States 2017-01-12 Becky Huang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-13 Anthony Garcia Gaithersburg, MD, United States 2017-01-13 Vasiliki Dimopoulos Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-13 sadie fahoul Reston, VA, United States 2017-01-13 Allison Lurey Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-13 Justin Heminger Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-13 Michelle Lutkus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-14 Amy Bryant Fairfax, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Katie Sharpee Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Michael Thomas Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Alyssa Prince Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Caroline Huang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Janice O'Day Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Scott Sachs Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-15 Name Location Date Erin Swart Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Amanda Martin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-18 Diane M. Blair Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Brian Geary Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Jonathan Rick Washington, DC, United States 2017-01-19 Matthew Lammers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Brandon Sherman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Angelika Sass Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Jeffery Keene Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Bernard Berne Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Georgette Mugg Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Lauren Hassel Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Kaylee Kehler Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Traci Lee Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Michael Marynowski Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 David Przeklasa Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Gina Ghilardi Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Joseph Avveduti Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Kristal Ernst Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Chris Smith Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Thomas Augustyn Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Lisa Myers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Trevor Chan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Roslyn Rubin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Rita Grieco Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Mark Goodfriend Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Adam White Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Frank Bove Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Stephanie Linnane Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Ian Cohen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Vicki Thomas Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19 Richard Hines Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-19
Name Location Date Devon Davidson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Ellen Rudofsky Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Rosamond Xiang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Wei Fen Chu Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Julian Chow Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Robert Kellam Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Holly Spalt Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Gloria Sochon Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-20 Sed Abbey Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-21 John Niehaus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-23 Dorothy Kagehiro Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-24 Kim Holman Reston, VA, United States 2017-01-24 J R Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-25 Bruce Fegley St. Louis, MO, United States 2017-01-26 Maura Hunter Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Christina Lee Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Nicole Ewart Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Rebecca Berman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Jesse Shapiro Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Alison dough Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Anne Gunning Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Allison Brecko Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Tamara Lazarus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 John Howard Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Lorena Shapiro Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Tara Ryan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 P V Applegarth Naples, FL, United States 2017-01-26 Lefteris Hazapis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 David Silverman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Kristen Mentzer Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Will Clough Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-26 Laura Matthews Wayne, PA, United States 2017-01-26 Name Location Date John Uehlinger Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-13 Andrew Erdmann Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-14 ugur lel Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-16 Matthew McQuillen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-20 Robert Young Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-04 Hans Meinhardt Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-07 Sheila Doherty Plainview, NY, United States 2017-03-21 sarah bailly Waldorf, MD, United States 2017-03-21 Byron Maldonado Sterling, VA, United States 2017-03-21 Michele Freed Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-21 Brian Wenny Montgomery Village, MD, United States 2017-03-21 Elias Monterroso Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-21 Fredy Zelaya Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-21 Danny Wearing Leesburg, VA, United States 2017-03-21 Matthew Bailly Bethesda, MD, United States 2017-03-21 Bryttava Olson Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-21 Sabrina Crame Bethesda, MD, United States 2017-03-22 Chris DiZebba Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-22 Erika Mosher Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-22 Emily Sislen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-22 Jacob Abudaram Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-22 Tyler Burke Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-23 Jacqueline Maldonado Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Shari Garcia Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 William Merica Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Raymond Mintz Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Alicea ardito Reston, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Eric Tijerina Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Zak Murdock Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Sally Harris Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Sabrina Wilbern Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Zach Rozen Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Name Location Date Tiffany Osentoski Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-27 David "West" Garrett Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-27 R. A. Sheffer Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-29 Jake Lewis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-29 Adam Kasanof Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Jared Rohrbaugh Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Annette Lang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Harold Slater Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Jeff Halsted Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Ed Hazelwood Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Eugene Lee Arlington, VA, United States 2017-01-31 Thomas Greene Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-01 lily Kuo Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-01 Martha Mota Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-01 Mary Jane Nelson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-01 Yuly Kuo, France 2017-02-01 Jodi Comunale Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-02 Jacqueline Lussier Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-02 Amy Spell Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 patricia mckenna Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Patrick Pho Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Alyssa Hughes Reston, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Eric Kim Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Meera Torres Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Amy Dodds Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-03 Christelle Klovers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-04 Diane Ellis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-04 Emily Larson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-04 Ryan Larson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-04 Kerry Greene Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-07 Maureen Klovers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-07 Scott Bauer Arlington, VA, United States 2017-02-07 Name Location Date Lauren Bostic Fairfax, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Raquel Varon Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Stephanie Edwartoski Falls Church, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Christine Stevenson Fort Washington, MD, United States 2017-03-24 Ruth Back Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Paul Harris Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Ellen Bouchard Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Stephanie Drahozal Herndon, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Kathryn Bouchard Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Rebecca Stephens McLean, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Tommy Bowen Annapolis, MD, United States 2017-03-24 Katarina Hong Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-24 Meghan Buckley Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Carlos Castejon Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Stephanie Osei-tutu McLean, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Ken Shaw Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Carrie Shaffer Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Patrick McCrary Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-24 Diane Moebus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-25 Katie Argenta Vienna, VA, United States 2017-03-25 Robert Lobo Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-25 Donna Williams McLean, VA, United States 2017-03-25 Jacquelyn Pitta Brooklyn, NY, United States 2017-03-25 Jenni Lopez Washington, DC, United States 2017-03-25 Alice Siempelkamp Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ, United States 2017-03-25 Roy Moebus Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-25 Karen Morris Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 Leslie McElligott Silver Spring, MD, United States 2017-03-26 John McElligott Silver Spring, MD, United States 2017-03-26 Betsy Taylor Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 chelsea gregory Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 Charles Dawson Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26
Name Location Date Mary Lukeski Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 Alexandra Ecker Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 John Cooper Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-26 Paul Meassick Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Matthew Mosca Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Ron Benedict Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Mary Doetsch Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Karen Geisler Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Alice Yang Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Carissa Garcia Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Aditi Jariwala McLean, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Amy Fox Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Shailini Jariwala Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Maria Stamoulas Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Michelle Quiroga Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-27 Steven Leutner Sumter, SC, United States 2017-03-28 Dawn Cooper Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Claire Hedgespeth Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Rhiannon Fitzsimmons Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Stephanie Pluta Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 M. Soltis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Frank Bellavia Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Kathleen Reilly Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 sophia grasmeder Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Benjamin Schoenbrun Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Russell Wenning Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Andrea Camoens Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Anne Byers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Elsie Hennig Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Marie Sammarco Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Martin Tatuch Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Hillary Berlin Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Name Location Date Jeffrey Epremian Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Heather Schildge Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Pat Wynns Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Eilish McCarty Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Sam Randels Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Mary DUNN Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 David Summers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Jeanne Williams Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Kathleen Murray Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Julia Tanner Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Jasper Mathis Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Amanda Hine Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Cynthia Nolt-Helms Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Laura Browning Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Dave M Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Larry Smith Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Margaret Summers Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Natalie Auble Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Pam Stout Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Audrey Gowda Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Robin Whitmore Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-29 Name Location Date James Davenport Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Lisa Forrest Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Michael Mulcahy Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Sandra Brucker Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Alia Kha Ali Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Karen Landini Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Mern Horan Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Jane Hernandez Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 John Mors Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Wendy Bradburn Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Kim Wharton Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Laurie Moret Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Laura Grove Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Carlisle Levine Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Kristin Garesche Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Lauren Rottler Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Colette Chipman Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Angela Harley Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Jeffrey Gorsky Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Michael Dibbs Reston, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Ken Madden Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Patricia Hammond Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Jessica Deering Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Ramona Femenias Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Yung-Yi Nindorf Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Karen Voight Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Paul Harris Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Margaret Richards Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Nicholas Deines Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Sarah Meservey Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Mary alderete Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28 Victoria Lyons Arlington, VA, United States 2017-03-28
Recipient: Arlington Zoning Committee and Arlington County Board Letter: Greetings, Arlington County: Deny Zoning Exception allowing High Rise on 11th St N & N Vermont Street
Comments Name Location Date Comment Erin Harroun Arlington, VA 2017-01-07 Do not want a high rise built in already congested area. Will make the area less desirable to live and potentially more difficult to sell in this area thus driving real estate prices down. Barb Gerk Arlington, VA 2017-01-07 We lived previously in Arlington,have family in Arlington and are planning to move back this year. We love Arlington and want to make sure that all decisions for its future are for the benefit of Arlington and its residents. Thank you. Ronald Gerk Bethany Beach, DE 2017-01-07 My children live in Arlington and I frequently stay in the area. We are most likely moving back to the Arlington area and request that the County make a good decision by denying this request. Thank you. Mary Black Bethany Beach, DE 2017-01-07 I am interested in possibly purchasing property in this area Barbara McNally Wilmington, DE 2017-01-07 I am considering purchasing property & am concerned with high residency building special use exception. Nancy Eick Dunn Loring, VA 2017-01-07 This area is very desirable now and a high rise on this corner would not only be unsightly but add to the already congested area and problems. Kait Phillips Arlington, VA 2017-01-08 Having an additional high rise will create congestion issues and will contribute to the overcrowding of the schools. Please deny the re-zoning request. Elizabeth Pittman Arlington, VA 2017-01-08 I am a resident in the Westview building and against the zoning exception Brigid Quinn Arlington, VA 2017-01-09 I live at the Westview and strongly believe a high rise right behind the building would be detrimental to my neighborhood. Dana Hofferber Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 The neighborhood feel of this block was key in my decision to purchase in this area, rather than in the more congested Clarendon area. Green space and the low-density neighborhood-serving aspect of this property should be maintained, consistent with the current GLUP and zoning. High-density zoning on this portion of the block would destroy the tapered-down feel and instead "max-out" the block, inconsistent with the pattern on neighboring blocks. Min Han Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 One of the reasons I bought a condo in this neighborhood is because of how it was planned out. The mix of low and high density is vital to keep the neighborhood's feel. If a high density unit comes up we're looking at a lot more congestion in the area. Nicole Morson Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 The feel of the residential block and surrounding neighborhood was important to me when purchasing my unit in the Westview. The proposed project would have an extreme impact on the congestion on the surrounding roads and infrastructure. Additionally, I often work from home, and the noise and other impacts from an extended development of a high-density project would have a negative impact on my day-to-day activities in my own home. Anthony Piedmont Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 I am signing because I view this property from my home and do not want to be blocked. I receive only a small amount of sunlight now which would be nonexistent if a medium rise building were to be constructed. Plus this is a small neighborhood and another high rise is not needed. Traffic increases are not needed as the area is already congested. rosalie nedrich Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 I agree with petition
Name Location Date Comment Jeremy Mason Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 I own property next to the proposed development and agree with the majority of the comments on here. Allowing a high rise in this location would be detrimental to the neighborhood, especially the traffic, schools and quality of life for the current residents. I am against allowing this rezoning and a high rise being built. Brigid Quinn Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 It would be an absolute tragedy to have this building go up where the church is currently located, blocking my view, adding to the Stephanie Chang Arlington, VA 2017-01-10 The shape of the neighborhood will be drastically altered by addition of this highrise in such close proximity to Westview, and also drastically worsen the parking situation in al already congested area. Nadim Owais Silver Spring, MD 2017-01-10 Our Unit, #815 faces the church Chris Jollay Alexandria, VA 2017-01-10 That place is already impossibly crowded. When I visit friends over there it's bad enough as it is. Kim Barbano Fairfax, VA 2017-01-10 I'm tired of overdevelopment! Keep our neighborhoods, neighborhoods. Bregrealco, LLC/David & Nancy Miller Annandale, VA 2017-01-10 We (our LLC) own a unit in the Utah Building of Westview which is occupied by a family member. We are adamantly opposed to the proposed change in zoning and agree with everything in the attached request. Yuna Peng Frisco, TX 2017-01-11 We bought our unit facing the Vermont Street (the church property) based on the fact that it was not zoned for high rise buildings. There is absolutely NO justification for granting a special high rise zoning for the property. Our light and air easement legally forbids the building of a high rise next to our unit, which would inevitably block light and air to our unit. The value of our condo unit would also significantly decrease because of that. I believe this is a form of taking and will take legal actions against the granting of such a permit. I encourage the Westview Condo Association consult with the Association attorney and take any and all appropriate legal actions! Robert Francisco Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I have lived at this address since 2005. I do not want a high rise building built next me. Judy Noble Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I am signing because I wish to preserve the current residential quality of my neighborhood. Christopher Newton Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I own a condo in Westview and don't really see the need for additional high density condo development in the area. Veronika Badurova Venice, FL 2017-01-11 Zoning should secure variety of housing, commercial, green spaces. With the already growing number of high density apts and condominiums being stood up in the Ballston area, it is all the more important to keep low-medium residential spaces. We don't want to turn Ballston into a high rise Rosslyn. Joseph McGrath Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I live on the 5th floor of Westview on the North side. Currently, I have a nice view over the 3 story Church. A High Rise (5+ floors) will block my view, decrease my privacy and reduce my home's value. Erin Breen Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I am signing because our area cannot accommodate a high rise with the amount of cars it brings. I live in the WestView and feel this will decrease our property values. We don't want Ballston to be full of high rises. Linda Rogers Arlington, VA 2017-01-11 I believe the zoning should stay the same.! All of these concerns are a fact of what is going to come with this new zoning of this it is granted.!!! Patricia Martin Arlington, VA 2017-01-12 I agree with the current zoning layout of graduated reduction in heights and especially in density. Catharine Matthews Arlington, VA 2017-01-12 We don't need more traffic!!!!! It's getting crowded enough in Ballston. You are destroying the neighborhood feel. I can't imagine what higher density would do to parking, commuting, schools, and our community.
Name Location Date Comment Lindsay Ollice Arlington, VA 2017-01-12 This construction is requesting to build a much larger strucure than the 11th street neighborhood it is in. It will greatly impact the neighborhood and local roads surrounding the land that are not equipped for added vehicles/traffic. Not to mention the already limited parking availability. Maria Gonzalez Oxford, OH 2017-01-12 I currently live in the area and I think the construction of another High Rise will impact negatively the quality of life of the residents of the area. Юличка Родионова Arlington, VA 2017-01-13 This project should rejected because it's designed to maximize profits for the developer, while harming the property values and diminishing the quality of life of those who already live here. Michelle Lutkus Arlington, VA 2017-01-14 I am signing because this change would directly impact the traffic in my area, and the building next to it in which i live. Scott Sachs Arlington, VA 2017-01-15 ENOUGH OF THE OVERDEVELOPMENT! Protect our schools and local infrastructure Mary Cobb Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 Too dense Allison Chen Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 Please, no more high rises. Traffic is already bad enough. Schools are already bursting at the seams. Liz Vance Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 Until you deal appropriately with the overcrowding in the schools, do not build any more high-density housing! This affects EVERYONE in Arlington, not just the people in the immediate neighborhood. Thomas Vilms Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 I agree with these points. The Ballston area already has several large condo and apartment building projects in progress or approved to start. NSF is the area's largest employer and will be moving out of the area within 2 years, and existing office space is nearly 20 vacant. Arlington should wait before adding more housing capacity. Anne Marie Munson Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 Arlington has become unaffordable!!! JANET IRWIN Arlington, VA 2017-01-16 There is too much dense, high-rise development in Arlington already. David Gerk Bethany Beach, DE 2017-01-17 Our school capacity crisis will continue to worsen if the County continues to allow density increases beyond the current zoning. Our resources - schools, roads, public transit etc - are tapped out and the community needs the Board to draw a firm line against density increases. The Ballston area's density is already among the highest in the area. There is no need/special justification for a high rise on this site, this is just a developer looking to make profits. Sharon Allison Arlington, VA 2017-01-18 Too many apts in this area now. Diane M. Blair Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 Ballston already has become over-developed. I was born in Arlington in 1955 and have lived in the area all my life. Washington Boulevard has become more of a highway than the boulevard I remember of my youth. ENOUGH is ENOUGH!! The grocery stores cannot handle all of the population. Lauren Hassel Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 Enough is enough. The balance has been tipped from smart growth to overgrowth, without concern for the ripple effects. Michael Marynowski Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 My concerns are #1 the saturation of more high rise and residential homes in the area will decrease current property value. #2 Noise concerns due to the construction. #3 traffic concerns the high influx of residents and will cause. #4 traffic concerns the construction will cause. #5 esthetics concerns of the changing landscape, I do not want to live in a concrete jungle. High rise buildings should not be built off Fairfax Drive! Gina Ghilardi Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 There is way too much traffic and no street parking around our area already.
Name Location Date Comment Chris Smith Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 I don't really care about this specific building; just like these owners don't care about the monstrosity they plan to develop close to my neighborhood. Group think on the County Board (develop, develop, develop) is harming quality of life for many in Arlington. Please consider that one day these projects will come closer and closer to your protected zone - and then you will be NIMBY shamed. This is no longer smart growth, but is overgrowth - build an adequate infrastructure first (schools, parks, streets) in Arlington, then decide what we can need and can justify. Stop simply voting for your party to feel good, since these are the real life implications of your zombie like behavior. Mark Goodfriend Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 There does not appear to be a sound justification for this exception. Frank Bove Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 I totally agree with the thoughtful reasoning set out in Dana Gerk's well written petition. Stephanie Linnane Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 One aspect that I like the most about this Ballston neighborhood is the taperdown of buildings. I was influenced to buy a townhouse nearby with the knowledge that the neighborhood was zoned in such a way to protect that. The proposed area for this construction is all townhouses. A high rise will be out of place on 11th St and would cause a heavy toll on parking, traffic, school crowding, and neighborhood home values. Ian Cohen Arlington, VA 2017-01-19 Even a rich county needs some low-medium housing. The area is already to dense and crowded. Gloria Sochon Arlington, VA 2017-01-20 I agree this project would have seriously negative consequences for our neighborhood, exacerbating traffic congestion, etc. as noted in the petition. Maura Hunter Arlington, VA 2017-01-26 I live nearby and it would be a shame to see one of the last stand alone houses with a yard be demolished for ANOTHER high rise or mixed-use building. Christina Lee Arlington, VA 2017-01-26 This area is already vastly crowded with parking problems, and hit and run incidents to cars parked on the street. Please do not add to this with an increase in the local populace. Deny this zoning request. Irene Sherk Arlington, VA 2017-01-26 We do not need anymore traffic on 11th St nor housing density to eliminate the only green space around. I also do not want to be looking into a wall from my condo. John Howard Washington, DC 2017-01-26 Arlington has maintained a good, highly respected zoning plan for the Ballston area. A key element of this is reasonable population densities. This should not be changed to increase population density. P V Applegarth Naples, FL 2017-01-26 I am an owner at Windsor Plaza, and concerned about the negative impact a high-rise would have on the neighborhood. Lefteris Hazapis Arlington, VA 2017-01-26 The proposed project would also face an existing condominium's garage and will make difficult the coming and going of residents on a small dead end street (Utah St N) Patricia Uetz Arlington, VA 2017-01-26 I purchased my home knowing that, because of the zoning, my view would remain unobstructed by any new buildings not conforming to the zoning rules then in place. The proposed building will obstruct my view and interfere w my home's privacy, therefore decreasing the value of my home. In addition, and the area is overcrowded. The developer's interest in profit should not be permitted by the Arlington zoning decision-makers to be paramount to the interests of those of us residing in the area who this proposed structure will affect. Laura Matthews Wayne, PA 2017-01-26 Increased traffic?! Overcrowded schools?! ANOTHER high rise in Ballston? NO WAY!
Name Location Date Comment David "West" Garrett Arlington, VA 2017-01-27 I bought a condo in this neighborhood because it is quiet and not overly populated. Changing the zoning laws will lead to more negative externalities for Ballston residents. R. A. Sheffer Arlington, VA 2017-01-29 It is already too congested in this area (no parking available). And I don't want to see the neighborhood loose the green space! Jake Lewis Arlington, VA 2017-01-29 I am directly effected by this deviation in all aspects identified by this petition Adam Kasanof Arlington, VA 2017-01-31 In addition to numerous other problems with the plan, I do not see any affordable housing included in the proposed development. Annette Lang Arlington, VA 2017-01-31 I haved lived one-half block from the church property for more than 26 years. For all the reasons stated in the Petition, I strongly oppose the new zoning request. Moreover, I agree with the commenter who stated that Arlington is clearly moving from Smart Growth to overgrowth. This blocks surrounding the church area cannot support any further car traffic. I can already envision the cut throughs that will happen between Washington Blvd. and 11th Streets on Vernon, Utah and Taylor Streets to avoid the intersections at Fairfax and Vermont and Fairfax and Utah. The light at Glebe and Fairfax has gotten progressively more crowded and slower moving and everyone (including myself) tries to avoid that intersection as is. This has got to be denied. The Master Plan had it right. Ed Hazelwood Arlington, VA 2017-01-31 I am very much opposed to the deviation from the existing plan. I do not want ever taller buildings encroaching on my house. Yuly Kuo France 2017-02-01 This is a nice residential area where high rise shall be forbidden Christelle Klovers Arlington, VA 2017-02-04 Many homeowners in the area (myself included) bought our houses in reliance on the current zoning plan. Deviating from that plan would be shortsighted. It would increase congestion on the streets and metro and negatively affect the character and walkability of the neighborhood. Development that complies with the current well designed, gradated zoning scheme will preserve the aspects of the neighborhood that attract so many to live here while still increasing Arlington's tax revenues. Emily Larson Arlington, VA 2017-02-04 I do not want any construction in my neighborhood. I have a baby and do not want any extra noise or traffic around my house. Ryan Larson Arlington, VA 2017-02-04 I'm a resident within a block from this site and we don't need anymore noise polluting our house. ugur lel Arlington, VA 2017-02-16 I own a town house near the proposed construction site, and I am worried about increased congestion in the area. Robert Young Arlington, VA 2017-03-04 I live at an impacted property. Erika Mosher Washington, DC 2017-03-22 I'd like to see this Arlington area not get any more congested than it already is. Additionally, and especially from a company that is not trustworthy. (under investigation by the DOJ and the EPA in violation of the Clean Water Act regarding their storm water drainage practices.) rosalie nedrich Arlington, VA 2017-03-24 I do not want increased congestion in my area or the additional pollution that may be caused by the high density of construction; I also bought my condo at westview relying on the already existing zoning plan; I vote "NO" to this construction Christine Stevenson Fort Washington, MD 2017-03-24 This change isn't in the best interest of the community... Kathryn Bouchard Arlington, VA 2017-03-24 I love the work local churches do in their communities. They are a moral form of local good government! Let's keep it alive! Ken Shaw Arlington, VA 2017-03-24 I support the stated reasons among my neighbors for opposing the special use permit. jks
Name Location Date Comment Caroline Shaffer Arlington, VA 2017-03-24 I'm signing because the addition of traffic, street noise and already crowded parking situations. In addition, loud noise near the residential homes and disruption to the skyline. Diane Moebus Arlington, VA 2017-03-25 Traffic and parking will increase. A low to medium rise is better suited for the area Katie Argenta Vienna, VA 2017-03-25 This is very detrimental to the neighborhood!! Jacquelyn Pitta Brooklyn, NY 2017-03-25 Moving to the area and have friends that live there and would be devistated. Charles Dawson Arlington, VA 2017-03-26 I agree with the points made in the petition and live in the neighborhood affected. Ron Benedict Arlington, VA 2017-03-27 I do not mind the density, but the specific height of this building is concerning. The profile should follow the gradual step down from Fairfax to 11th. Karen Geisler Arlington, VA 2017-03-27 County is out of control w/development plans which increase the burden on residents, tax, congestion, traffic, etc. Maria Stamoulas Arlington, VA 2017-03-27 A high rise building at this corner would not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, would tower over the existing townhouses and would result in increased traffic on Utah street and other streets between Washington Boulevard and 11th Street thereby undermining the character of the neighborhood and overwhelming streets that are not designed to handle the increased traffic. Claire Hedgespeth Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 This development would cause significant disruption to neighbor and commuter. I cannot support a project that will affect the traffic in the area as well as the quality of my local schools. Do not allow this monstrosity to make a mess of our beautiful neighborhood. M Soltis Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 We don't need more high rise buildings in neighborhoods designed for and infrastructure supporting low-rise/garden style and SFH. Unless you are going to redesign streets and increase emergency/first responders the growth is out of proportion with that which can managed. Kathleen Reilly Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Medium residential is appropriate for this graduated section of the Ballston area. Elsie Hennig Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 I support the existing plan for graduated density. Please don't allow abrupt height differences. Marie LoScalzo Rockville, MD 2017-03-28 Overdevelopment and lack of infrastructure Martin Tatuch Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Such projects disturb the balance that Arlington has achieved, and diminishes the community for all residents, present and future. Hillary Berlin Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 The current zoning is in place to protect the character of the neighborhoods; changing that zoning has many negatives, but NO benefits to the surrounding communities. The only reason to allow it would be so the developers to make more money. Sandra Brucker Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Do not want the deviation approved. Not consistent with what was planned and what was "on the books" as we bought our property along 11th street. Alia Khan Ali Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Please stop building everywhere in Arlington. Arlington is already overcrowded, too much traffic, and overcrowding in schools. We need to preserve some trees and grass too. Please don't let Arlington become a "concrete jungle." Mern Horan Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 I request that you deny this request for a special exception based on a multitude of serious issues raised but specifically because will exacerbate the already emergency-state of overcrowding in the Arlington Public Schools including Washington-Lee High School. John Mors Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Traffic in Arlington is already a mess.
Name Location Date Comment Kim Wharton Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Want to limit the high rise crawl in to residential areas and overcrowding of schools. Kristin Garesche Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 I agree with all the points stated. Metro cannot handle more riders and Arlington Public Schools are already overcrowded. This area is getting overpopulated. Ramona Femenias Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 Arlington is too crowded already. Vicki Lyons Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 I don't want high rises encroaching on my neighborhood. Heather Schildge Arlington, VA 2017-03-28 I am fed up with the County Board approving more and more high-density development without adequate planning for the consequences. David Summers Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 I'm signing because I believe in keeping with the plan. Anything else is reminiscent of the "salami tactics" of the communists in post-wwii Eastern Europe. Jasper Mathis Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 I'm concerned about the negative impact on our schools, increased traffic congestion and its deviation from the overall plan for the Ballston area. Cynthia Nolt-Helms Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 I do not like to see zoning exemptions just to get more tax revenue. The area is congested enough already! Dave M Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 Probably not a good idea to deviate from the plan and put a high rise here. Robin Whitmore Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 If I wanted to live in New York, I would. Enough High Rise development in Arlington. I enjoy looking at the sky! Thank you! Tim Feeney Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 High rises continue to go up in the immediate area, they don't need to go up outside the area zoned for that sort of development. Marjorie Varner Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 Stick to the plan. Keep our urban village livable. Do not sell out our community. Elizabeth Dale-Deines Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 I appreciate the specific flavor and pace of our area as it is. By adding more, costly housing we are adding to congestion and overcrowding as well as an increasingly homogeneous population, not just tax revenue. By adding higher buildings we are blocking out the sky, creating canyons of condo, bar, condo, restaurant, condo... we pride ourselves as Arlingtonians on our green spaces but this exception would detract from the breathing room we all need! Audrey Clement Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 High density development w/o addressing the impacts amounts to corporate anarchy. Dana Koch Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 I've lived in Leeway/Overlee for 30 ys & have watched as developers have trained their "ravenous shark" eyes on Arlington's neighborhoods with ONLY their profits in mind and ZERO regard for the traffic, school & lost tree canopy impact on our community. If we have ANY chance to ensure the attributes of Arlington beyond mere footprint & proximity to DC are maintained, it MUST BEGIN with the conscious and deliberate planning for what we want Future Arlington to be. Hopefully this is not a concrete and glass jungle of high rise tenaments, expensive though they WILL be. val pisacane Arlington, VA 2017-03-29 We are concerned by efforts to break the well thought out development plan for the Wilson / Fairfax corridor
ANNETTE M. LANG 1140 N. Utah St. Arlington, VA 22201 Home: 703 528-7125 Cell: 202 532-3275 Annette.lang1231 @gmail.com March 29, 2017 Via Email: afusarelli(a~arlingtonva.us Arlington County Long Range Planning Committee c/o Anthony Fusarelli Principal Planner Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 RE: 1131 N. Vermont Street GLUP Amendment and Rezoning Requests Dear Members of the Long Range Planning Committee and Mr. Fusarelli: I live at 1140 N. Utah Street in Arlington and have called this my home for almost 27 years. My townhouse is within one-half block of the development proposed by NVR for 1131 N. Vermont Street. With this letter, I would like to express my opposition to that development and to the General Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning that NVR seeks. Indeed, regardless of the developer, I oppose a GLUP amendment and rezoning of the subject property. I do not oppose development consistent with the current GLUP and zoning. By now, the negatives associated with the proposed development are well known to the LRPC and County staff. They include but are not limited to: avast reduction in open and green space; a "canyon-like" walk down narrow 11 `" Street; an inconsistency with the significant greenscapes lining the south side of l lt" St. on the block immediately to the west of the subject property; an inconsistency with the tailored, step-down approach on the south side of l lt" St. on the block immediately to east of the subject property; a significant increase in cars permanently housed in the neighborhood; an increase in traffic, including at two already over-burdened relatively small intersections; a blocking of views and light for owners at the West View complex; and an exacerbation of already jammed parking on neighborhood streets. By contrast, no positives have been articulated to my way of thinking. Frankly, if the property at 1 131 N. Vermont St. were slated for the development of something like a residential treatment facility or some such other item of community benefit, I would not oppose it. I do not consider myself a NIMBY person. But, I do not see any "greater community good" from the proposed development or indeed from any commercial or residential development that requires GLUP amendments and rezonings for execution.
I spoke at the February 22, 2017 meeting of the LRPC. I would like to re-emphasize one of the points I made there. Specifically, residents should not bear the burden of proving that exceptions to land use plans and modifications to zoning codes are appropriate. Rather, developers should bear the burden of establishing that unless an exception and/or modification to current plans and zoning codes is granted, development of a particular property will not occur. That is the core meaning of "exception." It is clear that at some point in the past, the County, County staff, the Planning Commission, and the LRPC turned the standard on its head: exceptions and rezonings became the norm. Failing to grant exceptions and rezonings became obsolete. It is time to start returning to basics. As I said at the start of my letter, I have lived in my home since 1990. While the development in the 1990s and into the 2000s saw many positive changes, the more recent development is definitely diminishing the quality of life for many of us in Arlington, and certainly for those of us in Ballston. The highly congested street traffic on Glebe Road and Fairfax Drives; the loss of neighborhood restaurants (Willow) and nightspots (the Carpool); the jam-packed metro station; the illegal parking on neighborhood streets; the lack of parking on neighborhood streets; and the highly overcrowded schools are some of the more well-known areas of this deterioration. The pendulum has swung far too strongly in the direction of development, development, development. We now have development on high overdrive. The question for the County is: at what point will the County be satisfied that it has allowed enough development? At what point will the County put the brakes on this? Obviously, in my opinion, that point was reached a while ago for my neighborhood. However, the development at 1131 N. Vermont St. has become the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and woke me up. I hope you will recommend that the Board not place an advertisement for the proposed GLUP amendment. Thank you for your consideration and all the time and effort you put into the work of the County. Sincerely, nnette M. Lang l~ PS: I have attached a Letter to the Editor that I submitted to the Sun Gazette. The Letter was published in the online version but not in the print version. 2
DEVELOPMENT RUN AMOK: DUMB GROWTH Editor: I am the opposite of agovernment-basher. I don't complain about taxes. This is my first letter to any editor. In two recent meetings, County staff and a Planning Committee considered a developer's request for land use and zoning exceptions in my Ballston neighborhood. The meeting I attended was stunning. It illustrated how completely the County has lost sight of residents' rights and interests vis-a-vis developers and why the large scale problems of loss of open space, clogged traffic, and overcrowded schools are problems of the County's making. I naively thought there would be a presumption against granting exceptions and variances. I was sorely mistaken. Apparently, 1980 land use plans and zoning requirements that envision restraint on excessive growth are old-fashioned. The property at issue currently houses aone-story home, two people, two cars, a small church, and a small school. Lots of green open space and light exists. Under current regulations, 32, 4-story townhomes can be built. That is a dramatic height, density, and "car" increase from current use, but it is allowable. In an elaborate and undoubtedly expensive 68 page powerpoint, County staff prepared two options for deviating from the allowable development: a "base" case with 105 units in an 8 story building and a "bonus" case with 144 units. The only question was how much of a deviation to allow. Really? Is it really that hard to say "no" to a developer and to allow development to proceed as originally envisioned? Is the causal effect between presumptively allowing development exceptions and the larger-scale County problems not crystal clear? One iconic moment at the end of the meeting summed up how far down the rabbit hole the County has gone. After residents pointed out all the negatives, one committee member asked County staff to identify the community benefits. The staffer demurred: he needed more time to think about that. Huh??? Shouldn't that be the first question asked before hundreds of hours of County and residents' time and thousands of dollars are expended? Annette Lang Arlington
BALLSTON TOWNE HOMEOWNERS ASSN. 1116-1140 N. Utah St. 1121-1127 N. Vermont St. Arlington, VA 22201 Via Email to afusarelli(u~arlin~tonva.us Arlington County Long Range Planning Committee c/o Anthony Fusarelli Principal Planner Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 March 30, 2017 RE: 1131 N. Vermont Street GLUP Amendment and Rezoning Requests Dear Members of the Long Range Planning Committee and Mr. Fusarelli: We write on behalf of the Ballston Towne Homeowners Association ("BTHA") to express our opposition to the development proposed by NVR, Inc. ("NVR") along the south side of 11th St. North between North Vermont St. and North Utah St. (the "Property"). The proposed development by NVR (the "Proposed NVR Development") would require both an amendment to the current General Land Use Plan ("GLUP") and a rezoning for this Property. The Proposed NVR Development would significantly increase current building heights and density on the Property and substantially reduce sunlight and green and open space. The Proposed NVR Development would also exacerbate traffic and parking problems in our neighborhood. Indeed, the development that is allowable under the current GLUP and zoning designations leaving aside the Proposed NVR bevelopment would, in and of itself, significantly increase the building height, density, and traffic and parking.problems in our neighborhood. Despite that, the BTHA supports development consistent with the current GLUP and zoning designations. Our only aim is to ensure compliance with current GLUP and zoning designations. The primary rationale that appears to be driving NVR's, the LRPC's, and the County's presumption that a GLUP Amendment and rezoning should be allowed is that amendments and rezonings have been granted in the past in this area of Ballston. But that is not a sufficient reason for allowing them at this time, in this place. Indeed, with the benefit of the passage of time and the knowledge of what the past, presumptive exceptions and rezonings have led to vastly reduced green and open space, school crowding, increased traffic, parking nightmares it appears to be time (perhaps past time) to apply the brakes.
We believe that under the current procedural posture of this matter, the task of the Long Range Planning Committee ("LRPC") is to determine whether or not to recommend to the County Board that an advertisement be published regarding an amendment to the GLUP for this Property. Given the LRPC's task, the BTHA urges the LRPC to recommend against an advertisement for an amendment to the GLUP. We hope that the LRPC will not take a position that would, in effect, "kick the can" down the road. In our view, that would unnecessarily prolong aresource-intensive process that requires residents to demonstrate the inappropriateness of exceptions and rezonings. As the LRPC is aware, over 400 residents have signed a petition in opposition to the Proposed NVR Development and to the GLUP amendment and rezoning that would be necessary. The petition is accompanied by a litany of problems associated with the proposals. We believe it is important to listen to the voices of so many who oppose this. I. BACKGROUND A. BTHA The BTHA is an association of 18 townhomes located on Utah and Vermont Streets in the middle of the block between 11th St. North and Washington Blvd.l Our townhomes are two-story, two-bedroom units built in 1983 and 1984. We have very stable ownership rates, with only between 0 and 2 homes being sold in any given year. Approximately two-thirds of our units are owner-occupied with the other one-third being rental units. A majority of our resident owners have lived in the BTHA for more than 10 years, with some calling the BTHA "home" since 1989, 1990, and 1993 (2), respectively. All of our rental units have been owned by the same person for more than 10 years. We consider ourselves a community and value the neighborhood we live in. We are very familiar with the Property and the streets, sidewalks, businesses, parking, and traffic in our neighborhood. B. Current Use Current Use of the Property The Property currently houses aone-story single-family home, a small church and a small Montessori school. The home and church front 11th St. The school fronts Vermont St. The home is approximately 18 feet high and set back very far from 11th St. It is surrounded by a large yard. The church is approximately 25 feet high and it is set back a distance from 11 st St. as 'Our complex is on the same block as the parking lot and playground for the church and school (i. e., the "Additional Property" as defined later in this letter) are located.
well. The church is surrounded by a very large yard. The school is small (housing approximately 6 classrooms) and is three-stories high. While the school is approximately 33 feet high, it actually "appears" lower than the church because of the downward slope of Vermont St. toward Fairfax Drive. In terms of current "person" density, the Property is home to 2 people. In terms of current cars, the Property houses 2 cars on a permanent basis. 2. Current Use of the North Side of 1 lth St. North The north side of 1 l~' St. North between Vermont and Utah Streets (the "Additional Property") is a part of the property that the church owns and plans to sell too. While NVR does not currently seek any GLUP amendments or zoning redesignations for the development of this Additional Property, it would be improper to consider the Proposed NVRDevelopment or any development~n the Property without also understanding and considering the impact of the development of the Additional Property. The current use of the Additional Property is a parking lot and a playground. From many years, the parking lot also doubled as two basketball courts, but the church eliminated those several years ago. While the playground undoubtedly was built for the use and enjoyment of church- and school-goers, it is not locked. Many of us in the neighborhood use that playground. 1 1 St. North between North Vermont and Utah Sts. 1 1~' St. North is a narrow 2-lane, 2-way street, measuring approximately 23 feet in width. Parking is not allowed on either side of the street. However, delivery vehicles can, and frequently do, "temporarily" stop on 11th street to deliver packages. For purposes of discussing cut-through traffic, the side streets between Washington Blvd and l lt" St. Vernon, Vermont, Utah, Taylor, Stuart are likewise narrow 2 lane streets, some running only one way. 4. From Our Perspective It is important to remember that, to us residents of this neighborhood, the current use of the Property and the Additional Property are those that we have grown accustomed to. We walk a great deal (a number of us BTHA residents and other neighbors have dogs) and enjoy and are used to the green and open space and sunlight currently on the Property and the Additional Property. While we understand that we have no reasonable expectation of a continued use of the Property and the Additional Property that is less developed than what is allowed, if you fail to fully understand the current use, you will fail to understand the dramatic difference the Proposed NVR Development would be to us. 3
II. Allowable Development is a Dramatic Increase from Current Property Use A. Allowable Development on the Property Under the GLUP, the Property is designated as "`low-medium' residential." This GLUP designation allows 16 to 36 units per acre. Because the Property is 0.82 acres, the current GLUP would allow between 13 and 30 units. Under the current R-5 zoning designation, it is our understanding that the units would be townhomes and that these townhomes would be allowed to be four-stories high, that is, approximately 42 feet in height. B. Allowable Development on the Additional Property NVR states that 15 townhomes can be built on the Additional Property under the GLUP and current zoning.2 We understand these townhomes would be allowed to be four-stories high, that is, approximately 42 feet in height. C. Allowable Development on both the Property and the Additional Property is a Dramatic Change We will assume that the County will approve 30, 4-story townhomes to be built on the Property (the maximum allowable number of units under the current GLUP) and 15, 4-story townhomes on the Additional Property. Thus, the total number of new units would be 45. Buildin Height Difference. In terms of the building height difference, the heights on the north side of 11th street would double: from 18 and 25 feet to 42 feet. The heights on the south side of 1 1 t" street would go from 0 to 45 feet. So, instead of walking along narrow 11 t" street with plenty of sunlight and open space, we will be walking in a canyon. Loss of Open Space and Green Space. The loss of open area and green space will be significant under the allowable development. The parking lot, the playground, and the large yards associated with the one-story home and the church will be lost. "Person" Density. An area that currently houses 2 people would have between 66 additional people (1.5 persons per unit) and 110 people (2.5 persons per unit). Permanent Cars. An area that currently houses 2 permanent cars would house between 66 (1.5 cars per unit) and 77 (1.75 cars per unit). Guests Parking on Neighborhood Streets. An area that has only one home that might have guests parking cars on the small, narrow streets in our neighborhood, would have 44 homes. That translates to a lot of additional cars trying to find parking. z We are unaware of the acreage of the Additional Property. Therefore, we are not sure that 15 is the allowable number of townhomes. For present purposes, we will assume that it is. 4
III. The Proposed NVR Development is Over-Development and Overgrowth A. Proposed NVR Development. NVR proposes to build 73 units on the Property. 14 are proposed as townhomes and 59 are proposed as multi-family units. The 14 townhomes would be 4-story, 42 foot high units directly fronting l lt" Street. The multi-family building would be 7 stories high directly fronting North Vermont Street. We have not been able to find in the materials the height of the proposed 7-story high building. NVR proposes 15 townhomes on the Additional Property. 7 would directly front 11th St. Thus, a total of 88 units would be added to the small area along 11th Street between Vermont and Utah Streets. B. Building Height Difference Alon gl lcn St. In terms of the building height difference along 11th St, the Proposed NVR Development is the same as the allowable development. However, very critically, in a letter dated February 20, 2017, our neighboring townhome association the Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association ("VBHA") eloquently articulates and provides pictures showing how NVR's proposed direct "fronting" of the townhomes on l lt" St. north would be inconsistent with the transitioning, landscaping and tapering of the multi-story buildings to the east and west of the Property. The VBHA articulates how the Proposed NVR Development "would effectively create a dark dense wall along the length of the street." We hereby incorporate in their entirety the arguments raised by the VBHA in its February 20, 2017 letter. Along Vermont St. The 7 story multi-family building would take up far more land mass and, we presume, more than double the current 3-story building height.3 C. Loss of Open and Green Space and Sunlight. The Proposed NVR Development shows almost no open and no green space at all. D. "Person" Density Instead of the 2 people that currently reside in the Property and Additional Property, an additional 132 people (at 1.5 persons per unit) to 220 people (at 2.5 persons per unit) would reside in the area. 3 As indicated earlier, we are not aware of the proposed height of the 7-story building and therefore cannot be exact about this increase. 5
E. Traffic Issues 1. The Transportation Study is Deficient The transportation "study" that accompanied NVR's Application for a Special GLUP Study is deficient. We might suggest that if it passes for the typical transportation study that the County accepts in reviewing requests for proposed GLUP amendments and rezoning designations, there is little wonder why the traffic on the major arteries in Arlington is becoming so clogged. Moreover, the County's "Total Peak Period Trip Projections" set forth on page 50 of its February 22, 2017 Power Point is equally deficient. The first problem with the NVR "traffic study" and the County's Power Point (collectively, the "Traffic Study") is that they do not start from an appropriate "baseline" for purposes of our neighborhood. Specifically, they both use the traffic into and out of the Montessori school as the "baseline" case. They find that this traffic results in 136 vehicle trips during peak AM hours. But this traffic occurs during fixed, finite times (8 to 9 am). This traffic pattern is predictable. We in the neighborhood can adjust to this. The second problem with the Traffic Study is that it does not discuss or even mention the difference between cars that temporarily go to and from the Montessori school and cars that permanently call the neighborhood "home." In this case, between the Property and the Additional Property, the Proposed NVR Development would add between 132 cars (at 1.5 cars per property) and 154 cars (at 1.75 cars per property) to this small area. The addition of permanent cars cannot appropriately be compared to cars that temporarily go into and out of the neighborhood. The third problem with the Traffic Study is the projection of expected vehicle trips that will result from the 73 new units on the Property. During the peak AM hours, the Traffic Study projects a total of 26 trips during peak AM hours. We question that projection. The fourth problem with the Traffic Study is its failure to include in its projection of trips the trips that the 15 new units on the Additional Property will add. The fifth problem with the Traffic Study is its failure to evaluate the impact of the additional 132 to 154 cars on the weekend. The sixth problem with the Traffic Study is its failure to evaluate the enhanced overburdening of the intersections of both (1) 11 `" St. and Glebe Road; and (2) Vermont Street and Fairfax Drive. The seventh problem with the Traffic Study is its failure to evaluate the "cut through" traffic that will occur on Vernon, Utah, and Taylor Streets between l lt" St. and Washington Blvd. as a result of additional stress on the above-mentioned intersections. With the advent of WAZE and other traffic navigation apps, cut-through traffic on narrow side streets is a growing problem.
2. Two already-stressed small intersections will become even more ~verhurdenec~ We have not been able to evaluate in detail the Traffic Study's "counts" at the two arterial intersections that it looks at: (1) the intersection of l lt" St. and Glebe Road; and (2) the intersection of Vermont St. and Fairfax Drive ("Two Small Stressed Intersections"). However, the traffic problems at those Two Small Stressed Intersections are already significant. 1 1th Street and Glebe Road. The back ups here are getting too pronounced to be handled. The entrance to the underground parking garage of the large commercial building at 1005 N. Glebe Road (in the block between Glebe and Vermont and 11th St. and Fairfax) is 10 yards from this intersection. Cars frequently try to buzz and in out of that garage. Across 1 lt" St. from 1005 N. Glebe Rd. (on the northeast corner of l lt" and Glebe) is the Merlex used car lot. The cars on that lot come and go frequently (and indeed frequently block the sidewalk on Vernon St.). Vermont Street and Fairfax Drive. The westbound lane of Fairfax Drive is, of course, the primary westbound entrance to I66 West in Arlington. We frequently have seen the westbound cars that have to stop at the light at Fairfax Drive and Glebe Road back up east, blocking the entrance to Vermont Street. These cars create a "wall" that prohibits both right and left hand turns from Vermont Street onto Fairfax Drive. Two pictures of such a "wall" taken at 12:45 pm on Saturday, March 4 (the driver is on Vermont St, heading south, trying to turn left onto Fairfax Dr.) are set forth below: 7
The addition of between 132 and 154 more permanent cars at Vermont and 11th Street will add to the burden of these Two Small Stressed Intersections. 3. Significant Cut-Through Traffic on the narrow streets of Vernon, Utah, and Tavlor is Inevitable With the long wait times to turn onto Glebe Road and Fairf~ Drive at the Two Small Stressed Intersections, cut through on the narrow side streets of our neighborhood is inevitable. 4. The Traffic in Ballston Already Moves at an Extremely Slow Pace even Standstill on Glebe Road durin~y hours The extensive additional development along Glebe Road between Washington Boulevard and Wilson Drive in the past 10 to 15 years already creates an extremely slow drive on Glebe Road. Indeed, a new traffic light on Glebe Road between Fairfax and Wilson was added in the last 2 years. The additional development now occurring on the west side of Glebe Road between Wilson and Carlin Springs will exacerbate this already very slow traffic pattern. Finally, the "super" development occurring at Ballston Mall very likely will bring this traffic to a standstill at peak periods. 5. Standstill and Slow Traffic Increases Pollution The air that we breathe in Arlington is in "non-attainment" for ozone. This means it is unhealthy. Standstill and slow traffic obviously increase pollution. This is a serious quality of life issue.
F. Parkin Issues Neither NVR nor the County discuss or even mention of the impact of the Proposed NVR Development on the street parking limitations in our neighborhood. To say that the continued stress on the limited street parking spaces is a serious "quality of life" issue for us would be an understatement. We can give one obvious example from our townhome complex. We have only one entrance to our parking lot. It is on Utah Street. In recent times, on a fairly routine basis, cars trying to "squeeze" into anon-existent spot on Utah Street at the entrance to our parking lot simply partially block our entrance. This not only makes it difficult to enter and exit our parking lot, it also serves as an impediment to emergency vehicles entering or exiting our parking lot. Because this occurrence is not infrequent, it happened on the morning we were finalizing this letter (Wednesday, March 29):4 Please note the "No Parking" sign in the upper left hand quadrant of this picture. We have no authority to tow vehicles parked on Utah Street. We have serious doubts about whether the County would timely respond to a request of ours to tow an illegally parked car. Moreover, we really should not be put in a situation of having to call the County about this and the County should not be making development decisions that create this situation. The following picture demonstrates the car's intrusion into our parking entrance: 4 We did not "p1any' this car. 7
IV. The "Base Case" and "Bonus" Scenarios Presented in the County's February 22, 2017 Power Point are Beyond the Pale At a February 22, 2017 meeting of the LRPC, County staff prepared a Power Point showing a "base case" scenario and a "bonus case" scenario. The base case would add 105 new units. An 82-foot high mega-building with 42-foot high townhomes in the front would tower over little l lt" St. The "bonus case" would bring a total of 144 new units to the neighborhood. A 92-foot high mega-building extremely close to 11th St. would overwhelm little l lt" St. Both of these scenarios are in conflict with (1) the large grassy area on the property (1005 N. Glebe Rd.) that lines the south side of l lt" St. between Vermont and Glebe and that is immediately to the west of the Property; and (2) the step-down tapering of the property (Windsor Plaza) that lines the south side of 11th St. between Utah and Taylor and that is immediately to the east of the Property. 1 1~' Street is a narrow street. The canyon that would be created by either the base case or the bonus case is unthinkable. The base case and bonus case scenarios are non-starters. To the extent that anything like these scenarios are actually proposed, the BTHA and many others will use all available means to oppose them. 10
V. Prior GLUP Amendments and Rezonin~s that NVR and the County Rely Upon are Not Relevant NVR justifies its proposed request by relying on prior GLUP amendments to the Ballston Sector Plan (Section 1) and prior rezonings in Section 1. The LRPC and County Staff have shown a strong bias (especially, based on eye-witness accounts, at the December meeting) in favor a GLUP Amendment and rezoning of this Property. This bias likewise appears to be based on prior amendments and rezonings in the Ballston Sector Plan (Section 1). A. The Other Developments that had GLUP Amendments were Differently Situated from the Proposed NVR Development We would suggest that the other developments in Section 1 that are relied upon for this "exception" request were differently situated, not just in time and place (both of which are extremely relevant), but it terms of what surrounded those proposed developments prior to their creation. In this case, the West View has had a permanent place on the same block as the Property for some time. While many units in that building will have their light and views cut-off by allowable development (and thus cannot and, as we understand it, do not complain about that), a substantial number of additional units in that building will face a loss of light and their current, far-reaching northern views under the Proposed NVR Development. The quality of their living space and their property values are certain to decline. We are not aware of any other development in Section 1 where this was the case. B. Before proceeding further, the County should evaluate the Legality of a GLUP Amendment and Rezonin ~Des~gnation for the Property While the specific issues of West View residents are not generally the concern of the BTHA, the BTHA is concerned that no apparent thought has been given to whether the proposed GLUP Amendment and rezoning designation are legal in light of the obvious loss of property rights that will be incurred by some residents of the West View. Spending significant County and citizen money in a legal battle is not something that we believe would be appropriate. C. At Some Point, Enough is Enough Presumably, the planning documents and zoning codes of relevance here were developed with a vision and purpose. Manifestly, given the dates of these documents, that vision and purpose was articulated before the monetary pressures of extreme development along the Orange Line came along. At this point, we believe it is time to return to the principle that exceptions are just that: exceptions. They are not the rule. Residents should not have the burden of proving that exceptions should not be given. Instead, developers should have the burden of proving why no development consistent with the current plans and zoning will take place without an exception and/or zoning change. 11
VI. The Community Benefit of the Proposed NVR Development is Non-Existent The problems with the Proposed NVR Development have been thoroughly set forth in this letter, in other letters, and in the Petition opposing the development. By contrast, we have seen no specific or even general articulation of the benefits of the Proposed NVR Development. Obviously, we are aware that the County could accurately state that it will receive greater tax revenues from the Proposed NVR Development than it will receive from allowable development. If that is the sole or even most significant community benefit from the Proposed NVR Development, then we would appreciate an unvarnished and blunt statement to that effect. At least then, the BTHA and the 400 petitioners opposing the GLUP Amendment and rezoning will have a clear understanding about why the GLUP Amendments and rezonings are proceeding. VII. Conclusion The Ballston area of Arlington has seen very heavy development in the past 10 to 15 years. The currently-planned developments at the Ballston Mall, the corner of Fairfax Drive and Stafford Street, and the west side of Glebe Road between Wilson and Carlin Springs will further stress this neighborhood. At this point, we believe that the development of Ballston has exceeded its capacity. Our quality of life is diminishing. We can do nothing about past or currently-planned developments. However, we can and will oppose the Proposed NVR Development and any development that seeks modifications to the current GLUP and zoning code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ ~~~ The Board of the Ballston Towne Homeowners Association 12
Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association February 20, 2017 Arlington County Long Range Planning Committee 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 VIA EMAIL: afusarelli@arlingtonva.us RE: 11 th and Vermont Streets Special General Land Use Plan Study Dear Mr. Fusarelli and Members of the Long Range Planning Committee: We are writing on behalf of the Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association (VBHA) to express concerns with the proposed development at 11 th and Vermont Streets. VBHA is comprised of 14 townhomes on the corner of 11 th and Utah Streets. If you read through the Ballston Virginia Square Neighborhood Conservation Program (1984) you will find multiple pictures of VBHA, which were then newly built homes. We are a combination of owner occupied and rented units. Our homes are relatively small two story, two bedroom units. First, we are opposed to a change in the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) to allow the proposed development of townhomes and a multi-unit dwelling on what is now church property. All of our owners, including two new owners within the past year, relied upon the current land use in choosing to purchase their property. The proposed change to the GLUP would have an adverse material impact on our homes: loss of sunlight, loss of openness, loss of already scant green space, and a devolution of general neighborhood aesthetics (more fully described below) as well as an increase in the number of cars in the area that the street closure at the end of Utah intended to minimize. Residents reasonably relied on a lonstanding land use plan that would not allow these conditions to occur and to preserve VBHA home values. In short, it is unfair to VBHA owners to now change the area as proposed. Second, VBHA is concerned that the changes proposed at community meetings do not provide for an appropriate transition from the south to the north of 11 th Street if the proposed GLUP designation or the proposed zoning is approved. The Development and Growth Goal 4 in the GLUP states Preserve and enhance existing single-family and apartment neighborhoods. Within Metro Station Areas, land use densities are concentrated near the Metro Station, tapering down to surrounding residential areas to limit the impacts of high-density development. Throughout the County, the Neighborhood Conservation Program and other community improvement programs help preserve and enhance older residential areas and help provide housing at a range of price levels and densities. Neighborhood Preservation Guideline 1
8 of the Ballston Sector Plan (1980) states that Higher density commercial and residential projects adjacent to low-rise residential areas should include effective transition through the use of plant materials, tapering of building heights, balconies, open space, topography, walls and fencing. And further in describing the GLUP, the Ballston Sector Plan explains [t]he high medium area along Fairfax Drive should be planned and buildings situated to achieve a transition into the lower density areas immediately to the north. The Sector plan goes on to explain that [t]he Rl5-30T district would be appropriate for the [south side of 11 th Street]. It would allow townhouse infill and selective preservation of well maintained dwellings, and thereby reinforce the preservation planned for the area immediately north of 11th Street. (emphasis added). VBHA is a low-rise residential area that, until now, has been located across the street from a one story single family home with a full size grass yard. The adjacent church has provided green space for our residents and those of neighboring homeowners associations to greet each other and walk their dogs in the morning. (See Attachment 1 Photos). VBHA residents purchased their homes with an appropriate expectation that the GLUP would continue to be enforced. In the blocks East and West of the proposed development site along 11 th Street, other multistory buildings have significant landscaping space facing north and are tapered such that the lower levels have one or two floors and high floors are set back. For context, the single family home associated with the church is set back similar to the first level of the multi-family dwelling across from Utah Street, and only further back does the multi family dwelling go higher than the one level home. (See Attachment 2 Photos). East of Taylor Street, the homes located on the south side of 11 th street facing north complement the height and landscaping of the north side of the street such that taller townhomes on the south side indicate green space or taller townhomes on the north side. Brick or stone walls are used only where there is a single family home with a yard or other open or grassy space on the opposite site. (See Attachment 3 Photos.) The units in the building on the south side of the street are set back with patios, yards and balconies which create a buffer. In this regard, VBHA is concerned that what NVR is proposing will not provide for an appropriate transition. Although we understand it is early in the process and your committee is not reviewing a particular plan, the NVR conceptual program is for a multi-family residential project (spanning multiple properties across 11 th Street North) comprising a 7 story tower on the southernmost portion of the site, with four story townhomes flanking each side of 11 th Street. Based on preliminary drawings NVR shared with the community, it is disturbing to see the front façade of all brick, without balconies/patios or other architectural relief as a buffer, and without any green space, which would effectively create a dark dense wall along the length of the street. Changing the zoning district to allow taller building heights and greater density affording a developer the opportunity to fill the area with greater density townhomes and multi-family units without requiring the transition describe in the Ballston Site Plan and 2
executed elsewhere along 11 th Street would change the character of the neighborhood along 11 th Street, and result in a loss of outdoor space that is needed to ensure the quality of life of our residents and ensure our homes retain their value. While we are not opposed to the townhouse infill contemplated by the Ballston Sector Plan, we are concerned that over time the understanding of what that means has changed, and we urge you to promote townhouse infill along 11 th Street that is consistent with the surrounding area. Townhouses built in the 1980s had small yards with abundant landscaping in front of the houses, and breaks in the structures for walkways through the properties creating a path to walk to the metro from surrounding areas. To change the concept of townhouse infill and place higher density homes without green space, without landscaping along 11 th Street, with with no break in the block would place an undue burden on the residents to the North. Multiple residents of the higher density areas along Fairfax Boulevard walk their dogs along 11 th Street and use the small patches of grass as if it were a public park. The combination of removing the church yard with building higher density externalizes the cost of the new residents pets and will result in more owners along 11 th Street removing grassy areas because it is almost impossible to maintain healthy grass under these conditions. In short, higher density buildings without appropriate transition, including building townhomes without open green space, would undermine the goal of preserving the older residences in this neighborhood. We oppose any change to the GLUP. And we urge you to not approve any change to the GLUP inconsistent with the Ballston Sector Plan. At a minimum, we hope that as you review the modeling in connection with NVR s Special General Land Use Plan request, that you make sure the models provide for sufficient transition and tapering in the form of set backs, balconies, open space and plant materials consistent with other 11 th Street blocks. We urge you not to recommend a change to the General Land Use Plan that puts those in jeopardy. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. Victoria at Ballston Homeowners Association Board of Directors Kristine Kassekert Tyler Wilson Ryan Powell 3
Attachment 1: Current Green Space on Church Property 4
Attachment 2: Height of Buildings Next Block East from Proposed Development In this picture, taken facing East on 11 th Street from Vermont, note that the house on the right is set back from the street almost even with the set back of the condominium complex located between Utah and Taylor Streets. Also note the relative height the first level of the house is approximately the same height as the bottom tier of the condominium. This photo is taken West facing from the corner of Taylor and 11 th Streets showing the building located between Utah and Taylor Streets. The significant set back is filled with landscaping at the sidewalk level. At each level facing 11 th Street there is also a balcony. 5
Attachment 3: Structures on the South Side of 11 th Street Complement the North Side Between North Taylor and Stuart Streets South Side of 11 th Street between North Taylor and Stuart Streets. Patios on the ground floor, balconies on the upper floors attached the three-story townhomes, interspaced with landscaping line the sidewalk. (West facing view). The North side of 11 th Street on this block is an open space with some utilities and parking. The lesser set back on the South side is complemented by the open space across the street. 6
Between Stuart and Stafford Streets Looking east, the South side of 11 th Street has developed with four-story townhomes which complement the North side of 11 th Street with three story townhomes. Note the small yard on the South side and significant landscaped space on both sides (detailed in photos below). 7
Between Stafford and Randolph Streets West facing view of South side of 11 th Street. The brick enclosed patios hid set back homes, and complement the opposite site of the street in the photo below which is a single family home deeply set back with a full yard. 8