P.C. #41.A.B. January 15, Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201

Transcription

1 STEVE COLE CHAIR CHRISTOPHER FORINASH VICE CHAIR Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia January 15, 2014 THOMAS H. MILLER COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK SUBJECT: 2. A. VACATION of a Portion of an existing easement for public purposes/public street and utilities purposes located along eastern and southern portions of Parcel B, Section Two, Kenwood, at the intersection of N. Glebe Road and Fairfax Drive, RPC # , with conditions. B. SP# 64 Marymount University and the Shooshan Company to construct approximately 165,203 sq. ft. office for use as a school of higher instruction, approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of retail and 267 dwelling unit in the C-O-2.5 zoning district under ACZO 7.12 & Property is approximately 90,487 sq. ft.; located at 1000 N. Glebe Rd.; and is identified as RPC # The proposed density is 8.97 FAR office commercial and 162 Units/Acre residential. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: bonus density, density calculation exclusions, reduced parking ratio, increased compact parking percentage and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan. Applicable Policies: GLUP Office Apartment Hotel Medium and Ballston Sector Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission finds the proposed vacation of the portion of an existing Easement for Public Purposes/Public Street and Utilities Purposes located along eastern and southern portions of Parcel B, Section Two Kenwood, at the intersection of North Glebe Road and Fairfax Drive (RPC # ), with conditions, is substantially in accord with the applicable part of the County s Comprehensive Plan. Adopt the ordinance to approve the site plan amendment to SP #64 with the following modifications: P.C. #41.A.B.

2 1. Shared parking is a benefit to the community and is necessary to support the proposed exclusion of density for the auditorium and required retail space. 2. Amend Condition #44.A.1 to require that a graphic be provided for the County Board showing the allowable retail program for each retail space in each building. 3. Add a condition requiring the space identified as MU Café to remain a café for the life of the site plan unless changed by a major site plan amendment. 4. Strike the final sentence from Condition #44.A Add language to Condition #21.B.7 to provide that all moveable tables and chairs shown throughout the public plaza be available for public use. Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard these items at its January 13, 2014 meeting. Evan Pritchard representing Marymount University and the Shooshan Company provided an overview of the proposed mixed-use development. Ralph Kidder, representing Marymount University and Brian Scull representing the Shooshan Company were present. The project s architect, Duncan Lyons of Gensler provided a summary of the project. Mr. Kidder noted that the project enhances the university and the community. He expressed his appreciation on the efforts of the Site Plan Review Committee Chairman Iacomini and he looks forward to a productive partnership with Arlington County. Linda Eichelbaum Collier, DES, Real Estate, provided a brief staff presentation on the requested vacation of easement for public street and utility purposes. Samia Byrd, CHPD, Planning Division, provided a power point presentation on the proposal and identified staff issues including modifications sought for the site plan that include: density exclusions; bonus density; and reduced parking ratio. Mitigation measures proposed for the modifications were reviewed. Outstanding issues identified include requirement for an in-building wireless first responder communications network and public and/or overnight parking in the academic office building garage. Additional County staff present included Robert Gibson, DES, Transportation Planning, and Brett Wallace, Justin Falango and Bob Duffy, all CPHD, Planning Division. Mr. Gibson reported on the deliberations of the Transportation Commission, which recommended approval of the vacation and site plan and noted the pedestrian sidewalks/passages along N. Fairfax Drive and N. Glebe Road should be kept open during the project s construction. Public Speakers Bernie Berne testified about the historic nature of the site given its use as the headquarters and rail yard for the old trolley system. He requested a series of historical markers showing maps and information about the trolley system be displayed on the site along N. Fairfax Drive. 2

3 Jim Hurysz testified that he believes that this is another insipid redevelopment for the County. Joseph Petty, President of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, noted their support along with the Bluemont Civic Association for amenities that benefit the adjoining neighborhoods: contribution toward the funding of the western entrance of the Ballston Metro; the completion of the passive recreation components of the Ballston Beaver Pond Restoration Project, and the provision of community meeting space within the proposed project. Mr. Petty expressed his support of the site plan review process and appreciation to the applicant, the Planning Commission and to staff. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Iacomini, the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) Review Chairman, provided a report noting that the major points of discussion during the review were density and density offset provisions, the proposed project s architecture, landscape and open space, parking and the use of the garage and historical reference to the existing Blue Goose office building. She suggested the following points for discussion: Academic building penthouse area, residential building penthouse area and retail, the corner plaza, courtyard and off-sets for the requested additional density.. Commissioner Malis questioned how the owner/applicant and co-applicants are referenced in the conditions. Staff noted that Condition #1 applies to the applicant, owner, developer and any assignees which would cover all involved parties. Vacation Commissioner Gutshall questioned the compensation of the vacation and whether the County was actually realizing the true value given that land in Ballston appreciated more than the 3% annual increase noted in the staff report. Staff responded that the Planning Commission is required only to determine the vacation in terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gutshall questioned how the rate was determined and how the rate has been determined on other vacation requests. Linda Eichelbaum Collier noted that an appraisal is often pursued. Public benefit is also looked at with a request and this one includes a dedication in fee, which can also impact the valuation. She further noted that in the 1967 as-built site plan, the recommendation was for a parking garage, and the dedication of the easement was granted. She also noted that the right-of-way is no longer needed. Commissioner Cole asked if calculated density for the proposed development included the vacated land in the base and noted this would be a benefit to the developer. Commissioner Cole noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics rate of inflation over the time period ( $200k) would result in a current value over $1.395 million and questioned why an appraisal was not used. There was concern on the Commission that the County was not getting fair market value for the easement. Commissioner Iacomini made the following motion: I move the Planning Commission find the proposed vacation of the portion of an existing Easement for Public Purposes/Public Street and Utilities Purposes located along eastern and southern portions of Parcel B, Section Two Kenwood, at the intersection of North Glebe Road and Fairfax Drive (RPC # ), with conditions, is substantially in accord with the applicable part of the County s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. The Planning Commission unanimously supported the motion. 3

4 Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Gutshall, Harner, Iacomini, Kumm, Malis, Siegel, and Sockwell all voted aye. Site Plan Issues Commissioner Iacomini questioned staff on two outstanding issues identified following the final SPRC meeting, specifically the in-building wireless communications system and the absence of shared parking. Since these were new issues, she inquired if their resolution might result in a diminution of other community benefits to accommodate their inclusion. Ms. Byrd responded that the County does not anticipate any shifting of contributions with the provision of an in-building wireless communications system. While in-building wireless is not a standard condition or requirement on site plans as this time, the County Board did pass a resolution last Fall identifying the need for the system. It is being impressed on developers that this is something that the County would like to see but it is not yet an absolute requirement. Mr. Gibson spoke on the shared parking issue, which concern the parking garage of the academic office building. No parking is provided for retail in the garage as noted by Commissioner Iacomini. Mr. Gibson noted that the applicant has concerns about opening the garage after hours. The County supports shared parking where possible. A mixed-use development typically provides a synergy of shared use retail can be supported by the office parking when not in use for that purpose. Similar benefits have been provided from similar types of development. Responding to a question from Commissioner Cole, Dr. Kidder from Marymount indicated it is not the University s policy to provide outside parking on the current surface lot at the site nor is it their policy on their main campus. He stated concerns for students who use the building. Commissioner Iacomini noted the site plan treats this building as an office building and it is not on a college campus and therefore needs to have site plan conditions that reflect those that are standard for an office building in the Rosslyn/Ballston Corridor. There is nothing in the site plan that precludes the building being used exclusively as an office building at any time. As it is, Marymount envisions they will not initially use all floors of the building and will lease the other floors for office use. In time they hope to occupy the building entirely. Commissioner Iacomini opined that plans can change and site plan conditions need to be as standard as possible and reflect adopted County policy. Commissioner Ciotti questioned the lack of provision of shared parking by Marymount and whether a shared parking arrangement was in place at George Mason University? She further noted the exclusion of density for the auditorium and questioned where people will park that use the public auditorium. She questioned whether Marymount would contract out on their parking management. Dr. Kidder noted that Marymount will manage its own parking and presumes that parking will not be needed for the public s use of the auditorium. Commissioner Ciotti noted that a community meeting space needs some parking. Mr. Kidder was concerned about the provision of parking if the County is discouraging parking. He noted that the University has classes on most nights to 10 p.m. Mr. Kidder agreed to continue discussions with staff about parking. Commissioner Ciotti asked the applicant to look at GMU - Law School for experience and she is having a hard time understanding Marymount s position and finds it disquieting. Commissioner Malis asked whether the condition on shared parking in the staff report is valid and whether it is being reviewed. Rob Gibson noted that this is a standard condition and provides a good 4

5 base for discussion. At this time, the applicants are not agreeing to language. Commissioner Malis noted that the condition needs to be worked through and she agrees with the concerns of other Commissioners about not having shared parking. Commissioner Iacomini asked whether retail parking spaces are being provided; the footnote on Page 6 notes that with the exemption, parking spaces would be shared. It is proposed that retail parking will be shared with other building uses in the academic office building. Retail is unlikely to survive only with customers who can walk and or take Metro. There needs to be a mix and the retail needs to be viable. The use proposed is an academic office building; what happens if it is entirely leased as an office building? She is concerned that the current situation is shortsighted. Commissioner Cole asked if there is on-street parking. Mr. Gibson noted that a few parking spaces would be provided on N. Wakefield Street. Staff is also working with the applicant to get off-peak parking on N. Glebe Road through VDOT. The applicant has agreed to this condition. Commissioner Cole asked where visitors are expected to park. Mr. Gibson explained policies that encourage office/retail parking spaces and the provision of short-term parking for customers. Commissioner Harner expressed concern for the lack of clarity regarding the cost of providing inbuilding wireless communication capability. He asked if there had been any analysis on the cost. Ms. Byrd noted that the cost is continuing to be analyzed and depends a great deal upon the scale of the project. Generally costs are about.50 a square foot. Brian Scull from The Shooshan Company noted that the applicant has been working with the County a radio systemwith coaxial cable would be installed in the buildings. The cost of the in-building wireless system is more than $5 per square foot, totaling $417,000 for the proposed project. Commissioner Harner noted fiber optics had been mentioned and questioned whether there was any difference. He further noted that an in-building wireless system to provide better emergency response would be very difficult to provide post construction. Commissioner Mails noted that the provision of an in-building wireless system was also an issue for the Metropolitan Park 4&5 site plan. In that case, the exclusion of density was an offset and the inbuilding wireless system was not determined to be a community benefit. Ms. Byrd noted that the exclusions were rejected by the County Board on Metropolitan Park 4&5 and that the in building wireless would not be provided. Bob Duffy, Planning Director, noted that the Metropolitan Park 4&5 site plan pre-dated the County Board s policy on in-building wireless and will ask staff to work with the applicant and staff from the Fire and Police Departments and the technology staff on the provision of this service. He noted that Commissioner Cole requested a briefing on this technology at the Commission s February public hearing. Commissioner Siegel raised a question concerning Condition #19 on page 39 of the staff report regarding environmental aspects of the building. She noted that the County currently provides the public with energy use information for its facilities and wondered if it would be possible for private sector building owners to do the same. Ms. Byrd explained the how County staff reviews building energy performance and use. Energy use would be tracked throughout the building. Dr. Kidder noted that the Energy Star Portfolio Manager would be used to track energy use. 5

6 Commissioner Kumm discussed the plaza areas and noted she likes the variety of public seating. She asked if the moveable tables and chairs at the corner are for public use or only for use by outdoor café patrons. Mr. Scull noted they would serve the customers of the outdoor café at that particular location on the corner. He noted that fixed seating would be for the public. Commissioner Kumm further asked about rooftop treatments, green roof and garden treatments. Mr. Scull noted that they are still investigating with staff concerning rooftop treatments and how green treatments might work with the LEED scorecard. Commissioner Kumm asked if rooftop stormwater management were something the applicant would consider providing. Ms. Byrd noted that the lower level roof on a small portion of the office building is green. Commissioner Gutshall asked about the bond for LEED based on $40 per square foot of the bonus density and does this have any relationship to value of square footage of density. Is this value designed to be punitive were the applicant not to achieve the claimed LEED rating? Ms. Byrd noted the intent is to have the developer meet the LEED rating. Commissioner Gutshall questioned whether $40 is enough to ensure compliance. Mr. Scull noted that the expense is significant for not meeting the LEED rating. Commissioner Gutshall noted that the LEED bonus provision is quite generous but that the provision of LEED buildings has been successful. Commissioner Harner questioned what he sees as deviations from streetscape standards. He asked staff about the status of developing standards for paving patterns. Is there still a notion that there is a consistent streetscape standard? Mr. Gibson noted that staff worked with the applicant to achieve standard treatment on a majority of the site. In order to maximize the perceived public plaza space along N. Glebe Rd., the sidewalks in this location have similar treatment to the plaza, and use ADAcompliant non-beveled pavers. Mr. Wallace noted that unique paving helps to define the spaces and demarcates the plaza as a single space and differentiates it from the sidewalk. Commissioner Harner asked how we go forward what is staff s approach to ensure that different uses of pavers and paver patterning are not just ad-hoc changes to adopted standards; how do we decide which areas should have special paving treatments? Mr. Wallace noted the Latitude Apartments site plan included unique paver patterning on its corner plaza and the through-passageway to Quincy Park. Commissioner Harner stated that it is an important topic that needs to be looked at in terms of streetscape police implementation so we are clear under what conditions special pavers/patterning may be used. He stated he does like the overall proposal. Commissioner Kumm expressed support for Commissioner Harner and the need for guidance on when to deviate from County streetscape standards. Such deviation needs clear rationale. There is a need for guidance so that the use of special paving is not haphazard. In this case, she believes there is logic to having the plaza s special paver treatment extend out to the curb because it distinguishes the corner plaza and gives it a greater priority than the other corners that are primarily for pedestrian circulation. Commissioner Malis agreed with Commissioners Kumm and Harner concerning the need to have a basis for making decisions on streetscape variations. The rationale used in this instance needs to be clarified and provided to the County Board as it prepares for its upcoming hearing on this project. 6

7 Commissioner Malis asked about the site plan conditions concerning retail in general, but specifically as outlined in Conditions #29 and #44. She noted one has to do with form and the other to do with use. Condition #29 references creative storefronts on page 66. Commissioner Malis observed that the condition indicates that the design for retail bays may be changed post-approval and are not fixed. She is flagging this because this seems new and she wonders whether this is consistent with previous conditions for site plan projects. Ms. Byrd noted that the conditions in the staff report on this project are reformatted site plan conditions and staff has attempted in them to clarify what has been practice. Commissioner Malis also suggested review of proposed storefront designs should include the County s Chief Architect prior to review by the Zoning Administrator. There should be some qualitative review before the Zoning Administrator signs off. Samia Byrd noted that the internal review includes review by the architect. Commissioner Malis asked about the uses of retail in Condition #44 and whether this would allow options for other uses in these spaces. For example, she asked how much of the retail could become personal and business services and how much main street retail would be required in the project. Ms. Byrd noted that the conditions provide for some flexibility and broaden categories of uses for all of the spaces. Commissioner Malis asked if such a change in retail type previously warranted a site plan amendment and now, because of the wording in this condition, it becomes an administrative change. It is not clear what criteria are used to make these decisions. She noted that we are still awaiting the updated Retail Action Plan from AED and she is concerned about how apparent new flexibility in this site plan condition squares with the proposed new policy. Until the Retail Action Plan is adopted there is nothing firm to specify what we want or expect in these ground floor retail spaces. Commissioner Cole followed up on her point asking about revisions to standard site plan conditions and whether the conditions have again been changed. Ms. Byrd noted that the standard conditions are on line. Commissioner Cole is concerned about generic changes to conditions. He asked if staff could provide a side-by-side comparison of the and new conditions. Ms. Byrd noted that there were no policy changes or substantive changes with the condition reformatting. The reformatting was occasioned by the implementation of a new automated permitting system. The formatting necessary for the new system is different but the substance of the conditions was to remain unchanged. Commissioner Malis noted that Condition #44 has quite a few insertions and deletions and she is uncertain about the intent and implications of the condition. She is concerned that all the retail space presented as main street retail during SPRC now could become service or business services without any further public input. Bob Duffy suggested that a graphic could be provided that explains the intent of the condition and how the retail space should be used. Commissioner Malis also noted the Condition #44 permits retail floor to ceiling heights of only 14 feet in the academic office building as opposed to 18 feet in the residential building. In the past, a ceiling height of 15 feet has been the desired first floor minimum. Commissioner Cole asked whether other projects have retail floor to ceiling heights of 15 feet or less. Commissioner Cole asked the applicant about the floor to ceiling heights in its Liberty Center project. Mr. Scull noted that the heights were feet. Mr. Scull noted that when the plaza design was modified to eliminate steps, ceiling heights in the academic office building fell to 14 feet. 7

8 Commissioner Harner asked about language on Page 80, item D, provision of ventilation in retail spaces. He raised the point because he had been told that first floor retail space in a luxury high rise apartment building in Rosslyn was empty because adequate venting was not provided. Ms. Byrd noted that the venting systems would need to be provided for restaurants. Commissioner Harner noted if ventilation systems are not provided at construction, it is very difficult to provide them at a later date. Commissioner Harner asked Mr. Scull to explain their intent on the ventilation. Mr. Scull noted that the spaces would not have full ventilation or be large enough for a full-service restaurant. The lack of venting precludes any restaurant that uses heavy-frying and/or open flame cooking. Mr. Scull noted that in a project like Liberty Center they put in a full ventilation system and the space was split and subsequently not leased by a full-service restaurant. Commissioner Iacomini noted Condition 44 included a clause that would make possible the elimination of some of the ground floor retail space along N. Fairfax Drive without a site plan amendment. The space is currently shown as retail only on the submitted plans/renderings. It is this space that is to be used as a café and has associated outside seating space. Such a use is important to the activation of this façade at an important entrance point to Ballston. She expressed concern that this retail space was never shown as optional during the SPRC review. Commissioner Iacomini stressed the need to know what the use will be at this location. Mr. Scull agreed that the space would have a retail use and agreed to have language stricken that would permit 3,479 square feet on the western end of the office building to be used for educational uses or a conference center. Commissioner Iacomini noted that the SPRC did not intend that the ground floor space would be used for non-retail. Commissioner Kumm noted the plaza is very interesting and that a lot has been done to make it a very successful public space. She believes that the design gives people a reason for being there with seating, entrances and activating retail uses. It is not just circulation space. The public should be welcomed and there should be additional moveable chairs and tables for use by the public. Such social seating is also conducive to University s purposes and uses. She noted the lack of a water feature and public art in the plaza even though a focal point of some type it is called for in the 1980 Ballston Sector Plan. Commissioner Kumm suggested providing temporary public art as a focal point and she encouraged the applicant to add a programmatic element to the space something playful and useful that can be exciting. She supports the plaza but would like to see more public engagement with more moveable tables and chairs that she sees as social seating. Commissioner Malis asked if there is any requirement in Condition #44 that this would be Café space at the plaza. Ms. Byrd noted it is permitted but not required. Commissioner Malis is concerned about too many caveats in the conditions that would permit other uses in the retail space. Dr. Kidder noted that it is the University s intention to make that the space the Blue Goose Café for the students and public alike and the cafe is integral to the University. Ms. Byrd noted that Condition #44.A.4 specifies the space be the Café. Staff will codify the intent of the condition that a site plan amendment would be required if the space is not used by a Café. Commissioner Iacomini clarified that salvaged blue panels from the 1960s Blue Goose are still part of the plan to denote the entrance to the space. 8

9 Commissioner Ciotti commended the developer and architects involved in the development of the new Marymount office, classrooms, residences and courtyard at Ballston. She noted in particular the design of the courtyard successfully embraces universal design theory, advances the social principles of inclusive design and promotes an environment where students, employees, and visitors enjoy the space as one. She stated the new Marymount campus at Ballston would be exemplary of the applied theory of Universal Design. Commissioner Sockwell asked about the activation of the courtyard and the cycle track along Fairfax Drive. He asked whether there were any thoughts about connecting the cycle track to the courtyard. Mr. Gibson noted that cyclists are permitted to use the sidewalk at this location. There is good circulation throughout the area and the uses can be supported without carving out a bike lane on Wakefield Street. Commissioner Sockwell asked whether there were any other suggestions about how the cycle track connects going east. Mr. Gibson provided a graphic description of the bicycle lanes in the area and expressed some of the concerns about Fairfax Drive and the difficulty with the Metro Station and buses. Offsets for Density Commissioner Iacomini commended staff and the applicant for working together to ensure that the proposed density comports with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the site and takes into consideration the concerns of the community (Ballston-Virginia Square and Bluemont Civic Associations). These density requests are appropriate. The density offsets proposed are for already planned improvements to passive elements in the Ballston Beaver Pond, improvements to nearby spur of the Custis Trail and a contribution to the much anticipated and much desired western entrance of the Ballston Metro Station. She further noted that staff has presented a sound basis for how these densities appropriately fulfill the requirements of this site s zoning designation. Commissioner Cole also noted that it was a good effort by staff. Commissioner Ciotti stated that it was difficult to support the density exclusions for the auditorium without accompanying public parking in the garage. She noted this is the reason the shared parking issue needs resolution before County Board consideration of this project. Commissioner Gutshall asked Mr. Petty, President of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, whether the condition meets the intent of the Civic Association. Mr. Petty agrees to the condition language concerning density offsets. Commissioner Malis asked about the term of affordable housing for the residential portion of the project and whether it is a set term of 30 years. Ms. Byrd noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-year term. Projects with longer terms are usually those proposed by affordable housing developers. Commissioner Malis noted that the bonus density is for the life of the site plan and wondered why the term of the affordable housing should not be for the same period. She asked if the applicant could volunteer a longer term. This might be an issue that should be looked at as a future revision to the ordinance. Commissioner Cole asked staff to provide a link to the affordable housing provision in the Zoning Ordinance for the Commission. 9

10 Commissioner Iacomini asked about Condition #64.C. because she thought a table-top historical marker was to be located at N. Wakefield Street and N. Fairfax Drive. Staff agreed and will strike N. Glebe Road and replace it with N. Wakefield Street. She noted the trolley system s impact on the County s history. However, she does not believe it is necessary that a series of markers concerning the trolley system as proposed by Mr. Berne be accommodated on this site. She opined that a site in the Clarendon area might be more appropriate and pledged to continue to look for opportunities for such a set of markers somewhere in the Rosslyn/Ballston Corridor. Commissioner Cole asked Mr. Gibson to describe the proposed cycle track. Mr. Gibson explained the bicycle network in the vicinity of the site noting that the area provides many challenges for left turn movements and that connections can be complicated. Mr. Gibson referred to the Best Practices for Cycling Facilities by NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). Staff will work internally to find the best striping and marking for the turning movements and connections for the Bluemont Junction and Custis trails. Staff will continue to look for buffered bike lanes. Staff will continue working with WMATA on connections to the Metro Station. The applicant has agreed to work with staff and VDOT on trail connections to have a seamless trail experience from the Custis Trail to N. Glebe Road. Commissioner Cole noted the term Cycle Track is misleading and expectations are for something longer than two blocks. He noted the real goal is a safer linkage from the Bluemont Junction and Custis trails to N. Fairfax Drive andglebe Road. He wondered whether the majority come off the Bluemont trail? Mr. Gibson expressed the that the Custis Trail spur has more use. Commissioner Cole noted that as a user of the Bluemont Junction trail he would be happy to talk with staff about how complicated this area is and whether a full plan for cyclists in the corridor should be worked out first before making these improvements? He wonders whether the medians located in N. Fairfax Drive are sacrosanct and whether a true cycle track is even possible. Many people, he noted, will not cycle when they feel at risk. Commissioner Sockwell raised a question about bicycle parking on site and noted that it is the rare site where covered bicycle parking is not appropriate for cyclists coming off the track? Staff supports covered bicycle parking on this site particularly as it has an educational use. Mr. Gibson said there will be at least 20 additional bicycle parking spaces with the first phase of development. Commissioner Sockwell noted that this would be a good opportunity for covered bicycle parking for more than just the people occupying or living in the buildings. Other Issues: Commissioner Harner emphasized the need for staff to continue looking at Administrative Regulation 4.1 site plan drawings to ensure appropriate implementation of all aspects of the project. He stressed the need to pay particular attention to how the brick/mechanical ventilation systems are implemented. Commissioner Kumm commended the applicant for an outstanding project on a very visible corner in the County. However, she would like to see more moveable chairs and tables. 10

11 Commissioner Cole asked why the tree pits along N. Fairfax Drive are non-standard in size because they are only 4 feet. Mr. Wallace noted that continuous strip of planting material along N. Fairfax Drive is four feet wide and five feet deep and meets standards. Commissioner Kumm noted that the soil depth/volume meets the standard. Commissioner Cole asked about how the continuous pit impacts N. Fairfax Drive. Mr. Gibson noted that drop-offs on Fairfax Drive are not permitted because it is a travel lane and there is no parking. There are no curb cuts or ramps except at the corners. Commissioner Iacomini referenced the Arlington Now website and the preservation of panels from the Blue Goose. She asked the applicant that instead of preserving 36 panels they try for 40 and noted museum interest in the materials. She stated she had had conversations with the director of the CIA museum about panels, as well as with the Arlington Historical Society. Panels are also planned to be reused as historic markers in the courtyard area and there should be extras available in case there are issues with fabrication of the markers. Planning Commission Motions As noted, Commissioner Iacomini made a motion that the Planning Commission find the proposed vacation of the portion of an existing Easement for Public Purposes/Public Street and Utilities Purposes located along eastern and southern portions of Parcel B, Section Two, Kenwood, at the intersection of North Glebe Road and Fairfax Drive (RPC # ), with conditions, is substantially in accord with the applicable part of the County s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 to support the motion. Commissioners Cole, Ciotti, Harner, Iacomini, Gutshall, Kumm, Malis, Siegel and Sockwell all voted aye. Commissioner Iacomini made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the County Board approve the proposed major site plan amendment to Site Plan #64 with its accompanying conditions presented in the draft memorandum dated January 9, Commissioner Malis seconded the motion. Commissioner Iacomini offered a unanimous consent amendment to the main motion. She that the Planning Commission finds shared parking is a benefit to the community and is necessary to support the proposed exclusion of density for the auditorium and required retail space in the major site plan amendment to Site Plan #64. This was adopted without objection. Commissioner Malis sought unanimous consent for an amendment that related to site plan Condition #44.A.1. concerning retail space would require staff to provide the County Board with a graphic illustrating the allowable retail program for each retail space in each building. This was adopted without objection. Commissioner Malis further sought unanimous consent for an amendment that the County Board add a condition requiring that the space identified as the MU Café in the office building remain a café use for the life of the site plan unless changed by a major site plan amendment. This was adopted without objection. 11

12 Commissioner Iacomini sought unanimous consent for an amendment to delete the last sentence in Condition #44.A.1., which states: Further, the 3,479 square feet of space located on Fairfax Drive on the western end of the academic office building may be used for educational uses or a conference facility. This was adopted without objection. Commissioner Kumm moved that Condition #21.B.7 be amended to require additional moveable tables and chairs be provided throughout the plaza to accommodate social seating for public use. Commissioner Ciotti seconded the motion. Commissioner Gutshall said he opposed the amendment to the motion because it is too specific. He noted that Northside Social is a good example of a public setting with moveable seating. There should be some presumption that the plaza would become a successful public space. Commissioner Ciotti questioned whether Marymount was eager to make the space available to the public. The primary purpose, she believes, is for Marymount students. Dr. Kidder responded that the seating would be open to everyone and the price of coffee would not be the determining factor of whether you could sit down. Commissioner Malis noted that if the plaza is a public benefit she is sympathetic to Commissioner Kumm s proposed amendment. Commissioner Malis asked if all of the seating areas shown in the plaza were open to the public whether that would satisfy Commissioner Kumm s concerns about social seating. Commissioner Kumm agreed. Commissioner Kumm withdrew the motion to amend the main motion. Commissioner Ciotti concurred. Commissioner Kumm move that Condition #21.B.7 be amended by adding that all moveable tables and chairs shown throughout the public plaza be available for public use. Commissioner Malis seconded the motion. Ms. Byrd noted that the public access easement requires public access. Commissioner Malis asked if the café area were fenced off, would this be consistent with the easement. Mr. Duffy stated that staff would verify use of the space in final condition language. Commissioner Siegel questioned the proposed amendment and believes the amendment is not necessary. Commissioner Harner noted the nuance in how the seating can be managed and requested that staff work to find appropriate condition language. Commissioner Malis asked whether a use permit would be required for the outdoor seating. Bob Duffy stated that there would not be a use permit because the seating is being approved by site plan. Commissioner Gutshall noted his support for the proposed amendment and further noted that his primary interest is ensuring that what has been shown on the drawings is what will be provided in the plaza. The amendment to the motion passed Commissioners Cole, Harner, Iacomini, Malis, Kumm, Gutshall, Ciotti and Sockwell supported the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Siegel abstained. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the site plan with the aforementioned amendments to the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Gutshall, Harner, Iacomini, Kumm, Malis, Siegel and Sockwell voted aye. 12

13 Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Steve Cole Planning Commission Chair 13