P.C. #21. March 11, Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201

Transcription

1 BRIAN HARNER CHAIR STEVEN R. COLE VICE CHAIR March 11, 2013 FREIDA WRAY COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia SUBJECT: 5. SP# 425 Pierce Queen Apartments GP, LLC for a special exception site plan for approximately 194 apartment dwelling units in the RA-6-15 zoning district under ACZO 15.B.6 and 36.H. Property is approximately 50,000 sq. ft.; located at th St. North and 1520 N. Pierce St.; and is identified as RPC# and The proposed density is 4.2 FAR or 168 units/acre. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: setbacks, parking ratio, compact parking ratio, bonus density for LEED Silver and on-site affordable dwelling units, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan. Applicable Policies: GLUP Residential Medium, Fort Myer Heights North Plan (FMHNP) and Fort Myer Heights North Special District. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt the ordinance attached to the staff report dated March 1, 2013, subject to the following modifications: 1. Require that the $75,000 allotted for public art be dedicated for public art in the area of the FMHNP. 2. Add a condition requiring a session between the applicant and the SPRC to review the project s architectural elements. 3. Add a new condition requiring historic preservation of the two remaining historic buildings either through creation of a Local Arlington Historic District, a preservation easement, or some other legal mechanism and review by the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HALRB) or other designated body of any permanent, exterior changes to the buildings. 4. Add a new condition requiring the applicant to enhance the open area to support children s outdoor play activities. Dear County Board Members: P.C. #21

2 The Planning Commission heard this item at its March 7, 2013 meeting. Arlova Vonhm provided an overview of the proposed site plan for redevelopment of Block 6 of the FMHNP. The proposal includes bonus density for affordable housing and LEED Silver certification for the new building. Ms. Vonhm explained how the proposed site plan complies with the goals of the FMHNP with regard to density, height, tree preservation, building façade, service entrances, preservation of historic structures, and pedestrian and bike paths. She outlined the proposed community benefits, including, historic preservation of two garden apartment buildings, 76 total affordable dwelling units, and described the public review process. Also present were Bob Duffy and Margaret Rhodes of CPHD Planning, David Cristeal and Sara Pizzo of CPHD Housing, Rebeccah Ballo of CPHD Neighborhood Services Historic Preservation Office, and Joanne Gabor and Lisa Maher of DES Planning. The development team for the applicants, Bozzuto Development Company and Wesley Housing Development Corporation (WHDA), was present, including Doris Gantos, applicant (Bozzuto); Paul Brown, applicant (WHDA); Jon Kinney, attorney (Bean, Kinney & Korman); Doug Carter, architect (Davis, Carter, Scott); and Bob Cochran, engineer (VIKA). Mr. Kinney provided a contextual overview of the site and surrounding uses and an overview of the requirements for Block 6 of the FMHNP. He explained that, while the proposed bonus density for affordable housing is not required by the FMHNP, the applicant proposes to provide four times more affordable housing than required by the FMHNP 76 affordable dwelling units rather than 18. Approximately 80 percent of the affordable dwelling units are two- or three-bedroom units. Of the 76 affordable dwelling units, 38 will be available to individuals and families with incomes at or below 50 percent of area median income (AMI); the remaining units will serve those with income at or below 60 percent of AMI. Mr. Kinney presented the proposal as compliant with the FMHNP through preservation of two existing historic structures, preservation of two mature trees on the site, and provision of a shared use pedestrian and bicycle path. Mr. Carter presented the building and site design that resulted from Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) input, including changes in building massing, relocation of the main building entrance to North Queen Street, and eliminating the swimming pool. Because of the change in the building massing, the number of units decreased from 228 to 193 units, the grassy area along the 16 th Street frontage is maintained and the applicant is considering using synthetic turf for a play area. A pedestrian and bicycle path would be provided between the two preserved buildings and the proposed residential tower. In response to the recommendations of the HALRB and its Design Review Committee, the applicant would restore and preserve the existing exteriors of the historic structures. Public Speakers Robert Atkins referred to the four outstanding issues with the AHIF request as identified in the staff report. In his opinion the issues are still outstanding. He believes the costs associated with the affordable dwelling units are so high that VHDA will reject the proposal. He suggested that the proposal be delayed due to issues with affordable unit costs, financing, AHIF repayment, and housing program details. Stan Karson, President of the Radnor/Ft. Myer Heights Civic Association, stated that the site is located within the civic association boundaries. The civic association was very much involved in the development of the FMHNP that was approved in Mr. Karson stated that the proposed site 2

3 plan conforms to the FMHNP and the civic association strongly endorses the site plan. The civic association hopes that the new development will continue to provide the level of diversity that exists in the current development. The civic association supports the preservation of the two historic structures, which facilitate preservation of low-rise buildings in the area. Joan Lawrence, Chair of the HALRB, urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed site plan. It successfully combines new development with the historically preserved structures. Although the level of open space that currently exists would be lost, the landscaping in front of the preserved buildings would be restored and improved. Stuart Stein fully associated his comments with Stan Karson s statement and enthusiastically supported the proposed site plan. He hoped that the public art contribution would be used on the site rather than elsewhere in the County. He commended WHDA for providing affordable units at 50 percent of median income for a period of 60 years and for agreeing to work with current residents to relocate them back to Pierce Queen by providing relocation assistance and charging comparable rents. Planning Commission Reports Site Plan Review Committee Report Commissioner Iacomini reported that the SPRC conducted six meetings on this site plan. While the Planning Commission deferred action on the site plan at its February 2013 meeting, the County Board heard the proposal at its February 2013 meeting and continued it until the March 11, 2013 meeting. At that time, the County Board left the public hearing open to hear public speakers on March 11 th. Commissioner Iacomini suggested that the Planning Commission discussion follow the outline of suggested topics identified in the SPRC report. Commissioners Monfort and Malis, respectively, requested the topics of Historic Preservation and other issues be added to the outline. Planning Commission Discussion Massing The Planning Commission had no additional discussion on building massing. Site Design Public Shared-Use Path: Commissioner Sockwell asked staff to explain how the path as designed facilitates shared-use by both pedestrians and bicyclists. He noted the path doesn t seem defined as either a pedestrian or cyclist path. The 20 foot width would seem to give opportunities for a design that avoids pedestrian/cyclist conflicts. Ms. Vonhm explained that the path meets the goal of the FMHNP and would be designed with specialty pavers, hardscape features, and plantings. However, it would include a 14-feet wide drive lane and allow for a 20 feet wide fire lane through the use of specialty pavers and reinforced sidewalk. Due to the slope of the site, the shared-use path must be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. In addition, utilities would be located beneath the path. This 3

4 precludes planting of landscaping throughout it. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on a design that better speaks to it as a public space. Staff will explore the use of special paving and design features to separate pedestrian and bike/vehicle areas. Commissioner Klein stated that, during the most recent SPRC meeting,, there was discussion about the provision of play areas. Ms. Vonhm responded that the open space area adjacent to 16 th Street would provide space for unstructured play. Ms. Gantos added that the applicant would continue to work with staff and the landscape architect to enhance the mid-block connection (between the two historic structures) to make it more useable by children. Commissioner Klein asked if there should be a requirement for provision of play space. Mr. Kinney suggested that there not be a play area adjacent to the shared-use path due to safety concerns. He added that the FMHNP has very prescriptive requirements for each block and that the block located to the west of Block 6 is required to provide a park across the street from the subject site. Commissioner Fallon noted that the letter from the Transportation Commission identified concerns with the shared-use path and asked staff to clarify the concerns and whether they have been subsequently addressed through the revised plans. Ms. Gabor explained that the Transportation Commission was concerned about the type of pavers that would be used, ADA accessibility, and whether the path would be bicycle-friendly. Commissioner Fallon asked if a portion of the path could be constructed with smooth pavers and another portion with cobblestone paving. Ms. Maher responded that the Virginia Square Towers Site Plan included a cobblestone treatment for the vehicles and smoother stone for pedestrian areas in the new 9 th Street. Mr. Carter responded that the applicant does not intend to incorporate cobblestones, but rather to use a smooth-cut stone such as flagstone. He added that the Transportation Commission discussed provision of a concrete band for bicyclists; he did not think this was a good idea. He agreed there should be a slight ripple in the treatment of the stone to address the safety of pedestrians and children in the area. Commissioner Ciotti stated that the applicant should be compliant with ADA. Commissioner Forinash inquired about the character of the treatment of the mid-block connection, and whether it was intended as a private area for residents with a water feature. Mr. Kinney responded that the water feature and benches would be located in the mid-block connection adjacent to the shared-use path and close to the entrance to the building tower. Ms. Gantos clarified that the courtyard, which encompasses the mid-block connection, would be private. There would be a gate adjacent to 16 th Street at the entrance to the connection between the two historic structures. The connection would extend to the shared-use path, which would be open to the public and have a public access easement. Parking and Loading Locations: Commissioner Harner inquired about the project s siting and its contextual relationship to the surrounding area and Arlington Boulevard. He asked staff to explain the Transportation Commission s issue regarding multi-generational households and accessibility. Ms. Gabor explained that the Transportation Commission was concerned with the steep slopes around the site and its contextual relationship within the neighborhood. The Transportation Commission discussed the location of the building s main entrance on North Queen versus North Pierce Streets and that there is merit to having entrances at both locations. The Transportation Commission was concerned 4

5 that the steep slopes around the site would present accessibility challenges. Commissioner Harner inquired about the reason for locating the loading and parking entrances immediately adjacent to the building entrance on North Queen Street and why North Pierce Street was not preferred. Ms. Vonhm responded that the FMHNP showed the parking entrance on North Queen Street because it is the north-south street that has less pedestrian traffic due to the extreme slope. Commissioner Harner stated that there is little difference between the two streets. Mr. Kinney responded that their traffic study found that vehicular traffic on North Pierce Street is two and one-half times greater than on North Queen Street, which led to their decision to locate the loading and garage entrances on North Queen Street. Ms. Gabor added that North Queen Street acts as a yield street with parking on one side compared to North Pierce Street, which has two-way unencumbered travel lanes. Mr. Carter added that providing a parking entrance on North Queen Street would be very convenient for dropoffs at the main building entrance. He further explained how locating parking and loading entrances on North Pierce Street would impact the interior layout of the building corridors and units. Architecture Commissioner Klein inquired about the screening for the rooftop mechanical units on the two-story existing historic structures. Mr. Carter responded that they would be approximately two feet in depth and width and 30 inches in height. Screening would be fabricated from metal in a color similar to the window mullions. Commissioner Klein stated that the screens would extend 30 inches above the roof edge and she needs a better understanding of how this would work from a historic perspective. She asked that the screening be shown on the building elevations to assess their visibility from various ground/street locations. Commissioner Iacomini asked if the HALRB had discussed the rooftop structures. Ms. Ballo responded they were discussed and because equipment would be located in the middle of the roof, and screening would be approximately 30 inches, they concluded that the visual impact would be minimal. HP staff suggested that the metal material match the grey on the coping or the brick on the façade. Commissioner Klein stated that regardless of whether it can be seen or not, it should be shown on the building elevations. Commissioner Cole added that because of the steep incline of Pierce and Queen Streets to the North the screening would be visible from the ground. In addition, he noted that there are apartment buildings directly across the street from this site that will be looking down on the roofs, so it is important to show the rooftop structures and ensure that they are not objectionable. Commissioner Harner stated that one of the issues with the site plan was that they ran out of time at the last SPRC meeting to review fully the architecture in terms of building materials and colors. He asked the applicant if they would be willing to return to SPRC post-approval to review such outstanding issues as paving materials on the shared-use path, the Transportation Commission s concerns regarding the accessibility, and the evolving building design. Mr. Kinney responded that they would not oppose to coming back to SPRC to respond to specific issues, but they did not agree with having further discussion of the Transportation Commission s issue with accessibility. He stated that the applicant cannot control the location or steepness of surrounding streets and is concerned with how this may impact their VHDA approval. Mr. Kinney agreed to work with the 5

6 SPRC on concerns regarding building materials and design elements. Commissioner Harner identified these concerns: brick colors, building colors, railing details on balconies, window mullion colors, precast details, locations of precast, screening for mechanical equipment. Commissioner Iacomini asked staff if they could craft language that would require administrative review similar to when the County Manager reviews and approves landscape plans. Staff agreed to develop language that would address review of the elements by SPRC, with final approval by the County Manager. Community Benefits Commissioner Fallon inquired if the four outstanding issues, referenced by one of the public speakers, with the AHIF request have been fully resolved, to which Ms. Pizzo responded yes and explained that the subsidy per unit is comparable to recent approved site plans. Commissioner Malis asked for clarification about how the number of affordable units was calculated against the base and proposed densities that resulted in a contribution of two units. Mr. Cristeal explained the methodology that has been the protocol for the last six or seven years. Commissioner Cole expressed concern that the calculation does not acknowledge that the demolition of 50 affordable market rate units that currently exist on the site, even with redevelopment of 76 committed affordable units. The math should consider this incremental difference so as to inform the public of the actual benefit. Mr. Cristeal responded that this proposal has been treated no differently than the Jordan Site Plan whereby 22 existing units were replaced with 90 affordable units or the Park Rosslyn Site Plan whereby 22 units were replaced with 95 affordable units. Commissioner Cole suggested presenting information on the per unit incremental costs or, alternatively, the per bedroom incremental costs, recognizing the increase in per unit bedrooms. Commissioner Fallon stated that he agrees with his colleagues that there are limitations to the existing affordable housing ordinance and how it is applied. Yes, there are 50 market affordable units on the site, and with redevelopment there will be 76 affordable units, resulting in a gain of 26 affordable units. However, an alternative redevelopment proposal may not have yielded a replacement of the 50 existing units. However, this proposal does replace the 50 units, converts them to CAF s, and provides an additional 26 units. In addition, there will be a significant increase in the number of CAF bedrooms in the new project, including 3-bedroom units, and the units will be committed for a period of 60 years. Commissioner Klein inquired as to why LEED Silver certification is being sought only for the building tower. Mr. Kinney responded that Earthcraft certification would be sought for the two existing structures, which is a more appropriate rating system designed for smaller garden apartment buildings and townhouses. Commissioner Ciotti inquired about the number of Type A affordable units. Mr. Kinney responded that there would be a total of 20 Type A units, with eight units as Type A affordable. In addition, eight units would contain roll-in showers. 6

7 Commissioner Malis asked the applicant if they agreed to comply with the additional recommendations of the Tenant-Landlord Commission, as outlined in their letter. Mr. Brown responded affirmatively, stating that they submitted a revised relocation plan for approval by the Tenant-Landlord Commission. He further stated that staff is not recommending establishment of a relocation working group. Mr. Cristeal added that staff does not believe the proposal warrants a relocation working group. Such groups have worked well in larger redevelopments such as Buckingham Village where there were 200 units. With the subject proposal, there are only 50 existing units and staff believes that it would be able to work effectively with the applicant and tenants. Commissioner Malis inquired about the Tenant-Landlord Commission s recommendation for a tenant assistance fund of $240,000 for relocation assistance and tuition assistance for displaced students. Mr. Cristeal responded that the applicant s budget includes a relocation assistance fund of $75-80,000. Commissioner Malis stated that the purpose of the tuition assistance is to help families find housing in the school districts where their children are currently enrolled so they would not have to take their children out of these schools. Mr. Brown responded that within the boundaries of Key Elementary School, which serves this site, there are 1,100 committed affordable units. They feel confident they can find units in the area for the displaced families. They are committed to helping residents relocate back to Pierce Queen and will provide relocation payments to allow them to come back. The purpose of the tenant assistance fund is to help those who could not find rents comparable to what they are current paying. Mr. Cristeal added that the funds are provided through the County through AHIF, in the form of a loan or grant. Historic Preservation Commissioner Monfort stated that a major community benefit of the proposal is the preservation of the two historic structures and he expressed concern that there is no condition in the site plan to require their preservation on a permanent basis either through historic district designation or historic preservation easement. He asked staff how the buildings would be protected over the long term, say 50 years from now and what permanent mechanism could be used to protect the buildings. Ms. Ballo responded that no permanent mechanism was envisioned by the FMHNP. The County would encourage historic district designation; however, the general policy, short of the applicant or community requesting historic district designation, is that the County does not impose historic district designations. With the Wakefield Manor Site Plan, transfer of development rights were approved requiring historic preservation easements on the preserved buildings. No such requirements were envisioned for this site. Commissioner Monfort stated that his concern is that preservation is not guaranteed and a developer could come back in the future to redevelop the site. He recommended that a site plan condition be added requiring a preservation mechanism. Commissioner Iacomini stated that the buildings are tied to the site plan and any façade changes would require a site plan amendment. She added that one of the other benefits is the affordable housing, which runs out at the end of 60 years. Commissioner Monfort responded that his concern is not just preserving the buildings, but also preserving the architectural details. Commissioner Iacomini asked if there is a way to write a condition to require a site plan amendment for any change to the buildings. Ms. Ballo responded yes and added that there could be a condition to require recordation of an easement to preserve the facades of the buildings. 7

8 Commissioner Iacomini asked the applicant if their application with VHDA would be impacted if there were a site plan condition requiring local historic district designation or recordation of an easement before issue of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new building or application for local historic district designation before issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. Ms. Gantos stated that she did not know, but is willing to work with staff to ensure that the historic buildings are preserved and remain intact over the long term. Commissioner Iacomini stated that site plan control does not address the physical preservation of the historic buildings in perpetuity. She asked if The Gates of Ballston (AHC Buckingham project) had a VHDA loan as it was a local historic district. Housing staff was not sure at the time if the project did have a VHDA loan. It did have historic tax credits. Mr. Cristeal responded that he was not aware of anything in the VHDA application requirements that would preclude what the Commission is trying to achieve with historic preservation. Other Commissioner Malis sought clarification on a number of issues pertaining to the site plan ordinance and its reference to bonuses as modifications. Planning Commission Motion Commissioner Iacomini moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board adopt the ordinance attached to the draft staff report dated March 1, Commissioner Fallon seconded the motion. Commissioner Cole asked for unanimous consent to amend the main motion to recommend that the County Board require that the $75,000 allotted for public art be dedicated for public art in the area of FMHNP and that the Radnor/Ft. Myers Heights Civic Association have the responsibility of working with the County on identifying the location for the public art. There was an objection. Commissioner Cole moved to amend the motion to recommend that the County Board require that the $75,000 allotted for public art be dedicated for public art in the area of FMHNP and that the Radnor/Ft. Myers Heights Civic Association have the responsibility of working with the County on identifying the location for the public art. Commissioner Forinash seconded the motion. Commissioner Cole explained that he does not believe that public art should principally benefit a single project and there are many places within the FMHNP area where the art could be placed. Commissioner Iacomini stated that Condition #64 of the staff report require that the funds be earmarked for use in the Rosslyn metro area. Commissioner Cole responded that he desires to limit the location to the FMHNP area. Commissioner Malis stated that she would not support the motion because she is unfamiliar with the process for selecting and locating public art. Commissioner Harner responded that the County has a Public Art Committee (PAC) that reviews all public art and what they often see is that developers want to place public art on their sites. He believes the PAC has a process to work with the community. Typically, $75,000 alone is not sufficient to support a single piece and funds are usually combined to fund and locate art in a particular area. Commissioner Harner stated that he would not support the motion because it overrides the County s public process. 8

9 Commissioner Fallon asked if the existing condition language which would preclude using the public art contribution in the FMHNP area. Ms. Vonhm responded that staff suggested that the location for the public art be expanded to allow greater flexibility and that the current language and policy would not preclude that. Commissioner Iacomini stated that she would prefer that the $75,000 be used in the FMHNP area. Commissioner Cole asked to revise his motion to only limit the area for the public art to the FMHNP area. Commissioner Forinash, the seconder, agreed to this change. The Planning Commission voted 6-4 to support the amended motion. Commissioners Cole, Forinash, Harner, Iacomini, Klein, and Sockwell supported the motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Fallon and Malis opposed the motion. The motion passed, and the amendment was incorporated into the main motion. Commissioner Cole asked for unanimous consent to amend the main motion to recommend that the County Board add a condition requiring a session between the applicant and the SPRC to review the project architecture. There was no objection, so the amendment was incorporated into the main motion. Commissioner Monfort asked for unanimous consent to amend the main motion to recommend that the County Board add a new condition requiring historic preservation of the two remaining historic buildings either through creation of an Arlington Historic District, a preservation easement, or some other mechanism and review by the HALRB or other designated body of any permanent, external changes to the buildings. There was no objection, so the amendment was incorporated into the main motion. Commissioner Klein asked for unanimous consent to amend the motion to recommend that the County Board add a new condition requiring the applicant to enhance the open area to support children s outdoor play activities. There was no objection, so the amendment was incorporated into the main motion. Commissioner Iacomini, in speaking to the main motion, thanked the Planning Commissioners for excellent additions to the motion. She also thanked the applicant for continuing to work with the SPRC, staff and residents. The project has come a long way. Commissioner Malis stated that she would support the ordinance although it is unclear to her what the ordinance includes with regard to the modifications. She commended Commissioner Iacomini for leading this project, which took a great deal of tenacity and creativity. Commissioner Cole stated that he would support the main motion. He agreed that it took a fair amount of tenacity, but wished that it had not. His view is that projects are improved substantially as a result of the site plan review process, and that he believes the applicant continually resisted the proposed changes. He feels the project is better as a result of the process. In terms of overall design, it is a significant benefit to the community. He also commended the applicant for the on-site affordable housing, which is a significant benefit as well. 9

10 Commissioner Harner agreed with Commissioners Iacomini s and Malis comments. He did not believe he would get to the point where he could support the project. He appreciated the applicant s efforts, even at the last minute, to improve the project. He hopes there is a spirit of cooperation and that statements made about following through and working with the County were sincere. He will support the motion. The Planning Commission voted 10-0 to support the main motion as amended. Commissioners Cole, Ciotti, Fallon, Forinash, Harner, Iacomini, Klein, Malis, Monfort, and Sockwell supported the main motion as amended. Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Brian Harner Planning Commission Chair 10

11

12

13