1

American Service Center Sitespecial study

Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission MeetingJuly 18, 2012

2

Meeting Agenda

1 | Opening Remarks

2 | Meeting Objectives

3 | Staff Presentation

4 | Discussion of Essential Issues

5 | Other Discussion Items

(Time permitting)

6 | Next Steps

3

2 | Meeting Objectives/Timeline

July 18 Meeting• Review Revised Concept Plans• Review Revised Guiding Principles• Discuss Revised Plan Approach• Discuss Essential Issues, Address

Key Questions

July 25 Meeting (tentative)• If needed

September Meetings • LRPC • Civic Associations/Advisory Groups• Request to Advertise (County Board)

October Meetings • Planning Commission• County Board Action

4

3 | The June 21 Concept Plan

The unifying concept for this area is to establish a high quality urban neighborhood as an attractive southern gateway into Ballston that fits sensitively within its surroundings.

5

3 | The June 21 Concept Plan

Medium density mixed-use development bridging together both sides of Glebe Road at this south Ballston gateway;

Additional and relocated street segments to strengthen the street grid and improve local circulation;

New pedestrian connections that facilitate mid-block passage and link together a series of open spaces, parks and plazas;

Several mini park and linear park locations to enhance the public realm and augment larger County parks nearby;

Strong retail and commercial edges along Glebe Road, in “The Center”, and at corner store locations; and

Deliberate transitions to adjacent lower density neighborhoods through strategic siting of residential uses and stepping down of building heights from Glebe Road to Thomas Street and Randolph Street to Quincy Street.

CORE ELEMENTS

6

3 | The June 21 Concept Plan

There is too much information on one map

The concept diagram should graphically convey the elements of the place we’re trying to create

Some elements are too specific to limited potential development scenarios

Concept diagram should be more neutral in terms of specific future uses/tenant locations

Greater clarity is needed on elements such as the vision for the transportation network, retail frontages, pedestrian connections and open spaces

Concept plan doesn’t capture everything that had been previously discussed in previous meetings (i.e. guiding principles)

Themes from June 21 LRPC COMMENTS on concept plan

7

3 | Revised Approach

Deconstruct concept plan into distinct, separate elements for clarity and legibility.

Supplement individual concept plan elements with set of guiding principles that support and expand upon the graphics

Remove illustrative plan/model graphics from final planning document to be developed

models have served their role as a analytical tool to support the study

reinforce the role and value of the plan as a high-level guide to inform future development in the area

limit confusion of the relationship between illustrative plan in this long range planning effort and potential future site plan for the site

New Approach for Planning Document to result from this study

8

3 | Revised Concept Plan~

A R L JNGTON Vlk .. l hiA

Illustration 1: Lan d Use Concept

~ \

9

3 | Revised Concept PlanARLINGTON

Vll< .. l h i A

Illustration 2: Transportation Concept

/.­

/".. ( ·"'-. · .. · ·. ., /..·

' '' . ~ " .· . . . . . • . ·' ~~, Legend

•(---)9 Proposed streets

<:············?

Pos.sible alley configuration and generallocat1on

Proposed pedestrian/bike connections

10

3 | Revised Concept PlanA R L JNGTON

Vlk .. l hiA

Illustration 3: Open Space Concept

l

/ ·· .· " ~ ·.

·. " / ·. < ~-- .J 7

( "'. Public Gatp{ring Space

' ' • ~

'""-.. "·'

Glebe& Randolph

Park

..

EAST SIDE

11

3 | Revised Concept Plan~

A R L JNGTON Vlk .. l hiA

12

3 | Revised Concept PlanA R L JNGTON

Vlk .. l hiA

Illustration 5: Retail Concept

commercial frontage along Glebe R .

~

13

4 | Discussion of Essential Issues

East Side

1. Are maximum heights of 10 stories along N. Randolph St. and 5 stories along N. Quincy St. appropriate scale for their locations?

2. Should the plan allow additional density on this site of up to 1.5 FAR above the 2.5 FAR allowed in the 1995 North Quincy Street Plan, but not greater heights, in return for significant additional community benefits or transfer of development rights? If so, does the group wish to identify specific or illustrative community benefits?

14

4 | Discussion of Essential Issues

West Side

1. Should the plan allow for future changes to the GLUP that, along with similar levels of currently planned density, provide limited flexibility for design elements such as building height that may be needed to accommodate an enlarged full-service grocery store and consolidated automobile dealership on the N. Glebe Rd. frontage of the site?

a. If so, are maximum heights of 14 stories along N. Glebe Rd. and 5 stories along the southwest edge abutting the multifamily residential area appropriate for this plan? or, is the preference for 9 stories on much of the site as allowed under existing zoning?

b. If the former, is the tapering suggested from 14 stories along Glebe Rd. to 5-9 stories in the middle of the block to 5 stories in the rear of the site appropriate?

c. If the former, is the tapering suggested from 14 stories in the middle of the N. Glebe Rd. frontage to the Hyde Park Condominium appropriate?

15

5 | Other Discussion Items?A R L JNGTON

Vlk .. l hiA

16

6 | Next Steps

1 | Determine if July 25 LRPC Meeting is needed to complete tonight’s discussion

2 | Staff considers input from July 18/(25) meetings as it creates a new draft plan document that is more conceptual, high-level in nature

3 | Revised Draft Plan document available for review late August/early September

4 | LRPC, civic association, and advisory group meetings, and County Board Request to Advertise in September

5 | Planning Commission and County Board Action in October