P.C. #38. May 19, Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201

Transcription

1 CHARLES MONFORT CHAIR LISA E. MAHER COORDINATOR ROSEMARY CIOTTI VICE CHAIR May 19, 2010 Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia SUBJECT: 1. A. GP GLUP Amendment to change the designation from Service Commercial (Personal and business services. Generally one to four stories. Maximum 1.5 F.A.R. with special provisions within the Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District.) to Medium Office- Apartment-Hotel (up to 2.5 F.A.R. Office Density, up to 115 units/acre Apartment Density, up to 184 units/acre Hotel Density) for a property known as 1900 Wilson Boulevard, generally located on the western part of the block in the area bounded by Wilson Boulevard, the proposed North Troy Street extension, Clarendon Boulevard, and North Rhodes Street. Applicable Policies: The Rosslyn to Courthouse Urban Design Study. B. Rezoning Z from C-2 Service Commercial Community Business Districts (1.5 FAR commercial uses) and RA8-18 Apartment Dwelling Districts (36 units/acre residential uses) to C-O-2.5 Commercial Office Building, Hotel and Apartments Districts (2.5 FAR commercial, 115/ acre residential, and 180 hotel units/acre); premises known as 1900 Wilson Boulevard (RPC # , -007, -008, -017, -018, -019). C. SP#411 ZOM 1900 Wilson, LP to develop up to 201 dwelling units and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail, and a comprehensive sign plan to include a variety of retail signs such as awnings, wall signs, and blade signs in the C-O-2.5 Zoning District per 24.A.2 of the ACZO. Property is approximately 75,432 sq ft, located at 1900 and 1916 Wilson Boulevard and is identified as RPC: , -007, -008, -017, -018, and The proposed density is approximately 124 units/acre residential and 2.65 FAR commercial. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: exclusions from density for mechanical closets, residential storage below grade, and vertical shafts, and bonus density for LEED and other modifications necessary in order to achieve the proposed P.C. #38

2 development. Applicable Policies: GLUP: Medium Office- Apartment-Hotel. D. An Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of 17th Street North, Beginning at the Eastern Boundary of Lot 25B, Washington View and Running East Between the Southern Boundary of Part of Lot 14, Part of Lot 13, Part of Lot 12, Part of Lot 11 and Part of Lot 10, Washington View and the Northern Boundary of Lot 26, Lot 27, and a Portion of Lot 28, Washington View, Adjacent to and Between RPC Nos , , , , , and , with Conditions. E. An Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a 10 foot Sanitary Sewer Easement Running South to North across the Northwest Corner of Lot 26, Washington View, RPC No , with Conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Defer the General Land Use Plan amendment, rezoning, and site plan. Find the vacation of a portion of 17 th Street North in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard these items at its May 10, 2010 meeting. Erika Byrd began a presentation for the applicant, followed by the project architect Mr. Mark Bombaugh, who described the project and how it addresses the Rosslyn to Courthouse Urban Design Study (In-Between Study) guidance. He noted the acquisition of the adjacent National Science Teacher s Association (NSTA) surface parking lot and an agreement to share NSTA s parking garage access. Samia Byrd, Planning staff, described the General Land Use Plan, rezoning, and site plan requests and how they respond to County policies and the In-Between Study. She listed proposed community benefits and site-specific site plan conditions. Matt Mattauszek, Planning staff, and Robert Gibson and Linda Collier, DES staff, were present to respond to General Land Use Plan/rezoning, transportation, and vacation questions, respectively. Lisa Maher, Planning staff, informed the Commission that item E, the sanitary sewer vacation, is included in the report for the County Board but that the Planning Commission action need not include this item. Public Speakers Stan Karson, president of the Radnor-Fort Myer Heights Civic Association (RAFOM), noted RAFOM s three primary concerns excessive height and density, affordable housing, and preservation and expansion of open space. This project is not a problem with respect to height and density. While the developer plans to make a monetary contribution toward affordable housing, RAFOM would prefer at least off-site affordable units. The developer may open discussions with an affordable housing provider in Ft. Myer Heights North. The project has two small open space areas, 2

3 which don t amount to much. Mr. Karson hopes that the civic association will be part of the discussion on public art. Nancy Iacomini represents the Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HALRB). The applicant met with HALRB in April. HALRB appreciates the architecture. The courtyards facing Wilson Boulevard address Colonial Village appropriately. We do not want too much repetition among the new Wilson Blvd. buildings. HALRB likes the window proportions. They think that limestone or precast concrete would be more appropriate for the retail level than the proposed brick and would relate to the original retail facades in the neighborhood. Carrie Johnson spoke as an alumna of the In-Between Study and the Ft. Myer Heights North Study. The In-Between Study has been successful, but the Ft. Myer Heights North study has been less so. That can be changed if the developer provides off-site affordable housing units in Ft. Myer Heights North. There ought to be a way to encourage the developer to cooperate with the nearby affordable housing provider. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Sockwell reported that the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) met five times. The site topography was challenging. In general, SPRC members felt that the proposal met the goals of the In-Between Study fairly well. The lightning rod was the appropriateness of the originally proposed retail location. The revision to move the retail to Wilson Blvd. was favorably received. There was more discussion on the character of the new block of Troy Street, which is designed as a service street more than a pedestrian street. By the end, SPRC members were fairly supportive of the street design and the overall project. Commissioner Sockwell reported that the Transportation Commission (TC) met on May 6, 2010 and raised several issues. One was the success of designs for pedestrian crossings to the triangle park on the south side of Clarendon Boulevard. Mr. Gibson laid out three alternatives and said staff would continue to study it. There is interest in windows on the Troy Street façade, but the building code does not allow them. The TC asked about designing faux windows. There are no pinch points in the sidewalks. There was discussion about the Clarendon-Troy entrance and how it would work. Questions about street geometry, with 10 and 11 foot wide lanes, a failed intersection at Clarendon Blvd. and Courthouse Road, and additional street level bike parking were addressed satisfactorily. General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Amendment Commissioner Fallon confirmed with Samia Byrd that the NSTA surface parking lot is not being double counted for density, and the NSTA site plan conditions permit the lot to be removed from that site plan without additional County Board action. Site Plan Architecture/Design In response to a question from Commissioner Klein, Mr. Bombaugh explained the treatment of the Troy Street/Clarendon Boulevard entrance and the building corner, which included revising the trellis element and making the horizontal portion of the entrance deeper. Commissioner Ciotti asked for clarification of the pedestrian flow at that entrance. Mr. Bombaugh said that the entrance has 3

4 been designed to avoid a step along the walkway from the sidewalk. He described the grade change to the lower seating area and the water feature and railing between the building entrance and seating area. Mr. Bombaugh confirmed Commissioner Cole s comment about the existence of stairs from Troy Street to the entrance in addition to the flush entrance from Clarendon Boulevard. Commissioner Harner asked several questions regarding architectural details of the building crown, the window types and screens, materials on the underside of the portico, the design of the pilasters at the building entry, and others. He opined that the crown design appeared a little spindly and asked about alternative construction, and noted that the predominant character of the window would be the screens. Mr. Bombaugh believes the crown is designed with the correct proportions. Commissioner Hunt noted that the 11x17 drawings distributed to the Planning Commission do not include building materials. Commissioner Savela raised Ms. Iacomini s suggestion for the use of limestone for the retail level. Mr. Bombaugh said that the developer is comfortable with brick, and both limestone and precast are more expensive. Commissioner Savela asked about the alley façade. Mr. Bombaugh described the façade treatment, which has no windows. Commissioner Savela encouraged the developer to make the building wall as attractive as possible. Commissioner Cole suggested a mural on that wall. Erika Byrd said that the developer can look into the idea of a mural. Commissioner Fallon confirmed with Mr. Bombaugh the code requirement that prohibits windows on that building face, which is at the property line so does not permit openings. The developer is requesting a code modification for the garage entrance. Mr. Gibson added that this alley is not being designed with sidewalks. Commissioner Ciotti confirmed with Mr. Bombaugh that more windows can be provided with increasing distance from the property line. Commissioner Savela requested the unit distribution by bedroom count. Samia Byrd described the bedroom mix, which matches the mix shown at SPRC. Commissioner Savela noted that SPRC had asked for more family-sized units, but she does not see a change. Commissioner Fallon asked about setbacks on Wilson Boulevard. Mr. Bombaugh described the differences in the step-backs and the distinctions between projects in the In-Between area. Commissioner Malis posed several questions relating to the flexible units proposed for the ground floor along Clarendon Boulevard. In response, Erika Byrd said that the developer needs to market the units for both residential and commercial uses as specified in the site plan condition for these units. Samia Byrd added that the goal is to allow flexibility, and the uses would be approved administratively. Mr. Bombaugh described these spaces as being accessible, having operable windows, awnings, and availability of space for signage. There is a tradeoff in terms of privacy, but these kinds of loft units have a residential market. Commissioner Malis is concerned that these do not lend themselves to residential use. Samia Byrd noted that staff is working with the Zoning Office to provide condition language for physical conversions that would make them usable and code compliant as residential units. The façade transparency requirements for these units would ensure real flexibility for their use. In response to questions from Commissioner Cole, the applicant noted that the current location of these units permits them to have less variability in floor elevation 4

5 so that two units could be combined. Mr. Bombaugh added that street addresses will be requested to minimize confusion about the units locations. Commissioner Harner is also concerned about how flexible these units are and confirmed with Mr. Bombaugh that they have secondary entrances to the public corridor at the rear. Mr. Bombaugh also affirmed that the developer wants to provide the awnings shown in the drawings to provide continuity and shading regardless of use. Commissioner Harner also cautioned the applicant about the possible requirement for the doors to swing out for commercial use. Commissioner Savela noted that the flexible at-grade units approved in the Gold s Gym project in Clarendon have venetian blinds on every unit, since they re being used as residences, which completely defeats the idea of transparency and activation of the street. Would staff consider stone or concrete planters in the shy zone below the windows to provide privacy and greenery, to draw on the Columbia Pike Form Based Code requirements? Mr. Gibson noted that while TC recommended maintaining a 10-foot sidewalk, two feet could potentially be used for planters or something else that would enhance the building and/or sidewalk and still allow for an eight foot sidewalk width, which staff would support. Commissioner Serie suggested window glass treatments, such as using laminated glass, on the flexible units to reduce sound. Commissioner Klein confirmed that the flexible spaces could be mixed between residential and commercial uses and pointed out that, regarding transparency, commercial uses needs to have clear glass, but perhaps residential uses don t want the glass to be as clear. Commissioner Fallon confirmed with Mr. Bombaugh that the flexible units are intended to fill spaces that could be difficult to rent with retail, and this was an innovative way to handle the uncertainty of the retail market in this area right now. SPRC wanted to see retail everywhere, but the developer s retail consultant does not think it is all viable at this time. The flexibility would allow the space to be filled as the market allows. Commissioner Fallon commented that live/work units in other projects have not really worked. Erika Byrd agreed, but pointed out that the proposal provides for only one use for each unit, which is different from live/work units. Chair Monfort reiterated that the flexible units were an attempt to address SPRC concerns. Affordable Housing Erika Byrd reported that she has talked to representatives from Wesley Housing, and the developer may pursue the option of providing off-site affordable units. Commissioner Fallon commented that the County cannot require a particular affordable housing option, but the Planning Commission can note a preference in its recommendation. Commissioner Savela asked about the lack of specificity in Condition #68 regarding the affordable housing contribution and asked if the contribution level associated with the additional density under the GLUP amendment could be negotiated in part on the basis of how and where the affordable housing was provided, addressing the public speakers issues. Samia Byrd said that the housing contribution is still being negotiated, and the condition will be revised to add more detail. Planning Commissioners discussed the contribution for the GLUP amendment and the distinction between GLUP Amendments that have been planned for and those that have not. Staff generally recommends contributions for sites with GLUP amendments consistent with adopted plans at a lower level than contributions associated with GLUP amendments not reflective of adopted plans. 5

6 Public Art/Triangle Park At the request of Chair Monfort, Samia Byrd explained the different options in the public art condition, depending on timing of the art planning and construction of the triangle park. Commissioner Fallon asked whether contributing for public art at this location conflicts with the Public Art Master Plan s recommendation to pool public art contributions to get better installations. Samia Byrd responded that the Plan provides for specific art contributions in particular locations on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Fallon noted that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation based on the design that is shown, but the Arts Commission can agree to completely redesign the park. Mr. Gibson stated that this base design can go forward with no further action, and the art dollars can go toward the fund. Erika Byrd added that if the design changes, the changes would need to come back to SPRC. Commissioner Savela noted that the structure of the condition language requires an SPRC meeting only if the base design is used, but not in the event the Public Art Committee process results in a redesign. Chair Monfort asked what SPRC would be asked to do in such a review. Commissioner Harner commented that the public art staff would like to have a process to redesign the plaza so that it is part of the public art element. Their intention is to run that process through the Public Art Committee. Commissioner Savela added that this process, allowing for future redesign, has been followed in other site plans, but that there has still been a condition that it go back to SPRC for review and comments. Responding to Chair Monfort s question about pedestrian connectivity to the triangle park, Mr. Gibson said that the street geometry is difficult. However, Condition #19f was added to provide for the developer to construct a crosswalk for this purpose. Other Issues Commissioner Ciotti asked staff about site plan conditions discussed and added in other site plans that address universal access, with desk heights, pull pressure of interior doors, and other chronic ADA infractions. Ms. Maher said that staff has included condition language in site plans about items beyond ADA, such as hands-free door openers, but site plans can t be used to provide back-up enforcement for laws for which the Zoning Office does not have resources or staff expertise. Commissioner Cole asked whether the plans include outfitting the building to provide electric charging stations. Erika Byrd responded that the state of design for that is changing too quickly to specify now what should be provided; stipulating the design requirement today could hinder the effectiveness of the charging station provision in the future. Commissioner Cole confirmed with Erika Byrd that the project provides for car sharing parking and subsidies for tenants. Commissioner Fallon discussed with the applicant the commitment to achieve LEED Silver certification and stated that the LEED scorecard was not included in the materials provided to the Planning Commission. In response to a follow-up question, Ms. Maher noted that the LEED bonus density is difficult, but not impossible, to calculate for projects that measure residential density in units/acre. Samia Byrd added that staff does not recommend a Green Building Fund contribution in projects that commit to LEED certification for bonus density. Commissioner Hunt asked staff to clarify density achieved from the land swap. Samia Byrd explained that the two units is the density that could be achieved on the land involved in the swap. 6

7 17 th Street North Vacation Commissioner Fallon asked what part of the Comprehensive Plan is relevant to the vacation request. Ms. Collier responded that this portion of the street is not shown in the Master Transportation Plan. Planning Commission Motion Commissioner Sockwell moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the GLUP amendment, rezoning, and site plan Commissioner Savela seconded the motion. Commissioner Sockwell asked for unanimous consent to amend the motion to add that Condition #81 regarding public art include a provision for the public art to come back to the SPRC for informational or other purposes. There were no objections, so the motion was amended. Commissioner Savela moved to amend the motion to recommend that the retail façade on Wilson Boulevard be changed from light brick to limestone. Commissioner Fallon seconded the motion. Commissioner Savela noted that the GLUP sets the density ceiling and the Planning Commission must consider whether the project has met the bar set by the In-between Study to warrant a recommendation to approve the additional density being sought. Given the applicant has not accommodated the step-back recommended in the study but tweaked this to achieve quite a bit of additional density, HALRB s recommendation to improve the ground level façade should be considered as an important element toward providing consistency with Colonial Village. Commissioner Harner asked for unanimous consent to amend Commissioner Savela s motion to call for limestone or precast. There were no objections, so the motion was amended. The Planning Commission voted 11-0 to amend the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Harner, Hunt, Klein, Malis, Monfort, Savela, Serie, and Sockwell supported the motion. Commissioner Hunt will oppose the motion for a long list of reasons. The flex units are inappropriate and fraught with difficulty. The façade facing the alley should have a better design. The entrance to the building is cavernous, and the door needs to be moved forward, requiring the main entrance and waterfall to be redesigned. The LEED scorecard and 11x17 drawings with material labels have not been provided to the Planning Commission. The precast/limestone issue was addressed in the amendment. The element over the front door is very odd. Requested shadow studies are not provided. The courtyards face north and are depicted as being green, and she is not sure they will work. Commissioner Hunt understands that the affordable housing ordinance is what it is and specifies certain requirements. Even so, she might vote for the site plan if the developer voluntarily agrees to work with Wesley Housing to provide affordable units on site or in the immediate area. There are opportunities to improve the site plan which would justify the additional density. Referring to the LEED Silver certification as a community benefit is not appropriate. The developer gets bonus density for that and gains a marketable asset. Commissioner Harner is struggling with this project. It has a lot of merit. It is a good fabric building, with its parking, loading, how it meets the street, massing, height, etc. He is not confident that the level of specificity in the submission package ensures that it will be built the way it looks today in the renderings. He does not have any handouts that guarantee the building will be built as 7

8 described. He is surprised by this, given the applicant has come a long way. We need a level of consistency in detail and architectural specification that we require from the applicants and this project has not presented the necessary level of detail. Several aspects of the building have not been discussed including the balconies, the brackets holding up the balconies, the recession of the windows, etc. How can Condition #30 regarding the façade design be enforced as anything other than a wide open door, especially with differences in the drawings and renderings? He would like to approve the project but has too many questions, including the window screens which are a huge issue. He would like to strengthen Condition #30 or else recommend deferral. Commissioner Cole acknowledged the creativity and hard work by the applicant. They were very flexible in flipping the commercial space. Three things concern him. Affordable housing should be included nearby or on site. He agrees with Commissioner Savela s concern regarding unit size. Many of the units are one-bedroom units, and we have a better community when it is heterogeneous, so the project should provide more diversity of unit size. He is prepared to make a motion to encourage the applicant to modify the unit mix. Finally, he has concerns about the flexible units and is willing to make a motion on this topic unless Commissioner Malis does first. Chair Monfort will support the motion. The applicant has been very responsive to SPRC. It is unfair to change the flexible units, because they were a response to SPRC concerns. He understands the concerns about the awkward design of the flexible units but believes it unfair to request changes when the applicant redesigned this to accommodate SPRC. We cannot require specific implementation of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Commissioner Fallon is not convinced that the flexible spaces have been thought out completely. Commissioners Hunt and Harner s comments have resonated with him. Commissioner Fallon made a substitute motion for the Planning Commission to recommend that the County Board defer the GLUP amendment, rezoning, and site plan. Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion. Commissioner Malis appreciates the work the developer has done, but it seems like there is a gap between what has been agreed to so far and what additional items could be agreed to. In talking through some of these points for example, are the windows operable, are they going to be glazed, are there to be planters, what is the height of the transparency, how do the awnings fit with residential use these can be worked out, but not necessarily before the County Board meeting. She would support a deferral to provide time to work out these issues. Commissioner Sockwell stated that the applicant responded to SPRC s requests in terms of the flexible units. This is experimental, and the developer should get credit for innovation. Commissioner Savela likes the design and appreciates the applicant s efforts to address SPRC requests, but has issues with it. There are problems with the amount of thought that has been put into façade treatment of the flexible spaces; the façade does not suggest it is flexible but suggests it is commercial space. The façade should be able to accommodate residential in a graceful manner. Some site plan elements that are designed to maximize density are troubling. Problems with the alley façade treatment and non-accommodation of pedestrians are because the building is on the lot line. We have been requesting for years unit mixes that can accommodate families, yet our site plans are not being built with unit sizes to attract families. All of our plans discuss inducing families 8

9 to live a more urban life style but do not approve projects that allow this. With the GLUP amendment, we could react more favorably if the developer had made more progress in trying to achieve the Community s affordable housing goals in the neighborhood. The private café seating was included in the open space calculations. The neighborhood has commented about the lack of open space, and café seating does not address this need. The project has potential but needs a little more work, given what the County is giving through the GLUP amendment and bonus density. She will support the deferral. Commissioner Serie will support the deferral. The project has good points, but he associates his comments with Commissioners Hunt, Savela, Harner and Cole. More work is needed on the flexible units, such as consideration of planters, glass treatment for safety and soundproofing, and alternative options for the awnings. The Planning Commission voted 9-2 to make the motion to defer the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Harner, Hunt, Klein, Savela, Malis, and Serie supported the motion. Commissioners Monfort and Sockwell opposed the motion. The Planning Commission voted 9-2 to approve the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Harner, Hunt, Klein, Savela, Malis, and Serie supported the motion. Commissioners Monfort and Sockwell opposed the motion. Commissioner Fallon moved to recommend that the Planning Commission defer consideration of the vacation of a portion of 17 th Street North to be heard concurrently with the requested GLUP amendment, rezoning, and site plan. Commissioner Savela seconded the motion. Ms. Maher suggested that deferring the finding could be problematic, and suggested the Commission could carry over the discussion of this item to Wednesday evening following staff s discussion with the County Attorney. Commissioner Hunt moved a substitute motion to table this item and carry it over to Wednesday May 12. Commissioner Fallon seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted 11-0 to make the substitute motion the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Harner, Hunt, Klein, Malis, Monfort, Savela, Serie, and Sockwell supported the motion. The Planning Commission voted 11-0 to support the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Harner, Hunt, Klein, Malis, Monfort, Savela, Serie, and Sockwell supported the motion. At the carryover meeting on Wednesday May 12, 2010, Ms. Maher said that the Planning Commission could defer the vacation until a date certain that is within 60 days of their receipt of the packet containing the materials for this item. If the Planning Commission does not make a finding within 60 days, the vacation is deemed to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out that finding the vacation in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan would not suggest approval of the site plan. Commissioner Fallon moved that the Planning Commission find the vacation of a Portion of 17 th Street North in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to support the motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Fallon, Malis, Monfort, Savela, Serie, and Sockwell supported the motion. Commissioner Harner opposed the motion. 9

10 Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Charles A. Monfort Planning Commission Chair 10