ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 18, 2018

Transcription

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2100 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 ARLINGTON, VA (703) JANE C. SIEGEL CHAIR JAMES SCHROLL VICE-CHAIR Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia April 18, 2018 MICHELLE STAHLHUT COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK SUBJECT: 4. Red Cross/North Trenton Street Site A. Z Rezoning from R-6 One-Family Dwelling District to RA8-18 Multiplefamily Dwelling District; and from RA8-18 Multiple-family Dwelling District to R15-30T Townhouse Dwelling District. B. SP #446 Wesley Housing Development Corporation to construct a 115-unit multifamily residential building and 19 townhouse units with the existing 63-unit Whitefield Commons Development to remain. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends the County Board: 1. Adopt the resolution attached to the draft staff report dated April 4, 2018 to approve the subject request for rezoning from "R-6" One-Family Dwelling District to "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District; and from "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District to "R15-30T" Townhouse Dwelling District, for the property known as 20 N. Thomas Street; 15, 19 N. Trenton Street; and 4333 Arlington Boulevard. 2. Adopt the ordinance to approve the subject site plan for a 115-unit multifamily residential building and 19 townhouse units, with the existing 63-unit Whitefield Commons buildings to remain with an additional two (2) units to be added, with modifications for reduced parking requirements, and increased density for provision of affordable housing and for sustainable building design, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan; located at 20 N. Thomas Street; 15, 19 N. Trenton Street; and 4333 Arlington Boulevard. Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard this item at their April 9, 2018 public hearing. Michael Cullen, Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development (CPHD)- Planning gave a presentation on the background of the project. Additional staff present included Bob Duffy, Director, CPHD-Planning, David Cristeal, Director, CPHD-Housing, Aaron Shriber, Current PC# 48.A.B.

2 Page 2 Planning Supervisor, CPHD-Planning, Maureen Markham, CPHD-Housing Division, and Robert Gibson, Department of Environmental Services (DES) Transportation. Sara Mariska, Walsh, Colucci Lubeley and Walsh PC introduced the project on behalf of Wesley Housing Corporation. Also present were Shelley Murphy, Wesley Housing Corporation, Jeremy Arnold and Robert McClennan, Bonstra Haresign Architects, and Karen White, Walter L. Phillips, Inc. Public Speakers There were thirteen public speakers for this item. 1. Steve Maddalena, Arlington Oaks resident, asked the Planning Commission to oppose the project because it violates the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) and is inconsistent with the Affordable Housing Plan. The density is three times larger than Arlington Oaks and 69% above the maximum unit density for the zoning. The GLUP calls for tapering density and preserving residential neighborhoods. The area calls for 70% affordable housing, instead of incentivizing affordable housing there are incentives for 80% or above housing. There should be geographic dispersion of affordable housing. 2. Brian Tucker, President, Board of Directors, Arlington Oaks Condo, said their association is part of garden style homes built during the 1940s. They have tall trees and open spaces. Residents have watched developments be demolished over time. They recognized the unique opportunity for this development because it brings affordable housing and improve safer traffic conditions to the community. They have been involved but the project has changed very little since the beginning. Wesley has gone too far with this development and have made no case they cannot move forward with a smaller less dense project. 3. John Gibb, Wesley Board member, said they have worked on this project since 2005 and invested heavily in this site. It expands resident services and provides community improvements. They are selling the affordable units with the expectation of AHIF funding at some point but telling them to make it 100% affordable housing without the AHIF funding is impossible. The value of the site will be diminished if it is 100% affordable housing. They entered the process with a clear exit strategy to use the market townhomes to pay for the affordable housing. 4. Christopher Donohue, Arlington Oaks resident, said the goal of affordable housing should not come at expense of existing residents. They are not against affordable housing but this is too dense. The traffic study was flawed and the additional traffic will overwhelm the existing network that is already overcrowded. All the traffic entering and exiting the development must use narrow streets with diagonal parking that is already overcrowded and exasperated by rush hour traffic cutting through the neighborhood. The proposal causes a safety issue by locating the entry on the Arlington Boulevard service road. Cars exit Arlington Boulevard at that point at a high rate of speed and it is an accident waiting to happen. This will seriously degrade the quality life of existing residents in an area that has the second highest rate of affordable housing in the area. 5. Marjorie Hobart, Arlington resident, is a 48-year resident of Arlington. This type of housing is needed. She urged the Planning Commission to work with Wesley to approve the project and the plans have many advantages such as family-size and barrier free units, green buildings, it does not displace existing residents, and it brings community benefits to the area. It does adhere to the Affordable Housing Master Plan.

3 Page 3 6. Jim Hurysz, opposes additional infill redevelopment of properties owned by non-profits because these neighborhoods were never designed for the density and vehicle trips being imposed. The applicant is a regional developer that specializes redeveloping properties neglected by non-profit owners. He asked how many people moving into the affordable apartments would be Arlington residents. Redevelopment would drive more traffic through the neighborhoods. It is disconcerting that non-profits sell their property to regional developers and avoid paying taxes for decades and imposing the burden on County residents. 7. Bernard Berne, President, Buckingham Civic Association, opposes the construction of this project. They recommend eliminating all bonus density requests associated with the construction of an environmental sustainable building and affordable housing; eliminate three townhouses; eliminate the parking density exception; increase amount of open space and green space; redesign the site and buildings in the character of Buckingham apartments; and incorporate native trees and plant species. After all the meetings, nothing major has been changed. This is a massive building. Buckingham has one of the largest concentrations of affordable housing in Arlington. The idea of the Affordable Housing Master Plan is to disperse affordable housing across the County, not concentrate it. 8. Binh Ly, Arlington Oaks, rents a small studio and supports affordable housing because Arlington needs more in locations accessible to transportation and there should even be more bikeshare stations in this neighborhood. He does not agree that affordable housing is being dumped here. 9. Andrew Drumm, Arlington Oaks Board member, said he has worked with Arlington County to be responsible residents and implement the vision of a more sustainable community including rain gardens, community garden, rain-wise landscaping, increasing tree canopy, eradicating invasive plants and many other programs. They have specific concerns related to this proposal. The applicant s claim of responsible landscaping is not true as many established trees will be lost. This neighborhood has the lowest percentage of tree canopy in Arlington. The proposal will result in loss of open space and should be a smaller footprint to preserve canopy and open space. They are opposed. 10. Gerald Leporte, HALRB, said they were involved because it is adjacent to Whitefield Commons apartments which is identified as important in the Arlington County Historic Resources Inventory and also adjacent to the Buckingham Village National Historic District. The current design and materials complement the adjacent buildings. They think the tree planting plan will help with the loss of trees. They support this project and the historic preservation easement being proposed. 11. Palmore Clarke, said that none of the people working on this project will live near it. This project is their neighborhood. Instead of two single-family homes they will face a wall of townhouses. They will lose trees. They will endure the traffic of 134 new units. 12. Samantha Platt, Arlington Oaks resident said she is concerned the loss of green space and increased traffic will cause families to leave the neighborhood. 13. Marjorie Green, VOICE community leader, asked the Planning Commission to support the project. In 2000, 26% of the housing stock was affordable and today it is 8% which means teachers, service workers, and nurses cannot live in Arlington which is why they expect the County Board will provide Affordable Housing Investment Funds (AHIF) for this project. This

4 Page 4 project will construct affordable units in a neighborhood along a transportation corridor north of Route 50 in a mixed income scenario that fosters economic inclusion. Public Review Process Transportation Commission Commissioner Lantelme reported Transportation Commission supported the project and it believed there was sufficient parking on the site. Whitefield Commons has vacant spots currently. There is an incomplete bike trail connection along Arlington Boulevard. There is not a formal plan to complete the trail, however it will be moving forward in another year or so. There was a motion to have staff work with VDOT to stripe the service road for bikes while waiting for the bike trail. Commissioner Gearin asked what the Transportation Commission determined regarding dropoff, pick-up and delivery. Commissioner Lantelme responded there would be four spaces on Trenton Street and the applicant said two of those spaces would be dedicated to delivery. SPRC Report Commissioner Hughes thanked the community for their participation and constructive attitude and comments. Commissioner Hughes thanked the applicant for making changes to the project in response to comments. Commissioner Hughes remined commissioners the site is not in Sector or Area plan to provide guidance. Commissioner Hughes thanked HALRB for the improvements made due to their comments, stating the site was significantly improved through the HALRB inputs.. Planning Commission Discussion Site Context/Existing GLUP Commissioner McSweeney asked staff to comment on the thought the project does not fit in with the GLUP. Mr. Cullen responded the applicant is proposing the maximum end of the GLUP for base density. Some of the community members object to additional density gained by providing affordable housing units and green building design. The rest of the site is consistent with the GLUP designation Commissioner Hughes asked if the County uses Sector Plans or Area Plans to limit the opportunities for bonus density. Mr. Cullen responded that is not typically the case. Sector Plans provide incentives to achieve certain development forms and policies by incentivizing bonus density. Some Sector Plans have a calculation for achieving bonus density for historic preservation which is not the case in this area. Commissioner Hughes said the record shows that the County uses small Area Plans and Sector Plans to limit bonus density opportunities for Affordable housing and green building desing most recently at the Washington-Kirkwood Site. Buckingham community/arlington Oaks, Church/Historic Resources Inventory Commissioner Iacomini said portions of Buckingham are on the National Register and are also local historic districts. She noted Buckingham is a well- established residential area built at a time when that amount of density was new for Arlington. It was done well and has withstood

5 the test of time and has realized its potential as garden apartments and housing for the middleclass. Page 5 Trees Commissioner Gearin said they like to get viable affordable housing projects because it comports with many County goals. She wanted to raise the issue of the Earthcraft Gold certification and the additional units at a time when so much open space and trees are being lost. It seems at odds to designate a project with a density bonus for environmental sustainability when so much is being lost. She asked about the intent of the incentives and if there is a firm number of trees that will be replaced on-site. The applicant engineer Karen White, Walter L. Phillips, Inc, said they are proposing 94 canopy trees onsite and 67 off-site to be installed at Knightsbridge. Commissioner Gearin asked about the option of providing a future sewer easement (rather than undertaking the work now) as a way to preserve some of the large canopy trees. Mr. Cullen responded the sewer pipe and trees were not subject to SPRC discussion. There are competing interests. Staff would like to preserve trees and provide adequate utilities. Robert Gibson, DES, pointed out that the trees potentially protected by the easement area will be removed with the project due to driveway reconfiguration and parking areas; and clarified that the larger canopy trees in the center of the site would not be preserved with the easement. The reason for doing this is that it can be done while the site is under construction. The same trees would be impacted in the future and it is better to replant trees as part of this project. Ultimately the pipe will need to be relocated to support stormwater needs on this site and the broader Buckingham area. As is, the County does not have ownership or the ability to maintain and inspect the pipe in the future. Commissioner Gearin said if it is put off, some of the other trees will have grown up in the meantime. She added the tree replacement condition specifies three year but larger trees can take much longer to show signs of die-off and ultimately die. Transportation Commissioner Schroll asked why the sidewalk is not wider than proposed. Mr. Gibson said they wanted to maintain the hillside at the back of the sidewalk because it was well vegetated. Staff worked with the applicant to bump out the curb and narrowing the access road along that segment prior to the ramp coming off Arlington Boulevard. There is a strong chance that VDOT would approve narrowing at that area and emergency access width is not needed. The curb bumps out two feet which allows 9.5-foot-wide streetscape including 5 foot clear and 4-foot planting strip buffer. Below that buffer is an existing storm pipe for the road which will not allow trees. The VDOT exception was related to moving out the curb. Commissioner Lantelme said there are two exits from Route 50 onto the service road and the neighborhood is concerned about the speed of exiting traffic and suggested closing the easternmost exit to limit cut-through traffic. Commissioner Weir uses those exits and agrees with Commissioner Lantelme. Mr. Gibson said staff has considered closing one of those exits. From a staff perspective, the first exit provides a useful exit for the community to get into its neighborhood. This segment of the service road carries one fifth of the next segment from the next link. With that access to the neighborhood, all of that traffic does not go to the George Mason exit. Staff is working on making striping changes along that segment before the project advances which will keep cars better separated.

6 Page 6 Commissioner Hughes asked if the striping for maintenance purpose could involved striping a bike lane. Staff agreed. Commissioner Schroll asked about people parking in front of the multifamily building and conflict with speed of cars coming off Arlington Boulevard. Mr. Gibson said the issue of pick-up and drop-off is separate between short and longer stops. Shorter activities are safe particularly with striped lanes. Staff would be much more concerned if there were a parking lane due to emergency access requirements. Four spaces will be constructed along the Trenton Street frontage and the applicant will work with staff to designate one or more of those for shortterm parking. The applicant agreed. Child Care Parking, Drop-off, and Pick-up Commissioner McSweeney asked about parking with the Children s International School. Mr. Cullen responded staff has researched the parking plan for the school related to the use permit that requires securing of off-site parking. The site plan is not required to satisfy the use permit conditions. Staff has reached out and offered assistance in working through the changes needed for the use permit. The applicant said they cannot accommodate additional parking in their garage but there will be four parking spaces being added on Trenton Street. Mr. Gibson said four are required. Commissioner Iacomini said the school is a use housed in the church which has put its property up for sale. Site Design Massing Locations and distance between buildings Commissioner McSweeney said one of the prized traits of Buckingham and Arlington Oaks is the relationship of land to the buildings. She agrees density along Arlington Boulevard is appropriate but she asked why the buildings are so large. Staff responded it is an ideal situation in that the density is being provided at the farthest point from the existing neighborhood and at a lower elevation which mitigates the bulk and height. The applicant responded there are a number of existing site challenges. The size makes this project economically viable. They have been mindful of moving density away from Arlington Oaks. The affordable housing units are consistent with the County s goals and are provided on-site and there is a bonus for the certification process. Commissioner McSweeney said she is trying to reconcile bonus density and green building with taking away so much green space and trees even though green space is typical and a feature of this community. The applicant responded the building is not replacing green space but surface parking and this proposal is an improvement over the existing condition. Commissioner Iacomini said the conundrum of bonus density realized from the affordable housing and green building policies are a constant feature of projects. Areas where there are adopted Sector Plans with specific density and GLUP goals see additional density from these policies to the point where there are some projects that come in above the GLUP designation for the site. However, Arlington has said both affordable housing and energy efficiency are goals that are worth such density. She noted the farthest corner of the area at the edge of the garden apartment neighborhood - is the appropriate place for a larger building. Affordable Housing Contribution

7 Page 7 Commissioner Gearin asked if there is a separate affordable housing agreement with the applicant that outlines the marketing of the units and said it would be great if people in Arlington County knew about these and could apply for them. Ms. Markham, Housing Division, said there is a separate agreement with the applicant that covers many aspects of affordable housing including the marketing. Anecdotally speaking, usually most of the applicants are overwhelmingly from Arlington. Playground Commissioner Hughes requested confirmation from the applicant that outside of program service hours the playground will not be restricted. The applicant said there will be no signs and open to the public after hours. Commissioner Iacomini asked if there is a public access easement and the applicant agreed and said it is very similar to the existing and their intention is to replace what currently exists. Storm Water Replacement/Easement Commissioner Hughes asked if there will be impact on off-site trees. Karen White said there is a row of trees on the west side of the property where three to five evergreen tree might be impacted. Commissioner Iacomini appreciates the applicant s position on the utility easement and noted many trees will be taken out due to construction. She said the request for an easement is not an unusual request for a developer and has no issue with supporting the easement. She appreciates the concern for trees on the property line. There are many unknown things about mature trees and their longevity even if not disturbed by construction - but in the site plans there are tree replacements required. New understory and canopy trees will be planted thus reforesting the site and there will be site plan conditions mandating such replacements actually survive. Phasing Commissioner Schroll asked about phasing for the project. Mr. Cullen responded Phase I is the townhomes and Phase II is the multi-family building. Staff has the expectation that the townhomes would be the first phase as there are a number of benefits to be delivered with the first phase such as completion of the sidewalk at Trenton Street. The applicant said they would like flexibility for either to go first but likely the townhomes will go first. Karen White said the townhomes would go first and the Red Cross building would remain. Some of the existing parking lot would be used for staging. If the townhomes go first, the full Trenton Street streetscape would be completed first. Strom Water Replacement/Easement Commissioner Hughes said it is important to remember that the community expects non-profit and for-profit developers to complete expensive and necessary work that makes the community work. Commissioner Weir said there was a big dust up about the long-term consequences over the failure to ensure a sewer line was public when it went in. The applicant has made some reasonable offers but anytime they fail to obtain a public easement and ownership over

8 infrastructure we are burying a bad time capsule for ourselves and it is a bad idea to mess it up again. Page 8 Historic Easement Commissioner Iacomini asked Mr. Liebertz to discuss historic easements. Mr. Liebertz said the preservation easement would meet Goal 5 of the Historic Resources Inventory which is protecting and promoting reuse of properties and resources that are listed as important. The goal is to collaborate with the owners to protect the historic and material integrity to the maximum extent possible. How the County treats these properties varies depending on various Area and Sector Plans. Commissioner Iacomini said one of the worries of the applicant is there might be additional density available for Whitefield Court if they do renovations. Mr. Cullen said the staff is responding to the application as proposed. He said the proposal for additional density is subject to certification of the new building, not the Whitefield building and there might be potential in the future. Commissioner Iacomini said that people think historic buildings will be preserved because they are in site plans, but requesting historic easements that run with the land are standard when appropriate and routinely requested in conditions for site plans that have historic buildings or facades as part of their application. 100% Affordability Commissioner McSweeney asked about the 100% affordability requirement that the County imposed in the conditions just days before the hearing. She noted that the applicant has no assurance they would receive AHIF funding, and asked why the County is requesting 100% affordability the funding may not materialize. Commissioner Hughes stated for the record that the applicant was clear during SPRC that it was their intention to move forward with 100% affordable housing, but noted that it was not guaranteed. Ms. Markham responded the County made a number of concessions, such as parking ratios, based on assertions advanced by the applicant that the building would be 100% affordable. One of the arguments the applicant made against moving and replacing the stormwater sewer, for example, was that to do so would add cost to the affordable housing project. Thus, during the discussions, staff wanted to hold the applicant to 100% affordability. Finally, she noted that there have been two recent site plan projects that contained a commitment to higher affordability prior to AHIF financing. Commissioner McSweeney asked the applicant why they are opposing the requirement. She said that it was her understanding that if the applicant does not secure funding, it would need to sell the property, and the 100% affordable requirement would lower the value of the property. The applicant responded that it had assembled this property unrestricted at considerable risk. They know the County is in a difficult place regarding AHIF funding, but there are carrying costs attached to holding the property until funding is obtained. Commissioner Iacomini asked Mr. Cristeal to respond to the question. Mr. Cristeal said the requirement is consistent with how the project has been portrayed throughout the discussions with the appliant, so it was normal to ask why the project wouldn t be 100% affordable. Commissioner Iacomini asked whether the Queens Court project is 100% AHIF funded. Mr.

9 Cristeal responded that Queens Court is being developed under a tax credit structure, which means the funding contains a federal low income tax credit equity, a private mortgage, a developer contribution, and AHIF financing. Wesley submitted a similar finance package. Commissioner Iacomini noted there are 100% non-profit affordable housing projects that do contain some private funding, which means there are private lenders willing to lend to encumbered properties and asked how Wesley is different. Page 9 Wesley Housing responded that the issue for them is how to get to 100% affordability, and asserted that it takes all the funding pieces, to work together. The first piece is the AHIF funding which then helps secure the tax credits, which then makes a project eligible for the private mortgage. To do a 100% affordable project, County assistance is necessary. Without it, the rest of the project is not viable. Commissioner Iacomini said she was unsettled by the need to make everything liquid, because that feels like a bait and switch: there have been parking and density concessions made due to the portrayal of the project as 100% affordable. Wesley Housing said they have explained they were looking for a site plan to include 10 committed affordable units. They also noted that part of the problem is they were only recently advised of the new condition, and said they need time to reach a compromise with the County. Commissioner Iacomini said this is the first time they have heard it might not be 100% affordable. She supports going forward with the 100% affordable requirement. Commissioner Hughes said concessions are not concessions he is comfortable with the parking ratio. Buildings are treated fairly and equally regardless of who is inside of them. When he thought about what this site looked like in the worst-case scenario, it would consist of the site being sold to a for-profit developer seeking to maximize returns. Ten units would be typical affordable housing contribution under that scenario (Standard Bonus Density Contribution), and the rest of the units would be market rate. The type of market rate the non-committed units would be is important. This project is off the Metro corridor, and it would likely not be an amenity-filled luxury building. Typical new-build rents on the Pike such as at 5500 similarly situated are $1,500 for a one bedroom and $1,800 for two bedrooms. Therefore, this site, under a mixed scenario, could come in as missing middle housing with ten committed affordable units in the worst-case scenario. Therefore, and he is comfortable opposing the 100% affordable requirement. Commissioner Iacomini said she appreciates the perspective of the SPRC Chair but she cannot assume what a building would look like if it was not this developer. She does know this application that is before her. Commissioner Gearin asked if this is the first-time staff has applied the 100% affordability requirement. Mr. Cristeal said Queens Court had a similar requirement and they got entitlement prior to funding and there was no guarantee they would receive funding. Commissioner Weir asked if a major site plan amendment would be required in the worst-case scenario.

10 Page 10 Mr. Cullen said the basic difference in a minor and major site plan amendment is that if there is a 5% increase in density it is a major site plan amendment. A change of use or major design elements would be appropriate for a site plan amendment. A change to affordability would require a minor site plan amendment. If the condition were not included, it would not be a site plan amendment and just the ten units and not the 100%. Planning Commission Motion Commissioner Hughes thanked those who spoke in support of affordability and asked supporters to come to Area and Sector Plan meetings as he often finds himself the only person in the room speaking on behalf of affordability. He believes in this case that the community should move forward with a project without the 100% affordable requirement. Commissioner Hughes moved the Planning Commission recommend the County Board: 1. Adopt the attached ordinance to approve rezoning Z for a portion of the site from "R-6" One-Family Dwelling District to "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District; and from "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District to "R15-30T" Townhouse Dwelling District, for the property known as 20 N. Thomas Street; 15, 19 N. Trenton Street; and 4333 Arlington Boulevard. 2. Adopt the ordinance to approve the subject site plan for a 115-unit multifamily residential building and 19 townhouse units, with the existing 63-unit Whitefield Commons buildings to remain with an additional two (2) units to be added, with modifications for reduced parking requirements, and increased density for provision of affordable housing and for sustainable building design, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan with conditions 1-43, and 44 amended to remove requirements for 100% affordable housing and replace the requirement for ten onsite units consistent with past affordable housing contributions for bonus density. Commissioner Weir seconded the motion. Commissioner McSweeney asked for clarification that the 100% affordability is being removed and inserting the requirement under the ordinance. Commissioner Hughes said the affordable housing bonus density does not guarantee on-site affordable units although it is often negotiated and the ratio is also negotiated. He keeps track of what they do for bonus density and this applicant has been more generous than most for-profit developers with their ratio of units. The Planning Commission voted against the motion with Commissioners Hughes, Lantelme, Weir in support, Commissioners Iacomini, Gearin, and Schroll against, and Commissioner McSweeney abstaining. Commissioner Iacomini moved Planning Commission recommend the County Board: 1. Adopt the resolution attached to the draft staff report dated April 4, 2018 to approve the subject request for rezoning Z for a portion of the site from "R-6" One-Family

11 Page 11 Dwelling District to "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District; and from "RA8-18" Multiple-family Dwelling District to "R15-30T" Townhouse Dwelling District, for the property known as 20 N. Thomas Street; 15, 19 N. Trenton Street; and 4333 Arlington Boulevard. 2. Adopt the ordinance to approve the subject site plan for a 115-unit multifamily residential building and 19 townhouse units, with the existing 63-unit Whitefield Commons buildings to remain with an additional two (2) units to be added, with modifications for reduced parking requirements, and increased density for provision of affordable housing and for sustainable building design, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan for the property known as 20 N. Thomas Street; 15, 19 N. Trenton Street; and 4333 Arlington Boulevard. Commissioner Gearin seconded the motion. Commissioner Hughes thanked the community and said he will not support the motion. He has struggled with the site as there is truth with everyone s view. There are challenges with the level of affordable housing in Buckingham. There is need for more affordable housing in Arlington. He voted against the Affordable Housing Master Plan because he does not believe our actions meet our words and values. Earlier in the year this commission supported the Sun Trust site for townhomes north of 66. The commission had the opportunity to demand affordable committed units and did not ask for one. He has voted against all townhome and multi-family projects that have not committed any affordable units. He supports the applicant for putting forward townhomes, but suggested the County could do more to offer more market rate opportunities especially in Buckingham. Commissioner Weir is also against the motion and added that people can t afford housing because there isn t enough housing. The only solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing. This is one of the best opportunities in that area to get more housing. Commissioner McSweeney said she got her start volunteering in Arlington because she joined a group of people wanting to save the Buckingham apartments. She has problems with the proposal. She has no problem with more affordable housing. She is troubled with requiring 100% affordability with no assurance that they will be able to build the project. They would not do this with a for-profit developer. It is out of context with Buckingham and the area. Commissioner Iacomini thanked the neighborhood for coming out and participating in the SPRC process. She understands the change this project will bring and how important Arlington Oaks, Buckingham, and garden apartments are to Arlington. If she thought by denying this application she would get another Buckingham, she would do it. But with zoning and the value of land, it will not happen. That is too bad because the Buckingham neighborhood and Arlington Oaks as built provide missing middle housing, tree canopy, and open space. Commissioner Lantelme concurs with Commissioner Iacomini and the preservation of Whitefield Commons helps preserve the neighborhood and it is at risk. This project is out of character but Whitefield Commons stays due to this project.

12 Page 12 Commissioner McSweeney added that in the Affordable Housing Master Plan the County is trying to provide 17.7% affordable housing throughout Arlington. Affordable housing is not a burden but she does think it should be spread throughout Arlington and she challenges other commissioners that for every SPRC, the 17.7% should be on the table. The Planning Commission supported the main motion 4-3 with Commissioners Iacomini, Lantelme, Gearin, and Schroll in support and Commissioners Hughes, Weir, and McSweeney against. Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Jane C. Siegel

13 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: Bernard H. Berne Wednesday, April 04, :45 AM Michael Cullen Wesley Housing Corporation's Red Cross - Trenton Street project: County staff report on rezoning request and site plan Re. Z Wesley Housing Development Corporation, rezoning from R-6 One-Family Dwelling District to RA8-18 Multiple-family Dwelling District; and from RA8-18 Multiple- family Dwelling District to R15-30T Townhouse Dwelling District, for the property known as 20 N. Thomas St., 15, 19 N. Trenton St., & 4333 Arlington Blvd. (RPC # , -002, -003, -004). SP #446 Wesley Housing Development Corporation to construct a 115-unit multifamily residential building and 19 townhouse units with the existing 63-unit Whitefield Commons buildings to remain; in the RA8-18 Multiple-family Dwelling District and R15-30T Townhouse Dwelling District under ACZO 5.8, 6.3, Located at 20 N. Thomas St., 15, 19 N. Trenton St., & 4333 Arlington Blvd. (RPC # , -002, -003, - 004). Mr. Cullen: The above property is within the Buckingham Community Civic Association's neighborhood. At the Association's regular membership meeting on November 13, 2017, representatives of the Wesley Housing Development Corporation presented its plans for the above project to the membership. After a discussion, the members present voted unanimously to support the following resolution: The Buckingham Community Civic Association opposes construction of the 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential project in its current form. BCCA recommends the following: - Eliminate all bonus density requests associated with the construction of an environmentally sustainable building and for the inclusion of affordable housing. - Eliminate the parking density exception (i.e., the development should meet current county zoning requirements). - Eliminate three townhouses. - Increase the amount of open space and green space. - Redesign the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Community's garden apartments by mimicking the historic buildings' appearances and large swaths of open space. - Incorporate native trees and plant species, including pollinator habitats rather than mowed grass. When developing the above recommendations, civic association members noted that the Buckingham neighborhood presently has 7% of the affordable housing units that exist within Arlington County. This is one of the highest percentages of any neighborhood within the County. Under such conditions, members considered that it would be inappropriate for the County Board to approve any bonus density for the above project. In addition, members noted that the loss of open space and mature trees that the project and its associated bonus density would create would have a significant adverse affect on the adjacent Arlington Oaks 1

14 condominiums. Arlington Oaks is a remaining component of the original historic Buckingham garden apartment community. The design of the proposed project's townhouses and main building are completely inconsistent with the design of the historic Buckingham garden apartments. I represented the Buckingham Community Civic Association at all of the meetings that the Site Plan Review Committee held on the above project. The Wesley Housing Development Corporation did not agree to implement any of the Association's recommendations for the project during the site plan review process. On behalf of the Buckingham Community Civic Association, I therefore ask you to place or summarize the Association's resolution and my comments above in the staff report that you are preparing on the above rezoning request and site plan. Thank you. Bernard Berne President Buckingham Community Civic Association 2

15 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Brian Tucker Tuesday, April 03, :11 PM Richard Best; Robert Gibson Michael Cullen; Stephen Hughes Red Cross Site Plan Dear Members of the Transportation Commission, I am writing as representative of Arlington Oaks, the condominium property that bounds two sides of the proposed development site. Our condominium consists of 40 two-story colonial garden style buildings situated around large expanses of green space and intimate courtyards. The property is 17 acres and houses 374 individual units, and exhibits all the characteristics of garden style living design that focuses on low scale buildings set among large open expanses of trees and green spaces. Our community is emblematic of the Buckingham Community. Our Association is concerned about the potential and what we believe to be negative impacts of the development on existing traffic patterns and overall quality of life in our community. We've seen little to no effort on behalf of the applicant to address concerns expressed by our residents and neighboring properties. The east side of the Arlington Oaks property is serviced by the following streets: - George Mason Drive - Arlington Blvd Service Road (One Way) - North Trenton Street - North Second Road - North Thomas Street - North Pershing Drive Arlington Oaks residents park along these streets, many of which are very narrow. Parking generally consists of pull in diagonal parking which requires backing out into traffic to exit the parking space. In addition, sidewalks around the property are narrow. We would like to communicate the following concerns to the Transportation Commission: 1. Flawed Traffic Impact Analysis: The study was conducted in May, a couple days before Memorial Day, a Federal, State and County holiday, and a time when many schools are closed for long weekends and people travel out of town. The study failed to recognize on-going issues our community has with major traffic backups during the morning arrival hours at the Foreign Affairs Training Center and the Army National Guard located directly across from the development. Vehicles arriving at these locations back up into our streets preventing residents from leaving parking lots and spots. The study also failed to recognize on-going issues our residents have leaving their parking spaces during drop-off of students at the St. Thomas Moore Catholic School. In addition, the study failed to capture traffic altogether during afternoon hours when the school releases as it was outside the time of the study. The results of the study indicate negligible impact on the traffic in our community, but as residents who live day and day out with the traffic, we know that an additional 733 trips per day through our streets will have a negative impact on the community and our qualities of life. Unfortunately our Association has limited funds and is not able to hire an independent consultant to refute the claims of this study. 2. Failure to account for reduced Bus Services: The applicant has repeatedly touted the various metro bus services adjacent to the site, but have failed to take into account WMATA's plans to drastically reduce bus service on the 4 and 22 lines which directly serve the area. 3. Failure to acknowledge limited bike amenities: 1

16 The developer is providing ample bike rooms but is not including any bike-friendly routes on the property nor acknowledging that the area is not bike friendly as streets are either high speed and busy or very narrow with cars backing out, which this development will be exacerbating with increased daily trips. 4. Failure to incorporate reasonable accessible routes: The main entrance is only accessible from the northern upper levels of the site by a long circuitous route and then along the busy Service Road. Additionally the only accessible route through the northern part of the site over to North Trenton Street involves traversing through parking lots. 5. Flaws in locating building's main entrance: The developer has located the main entrance along the busy Arlington Blvd Service Road - where traffic exits Arlington Blvd at high rates of speeds. Also, located near the main entrance is the metrobus stop. There is no public entrance or identity at all on the northern part of the site which is accessible to all the parking areas or individuals coming from the Ballston / Buckingham Corridor. There is no long term (and I believe not even short term) parking near the main entrance. It is likely passenger vehicles, buses, and delivery trucks will be parked along this high speed off ramp where visibility is limited, thus creating a very dangerous intersection. The negative impacts of this development are already being felt in this community. Our long term neighbor, the Bethel United Church of Christ, which has long used the Red Cross Parking lot for their parking, is closing their doors due to this development and no longer having any parking accessible for their members. In addition, the development is invalidating the site plan for the Children's International School - a multi-cultural pre-school program, which may force them to close or relocate. It would be unfortunate to see this community lose such a needed resource. To my knowledge, they've not offered to work with these to organizations to accommodate their needs. Although, I applaud and support the mission of Wesley Development, they seem to be compromising this neighborhood and great existing programs, at the expensive of their own mission. I apologize that I am not able to speak in person at the April 4th Commission Meeting, but thank you for attention to the items outlined above. I also hope you'll find the testimonies of Aimee Hiskett, member of the Arlington Oaks Board of Directors, as well as other residents, useful in developing your recommendations and your decision making process. Sincerely, Brian Tucker President Arlington Oaks, A Condominium 2

17 January 31, 2018 Mr. Michael Cullen DCPHD Arlington County Re: 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential Dear Mr. Cullen, As a homeowner in the Ballston area since 2002 and a neighbor (living in Arlington Forest) of the subject property, I write to take advantage of the opportunity for community comment. I would like to express my clear opposition to both the proposed development s concept a massive 6 story (not 5 as purported) 112 unit high rise jammed in along with 19 new townhomes and the specific implementation of that concept currently proposed by the developer. In particular, it is clear the site plan review committee should reject this concept and specific implementation of a large (6 story - 3 sided unit) affordable housing development in this specific location as well as the specific implementation proposed. This site is not appropriate for a large building of that size footprint or height, the proposal is wholly inconsistent with the characteristics of the neighborhood, and the proposal will greatly exacerbate the existing gridlock at George Mason and Route 50 we residents personally sit in and witness daily. While townhomes properly designed and sized to fit within the neighborhood feel are workable and would make sense, the large proposed multi-family building will have pervasive negative impact on Barrett Elementary school resourcing, and will set a negative and ill-advised precedent in the immediate area and elsewhere along Route 50 where garden style apartments or individual homes not in excess of 3 or perhaps 4 stories are the norm. Only in Rosslyn, are there massive buildings lining route 50, and this area is generally viewed as one of the worst designed parts of Arlington with respect to urban planning, architectural design, and livability. Ideally, the proposal would be rejected outright or at least the large sprawling multi-family highrise forced to be removed in lieu of something more modest. At a minimum, I encourage significant reduction in height, size, and residential capacity to the proposed high rise including suggested division of the single building into multiple smaller buildings to allow for green space between and blending with the historically designated neighboring shorter garden style properties. Below please find further elaboration on some of the select negative impacts that will occur if the proposal is approved as currently proposed for site plan review committee consideration. Negative Impact on Arlington Public School System Particularly Barrett Elementary School While a concept of Affordable Housing is surely a good theory and concept, like most County policies, proper implementation is necessary to provide a net benefit to the community. If not,

18 regardless of how laudable the goal, a well-intended initiative can actually be detrimental. It is well-recognized, based on its characteristics, that this specific location is actually a poor parcel choice for a large affordable housing unit development. First, the immediate surrounding Ballston area already has one of, if not the largest, affordable housing population in the County. Multiple new affordable housing developments have been just been built in the last several years just a few blocks from this location. A balanced distribution of County projects altering the housing market in Arlington is a prudent and wellrecognized path for successful. Oversaturating one neighborhood with housing initiatives is recognized by urban planners as a flawed approach. This proposal pushes Arlington further towards this flawed approach. This saturation is having real negative impact on school resources. Once again, it s the concentration and high numbers of both students and affordable housing units in a subset of neighborhoods that is taxing our school resources. As of Arlington County stats, Barrett Elementary School has the second most students and the second highest percentage of students eligible for Free and Reduced Meals (FARM) of any elementary school in the county. ( Over 61% percent of the students at Barrett require additional resources (FARM) with these numbers likely to continue to rise even before this proposal would go into place. While it is expected students to some degree will have different resource needs, when a school begins experience the majority or approaching 75% of students needing additional resources, the quality of education of the school as a whole for all students begin to suffer due to the excessive resource needs. Were Arlington a place where all schools had these percentages of students resource needs, it could be viewed as a simple circumstance of the location. However, this is not the case in Arlington where other elementary schools have completely the opposite in terms of resource needing student percentages. Jamestown has only 3% of its kids eligible for FARM and added resource needs associated with these students. What these statistics support is restraint in cramming more students and particularly more resource intensive students into an area already maxed out in its resources due to its high number/percentage of increased resource needing students. With 112 units of affordable housing units now proposed, the vast majority being multi-bedroom units for families with children, it is likely Barrett Elementary school will soon be experience numbers approaching 75% FARM.This will further widening the gap in such numbers across the County, in direct contrast to the work being done by the Arlington County School Board to close this gap across schools county wide. NOW is the time this the School Board can be assisted when proposals for new building projects are made not once people are living in them. I ask the Site Plan Review Committee to require the developer to submit a further proposal with a smaller size and capacity multi-family building including consideration of multiple smaller garden style buildings at a minumum.

19 Complete Lack of Consistency with the Neighborhood Key construction design concepts for effective urban development involve building with a sense of place the location you are building and proper scale. Not surprisingly, the developer here as most developers do, is clearly looking to jam the property so it s busting at the seems to maximize profit. Any objective observer knows the multi-family dwelling proposed lacks size and scope relation to the neighboring developments and is intended to maximize profit. One building with this size footprint will dominate this neighborhood and forever for the negative change an otherwise consistently and well thought out development area with design ties, walkability and community feel that provides for a green and residential feel in an urban area. The Site Review Committee Members itself have already recognized the highly flawed approach taken by this proposal at recent meetings. While townhomes if designed properly could fit with the character of the area, the proposed high rise regardless of design features will stick out like a sore thumb when viewed in context of the surround properties. It will be a massive sprawling structure dominating an area where every other structure occupies a small foot print, none exceeding 3 stories. The shear size (number of units in the multi-family building) and density of the proposal will also unjustifiably add to the already gridlocked intersection of George Mason and Route 50, and surrounding streets. Regardless of purported traffic studies I personally sit in the left turn lane for 3 or 4 or more lights backed up waiting to turn from Southbound George Mason on to Route 50. Traffic is so bad at the intersection right near this property that many in Arlington Forest simply avoid it all together. One wonders just how bad will the gridlock at this intersection be now adding families in a location not at all close to the metro. I respectfully ask the site review committee to fully perform its gate keeping function and either recommend against the proposal or at a minimum require significant reductions to the scale, numbers and size, particularly with respect to the multi-family building. Please also make the design more resemble that of the traditional buildings of Arlington not pre-fab high rises. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, David Gerk Arlington Forest (Arlington homeowner since 2002)

20 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: Brian Tucker Wednesday, January 17, :34 PM John Liebertz; Michael Cullen; Rebeccah Ballo; HALRB Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential Dear Members of the HALRB, I am writing as representative of Arlington Oaks, the condominium property that bounds two sides of the proposed development. Our condominium consists of 40 two story colonial garden style buildings situation around large expanses of green space and intimate courtyards. Our residents are concerned about the developer's lack of understanding of the Buckingham Community, both in terms of density and green space, and architectural style. Unfortunately, myself and members of our community are unable to attend tonight's meeting. The annual meeting of our Association is this evening and requires 25% of our membership to attend to conduct our annual business. We wish we could be there to support your efforts and speak regarding this development, but ask that this correspondence be shared with your members. I have reviewed the Memorandum of the presentation your heard regarding the development of the former Red Cross Site at 4333 Arlington Boulevard on December 20, I want to offer my support of your concerns expressed at that meeting. They almost verbatim represent comments I expressed as representative for Arlington Oaks at the second SPRC meeting held on November 20, Many of your comments were also shared by individuals at the table at the SPRC meeting, including Planning Commission Members. I have reviewed the drawings and other images posted to the website recently entitled Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. I am pleased to see more contextual information provided to your Board, as this was a request made by myself and other members of the SPRC at multiple meetings. I still express the following concerns based on my review of the information: 1. No changes have been made to the arrangement of the townhouses to reflect the garden-style character of Arlington Oaks and the Buckingham Community (buildings arranged around green spaces / courtyards). 2. No changes have been made to the apartment building to step it down down the Association's buildings and thus acknowledging the smaller scale of the colonial style buildings of the Association. In addition, no changes in height have been made to the townhouses to recognize the scale of the Association's building which are only two stories. The townhouses are still much taller than our adjacent buildings at four stories. 3. No changes have been made to the large solid brick walls located along North Trenton Street and the entrance into the site from North Trenton Street. This does not create an inviting neighborhood. Additionally, the raised courtyard (again another blank wall) at the apartment building does not allow for public access to green space which is drastically being reduced in this development plan. 4. Stucco is still being shown on the building (including areas adjacent to the Association's brick buildings). Stucco is not used in the area and there is no context for it. Stucco also will not weather well. Building materials should be long lasting for this type of development. I am also concerned that stucco can very easily be value 1

21 engineered for cheaper materials during construction, such as EFIS, without requiring approval from your Board or other County entities. 5. It is unclear from these documents if they developer is still proposing to use rusticated materials for the detail elements (quoining) at the corners of the apartment building as noted at SPRC Meeting #2. Rusticated quoining is not found on the Association's building or in this area. Quoining should be accomplished with the same brick used as face brick on the building. Thank you again for your efforts in this process. I appreciate your consideration of these comments in this review process. Brian Tucker President Arlington Oaks, A Condominium 2

22 Michael Cullen From: andy drumm Sent: Monday, November 27, :57 PM To: Michael Cullen Cc: Brian Tucker Subject: 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential Site Plan #446 Dear Stephen and Michael, Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the above mentioned proposed development in my street. I have lived at 202 N. Trenton since May 2005 and have several serious concerns about the proposed development which will affect me and my neighbors directly. Firstly, before I outline my concerns,i think its relevant to let you know that at Arlington Oaks we have actively supported several County initiatives over the years that I ve lived here. The ones I have directly been involved with include: a. The StormwaterWise Landscapes Program: working with Aileen Winquist we installed Rain Barrels, and rain gardens, and converted a grass area to a community garden; Installed composters. b. Tree Distribution Program: in a recent survey we documented we planted 70 trees between this program and the TCF below. I trained and became certified as an Arlington County Tree Steward to support this work. c. Tree Canopy Fund: collaborated with County Arborist Vincent Verweij on the County tree inventory. d. Invasive Plant Program: We removed English Ivy from several areas on our property e. Arlington Green Garden Tour: Participated in this ACE lead program for several years to showcase our implementation of the above mentioned iniatives; f. The Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE): implemented energy audit (Claudia Tighe) and household survey, installed more energy efficient heating systems (John Morrel) and switched to low energy lighting. So you see we have made considerable efforts to be good collaborators with Arlington County initiatives. Regarding my concerns (which I know are shared by at least several of my neighbors): 1. Loss of tree canopy. There are 30 mature native oak, holly and other native trees on the Red Cross property, as well as a large, mature dense bamboo thicket. Buckingham has one of the lowest percentage tree covers in the County at 26%. If these trees are lost to the development it will result in a significant loss of tree canopy cover in a neighbourhood that is already largely denuded of canopy trees. Assuming there remained room to plant them after the development, it would take many years for any trees planted to reach canopy height. 2. Loss of permeable surface area. The proposal, if implemented, will result in a net loss of 25% of the existing permeable surface area. This will dramatically reduce the opportunity for planting trees to replace the lost canopy. It will also result in increased stormwater runoff. 3. Loss of open space. The footprint of the proposed development dramatically reduces open space where residents can walk, walk their dogs, play etc. while at the same time dramatically increasing the number of local residents. This inevitably results in a reduction in quality of life. It will also increase the 1

23 pressure on Arlington Oaks green spaces by people, especially dog walkers I the proposed town houses and others who will have few options of nearby green space. 4. Traffic congestion. Already an issue at peak times (school and church related), will be significantly exacerbated by the volume of proposed new homes (as well as the cancelation and reduction of local bus services). 5. Loss of heritage value. The proposed architectural design is entirely incongruent with the historic Buckingham architectural design. 6. High increased density of residents. The current proposal seems to cram the maximum number of people into the available space without regard for environmental or social well being of local residents. I am concerned that all the efforts we have made to support and collaborate with Arlington County initiatives on our Arlington Oaks property over the past 10 years or so will be cancelled out by the impacts of the proposed development. This location should be more appropriately developed with a significantly smaller footprint, retaining or increasing available open space, tree canopy and permeable surface area and a lower number of town houses and apartments that benefit from a much more harmonic architectural design. Thanks very much for your attention. Sincerely Any Drumm 202 N. Trenton St. # Sent from Mail for Windows 10 2

24 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matthew Duncan Tuesday, November 21, :07 PM Michael Cullen; Robert Gibson; Sarah Helander; Caitie Forrest Fwd: Red Cross Development Update Mr. Michael Cullen, I am a property-owning resident of the Arlington Oaks community. I live at 205 North Trenton Street, just a half-block from the Red Cross Development site. I am a Licensed VA Architect and have worked with several developers on affordable and market-rate housing in Arlington, VA. Contrary to the motion below, I am a YIMBY, and fully support the Red Cross Development project. This project brings density that will ultimately add value and attention to our wonderful property, yet still provides an ample 'buffer' to route 50. Regarding the motion items below: I fully support the additional density along route 50. ADUs and sustainable design (LEED) ultimately promote a better community. I do not own a car; I bike/bus/metro everywhere. I believe the parking density exception promotes such a lifestyle and is a positive change for the county as a whole. I encourage the additional density as a result. I recommend a more substantial bus station and a bike share station at this area. Additionally, seek bonus density for bike/car sharing amenities. Further, the intersection at route 50 is currently awkward and dangerous for vehicle/pedestrian traffic, appropriate design accommodations should be made at route 50 and the service road. While eliminating 3 townhouses may provide a small 'buffer' to the Arlington Oaks community, this will likely be an unusable and awkward space. Removal of 1 townhouse and addition of a tree buffer between townhouses and Arlington Oaks is my preferred method. I agree with increasing the amount of open space, however not at the cost of the buildings. Improvements to the existing open spaces are preferred and an "openness" along streetscapes. Courtyard and roof amenity areas are preferable. I encourage a daycare facility for additional bonus density. Also, seek additional density for community benefits through improvement of adjacent green spaces. I agree with designing the site and buildings with the character of the Buckingham Garden communities... HOWEVER, not at the cost of quality. Blatant re-creation is cheesy and unwanted. Small adaptations or modernization in addition to skilled brickwork is the preferred 1

25 method. Additionally, I encourage relocation and/or preservation of the existing Red Cross building facade in such a way to work with architect's design and seek bonus density. Of course, native trees/plants are preferable. Incorporate functional artwork into green spaces for additional density. WELL-LIT, public, dog-friendly, walking-gardens, with permeable pavement is preferred to grass. Sincerely, Matthew Duncan, AIA Forwarded message From: Arlington Oaks <Asstmanager@arlingtonoaks.com> Date: Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:23 PM Subject: Red Cross Development Update To: Matthew Duncan <mduncan011@gmail.com> Arlington Oaks, A Condominium 4490 North Pershing Drive Arlington, VA t f After Hours Emergency Line: Owners of Arlington Oaks: Red Cross Development Update The Red Cross Redevelopment Project continues to works its way through Arlington County's Site Plan Review Process. Here are some updates I wanted to share: Wesley Development (the developer) has created their own website for information and to receive comments from concerned parties. 2

26 Please courbanize.com/4333arlington to learn more or provide feedback. Last Monday, the Buckingham Community Civic Association voted to establish a position against supporting the project in its current form. This effort was led by members of Arlington Oaks at the meeting. Here is the motion as adopted: We move to oppose the Red Cross Redevelopment project in its current form and motion to recommend the following: Elimination of the bonus density given for building a sustainable building and given for the inclusion of affordable housing Elimination of the parking density exception (the development should meet current county zoning requirements) Elimination of 3 townhouses Increasing the amount of Open Space and Green Space Redesigning the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Garden Communities by mimicking the historic building appearance and large swaths of open space Incorporation of native trees and plant species, including pollinator habitats rather than mowed grass. The motion passed unanimously with 9 yeah votes. Write-up from Buckingham Community Civic Association: On Monday, November 20, 2017, the Arlington County Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) will hold its second meeting on the site 3

27 plan for the Red Cross - Trenton Street Residential project. The Wesley Housing Development Corporation (the applicant) has submitted this site plan. The SPRC meeting will take place in the Arlington County Office Building at 2100 Clarendon Blvd., near the Court House Metro station. The meeting will be in Room C/D on the ground floor of the building. The SPRC will discuss the Red Cross-Trenton Street project from 8:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The agenda for the SPRC meeting is at content/uploads/sites/31/2017/11/red-cross-sprc-2-report B.pdf. Note that the description of the project on that web page is for the October 2, 2017, meeting (not the November 20, 2017 meeting). The applicant's draft presentation for the meeting is at content/uploads/sites/31/2017/11/17_11_10_second-sprc- Presentation-Draft_Flat-8.5x11.pdf The following County web page contains detailed information about the Red-Cross-Trenton Street Residential project: The SPRC's home page is at The home page describes the functions of the SPRC and contains a list of the SPRC meetings. Check the home page frequently to determine the dates and times of future meetings that will discuss this project. 4

28 The SPRC is a committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission. SPRC members make comments on projects; however, the SPRC does not take any votes. After the SPRC has conducted all of its meetings on the project, the Planning Commission and the County Board will hold public hearings on the project. After hearing public speakers, the Planning Commission and the County Board will take votes on the project. All SPRC meetings are open to the public. The Chair of the SPRC for each project determines whether members of the public can speak at the meetings. This often depends upon the time remaining at the meeting after Committee members have made their comments. The Planning Commission and the County Board almost always adopt the County staff's recommendation when they vote on site plan and rezoning requests. It is therefore important for everyone concerned about the project to express their views to the staff person is taking the lead on the project. For the Red Cross -Trenton Street Residential project, the lead staff person is Michael Cullen (Mcullen@arlingtonva.us) (Phone: ) of the County's Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (DCPHD). If you want to have an impact on the final decision on the project, you will need to inform Mr. Cullen of your views by and/or phone before he prepares the staff report for the project. Rob Gibson (RGibson@arlingtonva.us) (Phone: ) of the County's Department of Environmental Services (DES) is the lead staff person for transportation issues relating to the project. If you have views on the project's transportation issues, inform Mr. Gibson about these. 5

29 Thank you to all the residents who've taken an interest in this development and shared their input so far. Through our collective involvement, we hope to force improvements to the current design so the the development respects our community and is a better neighbor. Brian Tucker President Arlington Oaks 6

30 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: Bernard H. Berne Tuesday, November 21, :35 PM Michael Cullen Buckingham Civic Association position on 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential project Mr. Cullen: At its regular membership meeting on Monday, November 13, 2017, the Buckingham Community Civic Association (BCCA) heard a presentation by representatives of the Wesley Housing Development Corporation on the Corporation's proposed 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential project. The project is within the BCCA's neighborhood. Following the presentation and a discussion, BCCA voting members present unanimously agreed to establish the following BCCA position on the project: The Buckingham Community Civic Association opposes construction of the 4333 Arlington Blvd. Red Cross/Trenton Street Residential project in its current form. BCCA recommends the following: - Eliminate all bonus density requests associated with the construction of an environmentally sustainable building and for the inclusion of affordable housing. - Eliminate the parking density exception (i.e., the development should meet current county zoning requirements). - Eliminate three townhouses. - Increase the amount of open space and green space. - Redesign the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Community's garden apartments by mimicking the historic buildings' appearances and large swaths of open space. - Incorporate native trees and plant species, including pollinator habitats rather than mowed grass. Please consider the above when further considering this project and when preparing the County Manager's recommendation for the rezoning and site plan request. Thank you. Bernie Berne President Buckingham Community Civic Association 1

31 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: Tellis Sigros Monday, November 20, :43 AM Michael Cullen Re: The Red Cross ReDevelopment Project Michael, thank you for the reply here, and yes, I've seen the plans. I will try to keep following things. I'm all for new developments, and frankly, Arlington Oaks has plenty of acres I'm told, and I'm guessing one day a giant developer will come along and make us an offer... and perhaps ask the country to go half in so Arlington can build a new high school or something here, too. But... that Red Cross space is in an odd location for the proposed development. I'm certain a developer can put a lot of very nice townhouses there and make money. And scrap the plan as it is now. And I'm pretty sure the townhouses would get very little push back. And there is absolutely zero doubt that a developer could get a great loan if not a non recourse loan on that site because of the land value... and easily develop it for million dollar townhomes. And put up a nice brick wall along the street side facing rt. 50. No issues. Less people. Less cars. Less traffic. Less rental units in the area. Higher property values. More taxes for Arlington County over the long term. Less school age kids, too based on averages. Home owners, not rentals in an over saturated rental unit area... easy sell, too. The townhouse along George Mason have sold... all of them. Way over the builders initial estimates. Between Henderson and Pershing Dr. Do the same thing over there by Red Cross. Thxs, Telly From: Michael Cullen <Mcullen@arlingtonva.us> Sent: Monday, November 20, :26 AM To: Tellis Sigros Subject: RE: The Red Cross ReDevelopment Project Hello Mr. Sigros, Thank you for your detailed comments, we appreciate them. It sounds like you ve already looked at the project page linked below, but I d suggest you follow the project schedule there where we ll update with Site Plan Review Committee meetings as they are scheduled. We have a meeting tonight beginning at 8:30 pm, after which we have yet to schedule a third meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions about the project. Regards, Michael Cullen, AICP Principal Planner 1

32 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING, HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA All correspondence sent to and from Arlington County Government is subject to the public record laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it and immediately notify us by or by phone. Thank you. From: Tellis Sigros Sent: Sunday, November 19, :43 PM To: Michael Cullen Subject: The Red Cross ReDevelopment Project Mr. Michael Cullen, hello. I live in Arlington Oaks. I own a condo here. I've grown up in Arlington. I went to elementary school here, jr. high, and high school here. I know the area very well. I've been here since It's amazing to see all the changes here over the decades. Most of them pretty good. Places is more crowded, but such is reality. But in the rush to build new buildings, bike lanes, add street lights, and more, sometimes real issues get missed. Here is a chance to prevent building something that will lead to a lot of complaints and negative issues for Arlington. Wesley Housing Development Corporation is trying to build, or so I believe it's them, is trying to redevelop some property on and near the Red Cross building over by Route 50, near St. Thomas More Church and Arlington Oaks community... and I believe it's too much in too small a space. The Red Cross building is basically always empty. And there are only two old houses behind it. If one has never stood there in the morning, then one wouldn't know about all the traffic using that road to get to The National Readiness Defense Center... backed up with cars trying to loop on George Mason off of Rt. 50. Not to mention people dropping students off at St. Thomas More. Not to add in people going 45 to 60 MPH off of Rt. 50. Not to mention McDonalds has cars wrapped around the drive through and they often come down that road, too. Two busy churches there, also, and that's more people coming and going all the time. Not to mention there isn't enough parking over there now. And not to mention all the cut through traffic. This area already has and over percentage of "affordable housing" in comparison to other parts of the county and now someone is trying to build more? Put it in far North Arlington. They wouldn't complain, would they? The plans I've seen to build on the Red Cross site and area are going to make a mess when it comes to traffic. And we already have enough "affordable housing" in this area. And over crowding will result. There will be far more cars per unit then they're projecting. There will be more people in those units than they're projecting. I live over here, plenty of people get stuffed into the affordable units around here. If the developers want to build, give them a permit for luxury dwellings, nothing else. If they want to build "affordable housing" it's because they get favorable loans... but they can easily get loans to build million dollar townhouses. Or they can sell the property to another developer and call it a wash. It's a business model 2

33 they're using... but there is a lot of opposition to this project. I don't oppose million dollar townhouses because there won't be so many people and cars there... and the townhouses will sell. I personally oppose the plans as they are now. I'd suggest: - Elimination of the bonus density given for building a sustainable building and given for the inclusion of affordable housing - Elimination of the parking density exception (the development should meet current county zoning requirements) - Elimination of 5 townhouses... or only build townhouses and no apartment building. - Increasing the amount of Open Space and Green Space - Redesigning the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Garden Communities by mimicking the historic building appearance and large swaths of open space - Incorporation of native trees and plant species, including pollinator habitats rather than mowed grass. Thank you. Tellis Sigros

34 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: k grissette <kgrissette@gmail.com> Monday, November 20, :53 PM Michael Cullen Sarah Helander Red Cross Redevelopment project To Michael Cullen, Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (DCPHD) Dear Mr. Cullen, I own a condominium at 4350 Pershing Drive #2, which is a neighbor to Wesley Development's planned Red Cross Redevelopment project. I am writing to register my support for the Buckingham Community Civic Association's position on the redevelopment project. I also oppose the Red Cross Redevelopment project in its current form and strongly urge adoption of the following recommendations: Elimination of the bonus density given for building a sustainable building and given for the inclusion of affordable housing Elimination of the parking density exception (the development should meet current county zoning requirements) Elimination of 3 townhouses Increasing the amount of Open Space and Green Space Redesigning the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Garden Communities by mimicking the historic building appearance and large swaths of open space Incorporation of native trees and plant species, including as many pollinator habitats as possible rather than mowed grass. This is critical and necessary in this part of Arlington. There is enough high density housing in Arlington, and I believe it is important to our community to maintain as much green/open space as possible, while meeting zoning requirements. There is no justifiable reason to grant exceptions to the reasonable parking density and no justifiable reason to give this building bonus density. Our area cannot handle additional parking and more high density residences. Thank you for your consideration. 1

35 Karen Grissette 4350 Pershing Drive #2, Arlington 2

36 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: J. Metz Monday, November 20, :31 PM Michael Cullen Fw: Red Cross Development Update As an owner of two units in Arlington Oaks, I fully concur with the position of the Buckingham Community Civic Association in opposing the Red Cross Redevelopment Project. I strongly support the Association's recommendations and hope you will take them seriously. In addition to the parking and increased traffic which the RCRP plans will cause, I am especially concerned that the affordable housing aspect will decrease the values of our properties and make it more difficult to rent the units. Arlington Oaks is a lovely, quiet community, and its character should be maintained in all aspects. It is unfortunate that you are planning a meeting this close to Thanksgiving when so many are busy with preparations or travel. Nevertheless, I wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving. Janet Metz 212 George Mason Dr., #2 Arlington Oaks, A Condominium 4490 North Pershing Drive Arlington, VA t f After Hours Emergency Line: Owners of Arlington Oaks: Red Cross Development Update The Red Cross Redevelopment Project continues to works its way through Arlington County's Site Plan Review Process. Here are some updates I wanted to share: 1

37 Wesley Development (the developer) has created their own website for information and to receive comments from concerned parties. Please courbanize.com/4333arlington to learn more or provide feedback. Last Monday, the Buckingham Community Civic Association voted to establish a position against supporting the project in its current form. This effort was led by members of Arlington Oaks at the meeting. Here is the motion as adopted: We move to oppose the Red Cross Redevelopment project in its current form and motion to recommend the following: Elimination of the bonus density given for building a sustainable building and given for the inclusion of affordable housing Elimination of the parking density exception (the development should meet current county zoning requirements) Elimination of 3 townhouses Increasing the amount of Open Space and Green Space Redesigning the site and buildings in the character of the Buckingham Garden Communities by mimicking the historic building appearance and large swaths of open space Incorporation of native trees and plant species, including pollinator habitats rather than mowed grass. The motion passed unanimously with 9 yeah votes. Write-up from Buckingham Community Civic Association: On Monday, November 20, 2017, the Arlington County Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) will hold its second meeting on the site plan for the Red Cross - Trenton Street Residential project. The Wesley Housing Development Corporation (the applicant) has submitted this site plan. The SPRC meeting will take place in the Arlington County Office Building at 2100 Clarendon Blvd., near the Court House Metro 2

38 station. The meeting will be in Room C/D on the ground floor of the building. The SPRC will discuss the Red Cross-Trenton Street project from 8:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The agenda for the SPRC meeting is at content/uploads/sites/31/2017/11/red-cross-sprc-2-report B.pdf. Note that the description of the project on that web page is for the October 2, 2017, meeting (not the November 20, 2017 meeting). The applicant's draft presentation for the meeting is at content/uploads/sites/31/2017/11/17_11_10_second-sprc- Presentation-Draft_Flat-8.5x11.pdf The following County web page contains detailed information about the Red-Cross-Trenton Street Residential project: The SPRC's home page is at The home page describes the functions of the SPRC and contains a list of the SPRC meetings. Check the home page frequently to determine the dates and times of future meetings that will discuss this project. The SPRC is a committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission. SPRC members make comments on projects; however, the SPRC does not take any votes. After the SPRC has conducted all of its meetings on the project, the Planning Commission and the County Board will hold public hearings on the project. After hearing public speakers, the Planning Commission and the County Board will take votes on the project. All SPRC meetings are open to the public. The Chair of the SPRC for each project determines whether members of the public can speak at the meetings. This often depends upon the time remaining at the meeting after Committee members have made their comments. The Planning Commission and the County Board almost always adopt the County staff's recommendation when they vote on site plan and rezoning requests. It is therefore important for everyone 3

39 concerned about the project to express their views to the staff person is taking the lead on the project. For the Red Cross -Trenton Street Residential project, the lead staff person is Michael Cullen (Phone: ) of the County's Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (DCPHD). If you want to have an impact on the final decision on the project, you will need to inform Mr. Cullen of your views by and/or phone before he prepares the staff report for the project. Rob Gibson (Phone: ) of the County's Department of Environmental Services (DES) is the lead staff person for transportation issues relating to the project. If you have views on the project's transportation issues, inform Mr. Gibson about these. Thank you to all the residents who've taken an interest in this development and shared their input so far. Through our collective involvement, we hope to force improvements to the current design so the the development respects our community and is a better neighbor. Brian Tucker President Arlington Oaks 4

40 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chris Donahue Sunday, November 19, :42 PM Michael Cullen 'Brian Tucker' Photos for Red Cross Development Proposal 001.jpg; 010.JPG; 032.JPG; 026.JPG; 037.JPG; 038.JPG; 039.JPG; 011.JPG; 016.JPG; 019.JPG; LV1.jpg; LV2.jpg Dear Michael: Ahead of the meeting Monday night attached are some relevant photos of the streets surrounding the Red Cross site and Arlington Oaks. 001 Looking south on Trenton Street (one of only two streets feeding into the project) 010 Looking north on Trenton Street 032 Looking south on Thomas Street (the other street feeding into the project) 026 Looking north on Thomas Street 037 Intersection of Thomas Street and 2 nd Road, which will experience substantial increase in traffic nd Road facing west 039 Intersection of 2 nd Road and Trenton Street 011 Arlington Blvd. service road facing east, at location of pedestrian entrance to project 016 Arlington Blvd. service road facing east, showing same entrance location 019 Intersection of Thomas Street/Cathedral Lane/Arlington Blvd. service road LV1 Traffic backed up on Arlington Blvd. service road facing east on a typical weekday morning LV2 Traffic backed up on Arlington Blvd. service road facing west on a typical weekday morning I believe the first seven photos illustrate the narrow restricted nature of the roads in the immediate area. Photos 11 and 16 show the problematic location of the project s pedestrian entrance/drop off on a busy road with high speed traffic coming off Route 50. LV1 and LV2 show the already clogged condition of the service road during weekday mornings. If possible I would greatly appreciate if you would be able to distribute these photos to County and SPRC members/volunteers. Sincerely, Chris Donahue Home:

41

42

43

44 Michael Cullen From: Sent: To: Subject: Samantha Platt Tuesday, October 10, :56 PM Michael Cullen; Jessica Margarit Red Cross Development Project Dear Michael and Margaret, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of Arlington County and a community member of Buckingham. I recently saw the plans online of the Red Cross Development Project. I am concerned that this project is going to add too high a capacity for an already crowded area. I live along Thomas Street and almost daily I can guarantee that my dog or I are almost hit by a car that is driving too quickly. I can then guarantee that it takes me at least 2 minutes to be able to pull out of my parking spot along Thomas street between the hours of 7 and 9 am because of school buses and cars that are lined up waiting to turn on to Pershing Drive on Thomas. After reading through these plans I have a few other concerns that I would like to address: The lack of parking, Arlington requires parking spaces per unit and this new building only provides.86 spaces per unit. The townhomes will have an adequate number of parking spaces. There is already a parking shortage all around this building site and without adequate parking for residents it impacts the rest of the community. Increase number of children to an already crowded elementary school down the street. This increase of traffic with an increase in the number of children walking poses a serious threat to daily safety for children in the community. Decrease in metro service. It has been released that the 4A metro bus is going to have its service cut. If there are more people being added to this community, overall transportation services need to be addressed. Especially since this is going to be affordable housing, which serves the disabled, senior citizens and low income people who may not have access to a car. How do you serve a community by adding housing but cutting access to affordable transportation? cfm "The subject site is located within a connected network of arterial and local streets, with sidewalks and bike friend routes. The site is served by multiple bus lines and a Capital Bikeshare station in close proximity. The bus lines serving the area provide direct connections from the site to Ballston, Pentagon and Crystal City Metrorail stations and other major activity centers in the region." >There are no bike friendly lanes on any of the streets surrounding this proposed complex As a citizen who lives so close to this community I have to also wonder about how my own personal property is going to be affected by this, I already have a weekly encounter with non residents drinking/smoking/littering in my back yard. The police have been making attempts to come by and address these concerns, but this new property is not going to offer any green space to its community, in fact it will decrease by 25% and I feel that my community is going to bare the brunt of additional trespassing from this project. I expect that I most likely won't get a response for this , but as a citizen and taxpayer I am very upset that this is being thrust upon my backyard. Buckingham already has to shoulder the weight of being a historic district with decaying buildings that serve no historic purpose where no new developments can come in and fix 1

45 anything. It just does't seem fair that for all of the development and progress that Ballston is making, we are going to be pushed under the rug as the affordable housing community of Arlington. I don't believe that even the people who live in the affordable housing would wish that upon themselves either. If we want to create an inclusive community we should be evenly dispersing it so that all have access to the wonderful attributes of Arlington which we all pay taxes for. This just doesn't seem like the appropriate solution. Thank you for your time, Samantha Platt 2

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57