P.C. #2.A.B. Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201

Transcription

1 BRIAN HARNER CHAIR STEVEN R. COLE VICE CHAIR July 9, 2013 FREIDA WRAY COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia SUBJECT: 3. A. Z Rezoning from "C-2" Service Commercial- Community Business Districts to "C-O" Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and Multiple Family Districts and related update to ACZO Map 34-1 to indicate the Zoning District and extend Line A (indicating where mixed use zoning districts face residential districts) around the property boundary when necessary; 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive (RPC# , - 002, -003, & -004). B. SP# 426 The Penrose Group for a site plan to construct approximately 268 apartment dwelling units, 4,730 sq. ft. of retail, and 2,802 sq. ft. of cultural/educational uses and modifications of zoning in the "C-O" zoning district under ACZO 7.1, 7.13, and Property is approximately 42,126 sq. ft.; located at 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive and identified as RPC # , -002, -003, & The proposed density is 6.5 FAR. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: setbacks, parking ratio, bonus density for LEED Gold, LEED EBOM, and on-site affordable dwelling units, density exclusions for cultural/educational uses, below grade storage, loading corridor, and above grade vents and shafts, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan. Applicable Policies: GLUP Office-Apartment-Hotel "High" and Virginia Square Sector Plan. (Latitude Apartments) RECOMMENDATIONS: 3. A and B. Defer the rezoning and site plan requests, pursuant to the staff report dated June 28, 2013, to a date no later than the November 16, 2013 County Board meeting. P.C. #2.A.B.

2 Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard these items at its July 2, 2013 recessed meeting. Robert Duffy, CPHD Planning Director, stated that the County Manager would like to receive input from the Planning Commission on the policy and other issues related to the proposal, including the appropriate mix of uses in Virginia Square, transportation and Metro Station capacity issues, and other issues germane to the site. Of particular interest is the proposal s conformance with the Virginia Square Sector Plan. Ms. Vonhm provided an overview of the proposed rezoning and site plan for the Latitude Apartments. The proposal includes bonus density for affordable housing and LEED Gold certification, with a commitment to 18% energy efficiency, reporting on energy usage to the County after the building is constructed for a period of 10 years, and LEED Existing Buildings Operation and Management (EBOM) after the building is constructed. Ms. Vonhm presented a list of the proposed community benefits. She also described the public review process, including the SPRC, Transportation Commission, and Housing Commission meetings. Finally, Ms. Vonhm described the key issues with the proposal, with regard to the residential land use, transportation and parking, and programming of cultural and educational uses. Mr. Duffy presented the County Manager recommendation to defer the proposed rezoning and site plan to allow time for staff to weigh the issues and work with LRPC to develop and facilitate a process that could report back to the County Manager, the Planning Commission and the County Board. Also present were Tom Miller and Claude Williamson of CPHD Planning, Lisa Maher and Dennis Sellin of DES Planning, and Marc McCauley of AED. The development team for the applicant, Fifth Penrose Investing Company, LLC, was present, including Mark Gregg and Olav Kollevoll, Jr., applicant (Penrose);Nan Walsh, attorney (WCLEW); Doug Carter, architect (Davis, Carter, Scott); Bob Cochran, engineer (VIKA); Dan Dove, landscape architect (Studio 39); and Chris Kabatt, traffic engineer (Wells & Associates). Ms. Walsh provided an overview of the proposed rezoning and site plan, including the land use planning history and policy goals of Virginia Square, particularly those of the Arlington funeral home site and the subject Virginia square site, and the challenges associated with this proposal with regard to the land use goals. Mr. Carter presented the details of the building and site design, including the two urban plazas that are connected by a central pedestrian walkway. The mixed-use residential development would be activated by retail, cultural and educational uses. Details of the façade and roof top treatments, streetscape design, and curb cuts for garage and loading access were provided. Mr. Carter described how the site plan meets the five key vision points of the sector plan. Public Speakers Philip Posner, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, described the impacts of the change in use from office to residential. It will adversely affect metro ridership, adding to the capacity and resulting in an orange crush, which will worsen with the addition of the silver line. It will create a dangerous situation for seniors and disabled persons. There is also insufficient parking on the site, with a ratio of.9 space/unit, and lacks sufficient parking on the street. The added retail will also negatively impact the parking issues and resultant traffic problems. The safety issues related to Metro use and parking must be addressed. 2

3 Anita Wallgren, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, stated that action on the proposed rezoning and site plan is premature because it includes an undefined use referred to as community or educational, rather than cultural use. This space is located in the most prominent part of the building on the ground floor and directly across from Metro, and she is concerned that the applicant is unwilling to program it. Ms. Wallgren suggested that the County create a study group similar to what was done for the black box theater on the funeral home site, with assistance from AED, to determine the best use of the space. It should also incorporate a broad base of community input. Carol Van Hartesveldt, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, stated that she supports the current Virginia Square Sector Plan that designates the site for commercial use. Within the next year as additional 870+ new units will be available in the area, so she questions the impetus for providing more new residential units. It will result in additional traffic and Metro riders, and more noise pollution. There are already a number of public plazas and interior arts spaces in the area, so she questions the added value of the proposal. A new residential development will subtract from the quality of life and add nothing that the area does not already have. Ellen Dayton, a member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Square Condominiums, referenced a letter that was sent to the Planning Commission expressing opposition to the proposed development. The proposal is not in accord with the land use goals set forth in the Sector Plan. Residential buildings are preferred for sites on the opposite side of Fairfax Drive. The proposed residential use will create problems related to excessive congestion, parking and commuting, and quality of life issues. The County should stay true to the land use goals in the Sector Plan, which is the best long term option for the community. Harry Coburn, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, stated that he opposes the proposed development. The planning goals for the site have not been carried out. This is the one of the only sites left in the Virginia Square area, and it will define the character of Virginia Square. Cultural uses should be provided on the site. David Tevelin, a resident of the Monroe Condominiums, suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board defer action on the proposal. The Transportation Commission voted to defer. There are too many unanswered questions. The cultural use is undefined. He disagrees with the staff report which states there will be minimal impact on Metro. A deferral will allow time further analysis. Kerry Thomas, President of the Unit Owners Association (UOA) of the Monroe Condominiums, stated that the UOA is uniformly opposed to a change in the land use for the site without more community input. The proposed development conflicts with the GLUP and the Virginia Square Sector Plan s site specific guidelines. The proposed rezoning would reverse longstanding County land use decisions. Residents of the UOA were not made aware of the SPRC process until the final meeting, which is inconsistent with Arlington s practices for engaging in planning processes. The balconies on the proposed building encroach over existing utility easements and the community desires no balconies on the building s 10 th street side. There needs to be more discussion of the types of retail that would be located on the ground floor. The community does not want a sports bar and believes other types of retail, such as a bank or restaurant for fine dining, would be more appropriate and in keeping with the quiet nature of the neighborhood. 3

4 Mariah Burton Nelson, a resident of the Monroe Condominiums, stated that the proposed development is not a mixed-use development. Approximately 97% of the building is residential, less than 2% is retail, and less than 1% is cultural. She does not want her neighborhood overrun by high density apartment buildings. She urged the Commission to stick to the Sector Plan. Nia Bagley, a resident of the Monroe Courts townhouses and Vice President of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, expressed concern that not all affected residents were notified of the planning process. She stated that the proposed development will exacerbate on-street parking and traffic. She referred to a petition, a copy of which was provided to the Commission. Joseph Petty, President of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, referred to the letter from civic association which expressed their position as neutral. He stated the reasons the civic association was unable to take a vote at the last meeting. The letter lists the issues and he asked that the Commission weigh their comments and issues. Bettina Callaway, a resident of Virginia Square and owner of units in the Monroe Condominiums, agreed with previous testimonies about parking, overcrowding of streets and sidewalks, and changes to the neighborhood. In spite of the proposed building s incredible architecture, the project is too big for an area that is already overcrowded. Rob Walters, a resident of Arlington, stated that he works in commercial real estate and the office vacancy rate in Arlington has increased to 18%. There are many great office projects immediately available and are experiencing problems attracting tenants, which is the reason the County should support the proposed residential development. If an office building is constructed, it will not contain the setbacks that the Sector Plan envisions, the high quality building materials, or the pedestrian passage through the site. It would most likely be leased by GSA and would not have the desired level of public accessibility. It would also result in increased traffic. James McMullin, a resident of Arlington, stated that he owns and operates businesses and buildings in Ballston and Virginia Square. He supports the project. When the Sector Plan was updated in 2002, the County Board envisioned theater and cultural uses in either the subject or the funeral home site and a mix of uses to activate the site. He does not believe it was the County s intent to stifle developers, but rather to provide the flexibility for a mix of uses. The proposed development goes above and beyond what the County envisioned and is consistent with the GLUP designation of High Office-Apartment-Hotel. Kevin Riordon, a resident of Arlington, stated that he support the project. It will help to activate the Virginia Square area. The neighborhood is lacking in affordable housing and the project should be applauded for addressing this with the provision of affordable units. Natalie Marano, a resident of Arlington, stated that the proposed development represents cutting edge design. In terms of architecture, Arlington lacks progressive and new urban design. The proposed development provides high quality building design, much needed cultural and educational uses, and interesting public plazas. The Planning Commission should endorse the project. 4

5 Katie Zimmerman, a resident of Arlington who is also a property manager, stated that the building provides sufficient setbacks and tapers from the Monroe Condominium building. The proposed development will create a neighborhood hub with its plazas and retail. As a daily rider of Metro, she is not concerned and does not believe there will be impacts to the Virginia Square Metro. She looks forward to the positive impacts that the Latitude development will have on the community. Peter Shkreli, a resident of Arlington, stated that there are a number of beneficial elements to the proposed development; i.e., its cultural uses and amenities, the residential use, the public plazas, the signature building with notable architectural design, affordable housing, ground floor retail space. The existing mixed-use GLUP designation allows the flexibility that would permit the proposed development. Justin Williams, a resident of Arlington who lives on North Monroe Street, believes the neighborhood is missing some of the exciting elements that exist in other neighborhoods. There are a number of benefits to the proposal, such as its residential use. The GLUP was changed to allow for cultural use on this site, as with the funeral home site. The proposal achieves a number of other County goals, such as public plazas, a connection through the site, and provision of retail on Fairfax Drive. He believes office development would create more traffic problems. He suggested that the Planning Commission endorse the project because it will help to activate Virginia Square. Chris Doern, a resident of Arlington, stated that the proposal provides for an outstanding mix of uses, a number of community benefits, and unique architecture. This property is located right next to Metro and is appropriate for residential use. He asked the Commission if the County really needs another GSA tenant, and in particular, directly adjacent to Metro. He commented on the building s unbelievable architecture, and provision of affordable units, retail, public plazas, and pedestrian linkage to Quincy Park. He noted that these are elements needed in the neighborhood. Steve Austin, a resident of the Monroe Condominiums, stated that the Sector Plan and GLUP have very specific land use and site specific guidelines. He noted that he bought a condominium unit at the Monroe because, based on his research, an office building was planned for the site across from the condo building. He reminded the Commission that their planning decisions impact decisions that citizens make. He also noted that the balconies should not encroach over the public easements. He urged the Commission to oppose the site plan. Carrie Johnson, a resident of Ashton Heights, stated that she was very much involved in drafting the Virginia Square Sector Plan in When it was adopted, there was a reassessment of the residential use. The Plan envisioned more vitality and shared use of parking. Her view is that office was a preferred use at that time. With regard to the cultural uses envisioned by the Plan, they have not yet materialized. She expressed concern that the plazas will be under the strong control of the developer and therefore more thinking on that is needed. The proposed development includes, at a minimum, some mixed use, but it is primarily residential. It is important that the Commission is clear about the kind of decision it makes and what is says about the land uses on the north side of Fairfax Drive. She suggested that a deferral would serve very well. Planning Commission Reports 5

6 Transportation Commission Report Commissioner Forinash reported on the Transportation Commission meeting that was held on June 27, Because their packet did not contain any site plan conditions, the Commission was unable to address the TDM or the Metro impact. In addition, the County Manager s recommendation changed from approve to no recommendation. Therefore, the Commission voted to defer the project. Housing Commission Report Commissioner Fallon reported on the Housing Commission meeting that was held on June 27, The Commission voted unanimously 9-0 in favor of the proposed affordable housing program because it included family size affordable units, Metro accessible units, and contributions to the AHIF. Site Plan Review Committee Report Commissioner Ciotti summarized the planning goals identified in the Virginia Square Sector Plan and the site specific goals for the subject site, and noted that they were discussed at length in the SPRC meetings. She reported on the major changes to the project in response to the SPRC discussions, and added that there have been no decisions regarding the cultural use. She stated that the applicant has been very responsive to their suggestions regarding provision of additional trees, various site and plaza design elements, shared parking, and additional on-street parking. Commissioner Ciotti stated that the issues continuously identified at SPRC, and still remain unresolved, are the residential use which many believe is inconsistent with the Sector Plan, and the concern for overcrowding at the Metro Station. Although the officials at Metro have stated that the Virginia Square Station has the lowest use of any Metro Stations, the community remains concerned. There was discussion about provision of a second Metro entrance on the site, but DES staff believes that an alternative location next to the elevator on the opposite side of street would be preferred. Parking was also identified as a concern by the residents. The issue of balcony encroachments over 10 th Street was not raised during the SPRC process. Another issue includes the proposed building height of 128 feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted height of 125 feet. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Harner suggested that, given the County Manager s recommendation to defer action on the proposed rezoning and site plan, the Commission focus its discussion on questions related to the deferral recommendation. Commissioner Harner asked Ms. Walsh to speak to the deferral recommendation. Ms. Walsh responded that the applicant has invested a significant amount of time and resources in the project, totaling approximately three years. It is their desire that the deferral is constructive and the Commission considers the process and what would be accomplished during the deferral period. If staff and the Commission believe a deferral is needed to further analyze the proposal and sector plan goals, the applicant supports this and is willing to work collaboratively with staff and the 6

7 Commission. The applicant recognizes that this is not a black and white case, there are a lot of gray areas, and they need the help of the Planning Commission and staff to pull it all together. Commissioner Harner suggested that the Commission focus on the issues related to the deferral recommendation, such as timing, the potential for moving this to committee, and the process for moving forward. Commissioner Cole asked for an explanation of the role of the Planning Commission and staff in creating a process. Commissioner Malis observed that staff has recommended a deferral and suggested it might be helpful if staff would want to further elaborate on their recommendation.. A deferral seems reasonable but the Commission would need to decide on the issues it will be considering and over what time period. Mr. Duffy responded that the approach and timeliness of the process is extremely important to the applicant. Staff will need to establish a schedule that fits within the Planning Division s current work program and commitments. Staff will have to define the priority issues and whether they deserve further consideration through the process. Two of those issues are transportation and office market implications. Mr. Duffy suggested that staff meet with the chair of the LRPC during the month of July to develop a schedule and specific dates for LRPC, and be prepared to have some preliminary conclusions for full Commission review by October or November. Commissioner Fallon noted that Mr. Duffy was suggesting an approximately day deferral period, which is a fairly long period of time. The Commission has heard a significant amount of citizen testimony. He asked Mr. Duffy if he is proposing starting the review all over again. Mr. Duffy responded that if the process can conclude in less time, then that would be appropriate. There are a number of issues, including market factors, that must be analyzed, and if a departure from the Sector Plan is under consideration, then the County must do its due diligence. Commissioner Iacomini asked if the deferral process will become a new paradigm and inform a different type of process one that has implications for a process that would be triggered if something like this happens again. Mr. Duffy responded that Planning might want to have a process in place if and when this happens again. Commissioner Iacomini followed that she believes this may happen again. Her own personal instinct on this proposal would be to deny it because she feels so strongly about the County s planning processes and the documents it has in place. However, if the recommendation is to defer, then we may be signaling to applicants that this is open season. She expressed her support for a generic process, because she believes there will more applications similar to this one. Commissioner Malis concurred with Commissioner Iacomini s observations and believes it is central to how the Commission is proceeding. As part of this examination the Commission may also consider establishing criteria for when the sector plan would be examined in this way. She supports the idea of examining cases where projects that depart from the sector plan in order to have a robust discussion of the implications and what that means for the sector plan area. Unless there are criteria for when we take this approach we could find ourselves doing it for every site plan. 7

8 Commissioner Monfort noted that one of the first projects he reviewed as a Commissioner was a Cherrydale project that was inconsistent with the Cherrydale Revitalization Plan. He support Commission Malis and agrees that these kinds of processes will be needed in the future. Commissioner Kumm expressed concern that the Commission is entertaining approval of a plan that is not in conformance with the sector plan. If the Commission undertakes a casual approval, it will open the door to a great many other similar projects. She supports a more site specific look at a site within the context of a sector plan amend, when considering changes to the sector plan s land use designations. Commissioner Harner noted that over past several years there have been a number of projects in the County that have spurred special studies that have been challenging to interpret. This commission is extremely sensitive to maintaining conformance with sector plans. He asked Mr. Duffy if he could provide any thoughts to the staff sensitivity to these kinds of requests that may result in an open door season. Mr. Duffy responded that staff works in partnership with the Planning Commission and community to develop the sector plans, so staff takes them very seriously. They provide important guidance in our decision-making. Establishment of thresholds and criteria are very important. Staff will need to be sure that we are fair and objective in a timely manner, and any decisions that are made are based on the right facts. Commissioner Harner referred to the citizen testimonies about the proposed mix of uses, transportation issues, office market factors, and the proposed cultural use and whether it has been adequately examined. He inquired as to whether the Commission feels these issues are relevant to continue to explore and examine during the deferral period. Commissioner Malis thought it would be good for the Commission to identify the kind of additional information they may need for their discussion; however, Commissioners may think of other issues as they reflect on this process. Commissioner Malis suggested that careful attention is needed to differentiate site plan issues from sector plan issues, so this new process does not take on the role of SPRC. For example, in the case of the Latitude site plan, while a cultural use at the site is an element of the sector plan, the unresolved issues associated with the proposed cultural space are a site plan issue. Commissioner Cole suggested that the Commission is failing to come to terms with the fundamental issue is the proposal at odds with the Sector Plan. His view is that the proposal is at odds with the Sector Plan, and he is unsure what the Commission is considering because in his opinion the only question that is of sufficient gravity is whether or not the proposal represents a departure from the Sector Plan, and if it does, under what terms should it be granted. Sector plans are the one way that communities define what they want their community to be. The County has learned that mixed-use developments are successful around metro stations and provide the best opportunity for small businesses to succeed. If the applicant is not seeking a departure from the sector plan, and if the Commission believes the proposal is in compliance with the Sector Plan, then he does not see the need for deferral. It should be an up or down vote. Commissioner Sockwell referred to Ms. Johnson s testimony where she stated that the cultural and educational benefits were considered important elements when the sector plan was updated. Given 8

9 that these uses represent less than 1 percent of the total project, he asked how they should be analyzed. If all an applicant needs to provide is a miniscule response, would that be considered satisfying the sector plan? Mr. Duffy responded that the sector plan calls for a more robust cultural presence; however, he asked if that is still relevant 10 years later. He explained that the subject site is a secondary site for cultural use. Staff will need to re-examine the market since the plan s adoption in 2002, and determine the County s continued commitment towards cultural uses. That is a fundamental issue, and the County cannot establish a plan on how to proceed without it. Staff will be working with AED on how to address this issue. Commissioner Monfort stated that he is generally a very strong supporter of sector plans. Residents rely on planning documents to make decisions about where they want to live. He stated that there is a difference between the GLUP, sector plans, and the Zoning Ordinance. The GLUP and sector plans provide guidance. It is important to understand that sector plans do not have the same force of law that the Ordinance does. There are always exceptions with these buildings, and none of them are ever 100 percent compliant. He agrees with Commission Cole that the Commission should proceed in determining whether the proposal is or is not compliant with the sector plan Commissioner Fallon stated that the deviation from sector plan was known when the application was accepted by the County Manager and staff. He is not sure if the fundamental issues will be resolved during the deferral period, short of the applicant going back to the drawing board. While this proposal achieved a significantly higher level of affordable housing contributions, it was due primarily to the increase density from the LEED and affordable housing bonuses. There are different ways to balance this out. He asked if these concerns would be discussed as a part of the process. Mr. Duffy responded that the process should consider the two major land use goals in the Sector Plan and how the County is doing in terms of build out, but it should not be considering revisiting the Plan. Commissioner Malis suggested that the Commission should not enter into an evaluation of the sector plan unless it agrees that a project is proposing a significant departure from the sector plan. Mr. Duffy responded that the Commission would have to weigh these issues. There are site specific and overarching recommendations that need to be balanced. If there is a departure from the sector plan, any decisions should be made prudently and soundly, and in a timely manner. Commissioner Malis followed that she hopes the County is embarking on process that includes having a conversation with the community. She observed that when you enter into this process, you do not always know where the process will lead. It may lead to the same conclusion or an alternative. Hopefully if an alternative recommendation was to proceed with this site plan the process would have provided some new knowledge that might ease the current concerns of the community. She hoped that residents would be willing to reexamine the issues, consider new information and approach the review with an open mind. Commissioner Cole asked about the questions that will need to be answered if it is decided that it is an exception to the sector plan. The first step would be to identify the elements that should be considered, and the second step would be to determine the process for their consideration. With regard to whether or not the proposal is a departure from the sector plan, Commission Cole stated that the Virginia Square Sector Plan refers to the site as mixed-use. When you go from general to specific, the Sector Plan s land use and site specific goals unequivocally call for the site to be mixed 9

10 use, composed of office with cultural and educational uses. With regard to whether the economics of 2013 should influence land use decisions that will have impacts into the future, Commissioner Cole suggested that the Planning Commission s job is planning, not economic development. The Planning Commission s role is to try to create the best places it can. Commissioner Ciotti stated that she reviewed the tapes of the County Board meeting on December 7, 2002, when the Virginia Square Sector Plan was adopted. At that time the County Board assured the developers that the C-O zoning would provide the desired flexibility, and it decided to approve a residential development on the funeral home site. Some things are not black and white. What people want is a walkable, livable community with enhanced streetscape and a cultural presence. The County does not have a way of capturing uses like GMU in its statistics it is neither office or residential. In 2002, the County did not envision what would happen to the office market in post It is not clear what an applicant will require in terms of national security and if buildings or sitse will be inaccessible to the public and how the County Board will respond to that. Planning Commission Motions Commissioner Fallon moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board defer action on the rezoning and site plan requests, pursuant to the staff report dated June 28, 2013, to a date no later than the November 16, 2013 County Board meeting. Commission Harner seconded the motion. Commissioner Monfort stated that he will support the motion to defer. The Commission needs to determine the elements of the proposal that comply and not comply with the Sector Plan. There will be several site plan issues that he hopes will be addressed during the process, such as the balcony encroachment, setbacks, type of restaurant use in the plaza (to address the issue of noise from sports bars a type of use that would be inappropriate for this location), and details on the cultural and educational uses (a cooking school or art gallery could be considered). Commissioner Sockwell stated the use of the public plaza should be discussed. It is unclear to him whether there will be public accessibility with the developer retaining control over the plazas. In addition, he has questions regarding the transportation issues, such as the need for additional onstreet parking. Commissioner Kumm stated that she will support the motion. Her issues relate to the cultural and educational uses. She believes that in addition to the LRPC process, there should be an arts, or similar group, to identify the appropriate types of cultural and educational uses. Commissioner Siegel stated that she will support the motion, but has observed that there are a plethora of issues on the table; therefore the Sector Plan needs to be sharpened and clarified. Specific recommendations for commercial use should be studied. She expressed concern about the projected increase in Metro ridership from this and other already approved projects. A timesensitive agenda should be developed to ensure that the deferral process is completed by November. 10

11 Commissioner Ciottie stated that Commissioner Malis made a good point, in that the Commission must be clear as to what the LRPC process will entail and whether additional SPRC meetings will be needed. Commissioner Fallon stated that having a LRPC type meeting with community involvement would be beneficial for the Commission in order to come to a shared understanding of the Sector Plan goals and vision, and how they may be better met either through office or residential. He stated that he is not sold on the cultural space, as it seems to be isolated and need better programming and financing. In addition, Commissioner Fallon noted that there is no shortage of public plazas in the Virginia Square area and it would be helpful to understand how the proposed plazas stand out and create a sense of place. He would also be interested in the staff analysis of the economics of marketing the proposed new residential units versus office space. Commissioner Fallon concluded that Virginia Square has a unique personality and he questioned how the County could enhance those elements desirous of its residents while making it inviting to others in the County as well. Commissioner Harner concluded the discussion requesting that the Commission work with staff during the months of July and August to create a process for further analysis of the proposal in the context of the Sector Plan. The Commission voted 11-0 to support the motion to defer. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Fallon, Forinash, Harner, Iacomini, Kumm, Malis, Monfort, Siegel, and Sockwell supported the motion. Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Brian Harner Planning Commission Chair 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103