site plan review committee meeting agenda 2100 …...(rpc# 34-020-017) scheduled to be heard no...

S I T E P L A N R E V I E W C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G A G E N D A

DATE: Monday, May 12, 2014 TIME: 7:00 – 10:00 p.m. PLACE: Courthouse Plaza

2100 Clarendon Boulevard Conference Room 109/110 (C&D) Lobby Level Arlington, VA 22201

SPRC STAFF COORDINATOR: Samia Byrd, 703-228-3525

Item 1. The Berkeley (SP #431)

(RPC# 32-020-002, -010) Scheduled to be heard no earlier than September 2014 PC and CB meetings. Arlova Vonhm (CPHD Staff)

7:00pm–8:25pm

Item 2. 2221 S. Clark Street – Crystal Plaza 6 (SP #11) (RPC# 34-020-017) Scheduled to be heard no earlier than the July 2014 PC and CB meetings. Samia Byrd (CPHD Staff)

8:35pm-10:00pm

The Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) is comprised of Planning Commission members, representatives from other relevant commissions and several appointed citizens. The SPRC reviews all site plans and major site plan amendments requests, which are submitted to the County Board and the Planning Commission for consideration. The major responsibilities of the SPRC are the following:

1. Review site plan or major site plan amendment requests in detail. 2. Advise the Planning Commission by recommending the appropriate action in regard to a specific

plan and any conditions, which it might determine to be necessary or appropriate. 3. Provide a forum by which interested citizens, civic associations and neighborhood conservation

committees can review and comment on a particular plan, or the effects that the proposed project might have on the neighborhood.

In order to save copying costs, staff has selectively chosen the reduced drawings to be included in this package. The complete full size drawings are available for review in the Arlington County Zoning Office, 10th Floor, Courthouse Plaza, 2100 Clarendon Boulevard and also in the Central Library’s Virginia Room, 1015 N. Quincy St., (703) 228-5990. For more information on the Arlington County Planning Commission, go to their web site http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/planning-commission/ For more information on the Site Plan public review process, go to the Arlington County Planning Division’s web site on Development Proposals/Site Plans http://projects.arlingtonva.us/private-development/ To view the current Site Plan Review Committee schedule, go to the web site http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/planning-commission/sprc/

The Berkeley (SP #431)

\\acg.arlington.local\arlgov\DEPT-CPHD\CURRENT\Site Plan Review Committee\2014 SPRC Meetings\SPR-05122014_Berkeley_Plaza6.doc

SPRC AGENDA: First Meeting—November 21, 2013 1) Informational Presentation

a) Overview of Site Plan Proposal (Staff) b) Presentation of Site Plan Proposal (Applicant)

2) SPRC Discussion/Prioritization of issues SPRC AGENDA: Second Meeting – December 9, 2013 3) Land Use & Zoning

a) Relationship of site to GLUP, sector plans, etc. i) Requested changes (if any) ii) Justification for requested changes (if any)

b) Relationship of project to existing zoning i) Special site designations (historic district, etc.) ii) Requested bonus density, height, etc. (if any) iii) Requested modification of use regulations (if any)

SPRC AGENDA: Third Meeting – March 13, 2014 4) Updates on outstanding issues (Staff/Applicant)

a) Four Mile Run Restoration Master Plan and Design Guidelines (Staff) b) Applicant Response/Presentation of proposed changes (Applicant)

5) SPRC Review and Discussion

a) Land Use & Zoning Continued: i) Relationship of site to GLUP, sector plans, etc.

(1) Requested changes (if any) (2) Justification for requested changes (if any)

ii) Relationship of project to existing zoning (1) Requested bonus density, height, etc. (if any) (2) Requested modification of use regulations (if any)

b) Site Design and Characteristics i) Allocation of uses on the site ii) Relationship and orientation of proposed buildings to public space and other

buildings iii) Streetscape Improvements iv) View vistas through site v) Visibility of site or buildings from significant neighboring perspectives vi) Historic status of any existing buildings on site vii) Compliance with adopted planning documents

SPRC AGENDA – Fourth Meeting – April 17, 2014 6) Building Architecture

a) Design Issues

I T E M 1 The Berkeley (SP #431)

(RPC# 32-020-002, -010) Stephen Sockwell, SPRC Chair



i) Building form (height, massing, tapering, setbacks) ii) Facade treatments, materials, fenestration iii) Roof line/penthouse form and materials iv) Street level activism/entrances & exits v) LEED/Earthcraft/Green Home Choice Score vi) Accessibility

b) Service Issues i) Utility equipment ii) Venting location and type iii) Location and visibility of loading and trash service iv) Exterior/rooftop lighting

7) Open Space

a) Orientation and use of open spaces b) Relationship to scenic vistas, natural features and/or adjacent public spaces c) Compliance with existing planning documents and policies d) Landscape plan (incl. tree preservation)

SPRC AGENDA – Fifth Meeting - May 12, 2014 8) Transportation

a) Infrastructure i) Mass transit facilities and access ii) Street systems (w/existing and proposed cross sections) iii) Vehicular and pedestrian routes iv) Bicycle routes and parking

b) Traffic Demand Management Plan c) Automobile Parking

i) Proposed v. required (tenant, visitor, compact, handicapped, etc.) ii) Access (curb cuts, driveway & drive aisle widths)

d) Delivery Issues i) Drop offs ii) Loading docks

e) Signage (parking, wayfinding, etc.) 9) Community Benefits

a) Public Art b) Affordable Housing c) Underground Utilities d) Historic Preservation e) Other

10) Construction issues i) Phasing ii) Vehicle staging, parking, and routing iii) Community Liaison



SPRC AGENDA – Next Meeting 11) Final presentation of proposal, highlighting changes made in response to comments 12) Wrap-up and identification of outstanding issues

Site Location: 200,873 square foot site (4.6114 acres) located south of S. Glebe Road, adjacent to Four Mile Run. The site is bounded by S. Lang Street to the east and S. Meade Street terminates in an intersection just west of the site.

Applicant Information:

Applicant AHC, Inc. 2230 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22201 Mary Claire Davis (703) 678-9434 [email protected]

Attorney Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich &Walsh, PC 2200 Clarendon Boulevard, 13th Flr. Arlington, VA 22201 Nan Walsh (703) 528-4700 [email protected]

Architects MTFA Architecture 2311 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 Michael Foster (703) 524-6616 [email protected]

Engineer Walter L. Phillips, Inc. 207 Park Ave Falls Church, VA 22046 Karen White (703) 532-6163 [email protected]

Landscape Architect Walter L. Phillips, Inc. 207 Park Ave Falls Church, VA 22046 Brian Richards (703) 532-6163 [email protected]

Trafic Engineer Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 11400 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 400 Reston, VA 20191 McLean, VA 22102 Ed Papazian (703) 674-1307 [email protected]

BACKGROUND: A site plan is proposed to redevelop the site of the existing Berkeley Apartments at 2900 and 2910 S. Glebe Road. The applicant, AHC Inc., proposes to redevelop the site with two 5-story apartment buildings with a total of 287 units. There is no General Land Use Plan (GLUP) amendment requested with this application; however, the applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 18,170 square feet from “S-3A” to “RA8-18”. In association with the site plan, the applicant requests to modify the building height and the parking ratio. o Since the initial proposal, the application has been revised as follows:

o Removal of all visitor surface parking spaces facing the stream. o Addition of a pervious drive area to address fire access. o New planting swale adjacent to the trail to assist with water runoff. o Increased the width of Four Mile Run trail along the redeveloped property to 12’. o Addition of a public node along the trail with benches and litter control. o Utilization of green roof technologies on top of the garage structure. o Set aside area for future bike share location. o Inclusion of native and noninvasive adaptive plantings. o Commitment to LEED Gold certification and Earthcraft for Multifamily Buildings. o Addition of direct building entrances to ground floor units on the stream facing side

of the building.



The following provides additional information about the site and location: Site: The subject site is bounded by Four Mile Run to the south, S. Glebe Road to the north, S. Lang Street to the east, and S. Meade Street terminates in an intersection just west of the site. The southern portion of the property adjacent to Four Mile Run is located within the floodplain and the Resource Protection Area (RPA). The site is approximately 200,873 square feet (4.61 acres) and is surrounded by the following land uses:

To the north: S. Glebe Road; Shirley Park Shopping Center designated Service Commercial on the GLUP and zoned “C-1” and “C-2”.

To the east: Immediately to the east is an office building designated “Low-Medium” Residential

on the GLUP and zoned “C-1-O”. To the south: Four Mile Run, designated as Public on the GLUP, and the City of Alexandria. To the west: Four Mile Run Park, designated as Public on the GLUP and zoned “S-3A”.

Source: Bing Maps, 2014 Existing Zoning: “RA8-18” Apartment Dwelling District and “S-3A” Special District. General Land Use Plan Designation: “Low-Medium” Residential (16-36 units/acre).

NO

RT

H



Neighborhood: The site is located within the boundaries of the Long Branch Creek Civic Association and is immediately west of the Arlington Ridge Civic Association boundary. In addition, the City of Alexandria is located directly south of the site.

Existing Development: The site is currently developed with two, four-story apartment buildings with a total of 137 units. One-Hundred and Ten (110) of the existing units are affordable dwelling units (ADUs), and the remaining 27 units are market rate. The two apartment buildings were constructed in the 1960’s, and were purchased by AHC in 2000. Development Potential:

Site Plan Area: 200,873 sq ft

DENSITY ALLOWED/TYPICAL USE MAXIMUM

DEVELOPMENT Existing Zoning “RA8-18” By-Right 182,703 sq ft

Apartment Houses/Town House Dwellings: 1,200 sq ft/Lot (36.3 DU/Ac)

152 units

“S-3A” By-Right 18,170 sq ft

Parks, schools, churches, other public uses: 6,000 SF min. lot size; Single Family Dwellings: 3 acre min. lot size

0 units

“RA8-18” Site Plan 182,703 sq ft

Townhouses/Apartment Houses: 45 DU/Ac 189 units

“S-3A” Site Plan 18,170 sq ft

Hospitals and Institutions of an Educational, Religious, Charitable or Philanthropic Nature: 5 acre min. lot size All other uses: 6,000 SF min. lot size (7.26 DU/ac)

3 units

Proposed Zoning “RA8-18” By-Right 200,873 sq ft

Apartment Houses/Town House Dwellings: 1,200 sq ft/Lot (36.3 DU/Ac)

167 units

“RA8-18” Site Plan 200,873 sq ft

Townhouses/Apartment Houses: 45 DU/Ac 207 units

Proposed Development: The following table includes the preliminary statistical summary for the proposed site plan:

Regulatory Standard Proposal Site Area 200,873 sq ft (4.61 Acres) Density Residential GFA/Units 260,200 sq ft /287 Units Residential Density1 62 DU/Acre “RA8-18” Max. Permitted Residential Units 167 Units “RA8-18” Max. Permitted Residential Density 36.3 DU/Acre Height Average Site Elevation 11.43 ft Residential Building 5 Stories

Main Roof Elevation 72.43 ft Main Roof Height2 61 ft Penthouse Roof Elevation 81.93 ft Penthouse Roof Height 70.5 ft Penthouse Height 9.5 ft

1 Includes 50,218 sq ft of bonus density for LEED Silver Certification at .25 FAR converted to 55.79 units at an average unit size of 900 sq ft per unit, 20,087 sq ft of bonus density for LEED EBOM Certification at .1 FAR , and 25% bonus density for Affordable Housing at 41.8 units. 2 Includes a request for an additional 1’ in height



“RA8-18” Max. Permitted Residential Height 4 Stories Parking Proposed Residential Parking Spaces 264 Standard 225 Compact 39 (15%) Handicapped 7 Proposed Residential Parking Ratio 0.92 sp/unit Required Residential Parking Ratio3 - By-right 1.125 sp/unit for the first 200 units (225 sp)

1 sp/unit over 200 units (87 sp) Required Residential Parking Ratio – Site Plan Standard 1 sp per unit (287 sp) LEED Gold Certification Level Residential Buildings (NC) 66 Points Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance 43 Points

Density and Uses: Approximately 91% of the site is currently zoned “RA8-18”, which permits by site plan apartment buildings, townhouses, low or moderate income housing, as well as single and two family dwellings. The site’s GLUP designation, which is consistent with the current zoning, is “Low-Medium” Residential, and provides for the development of 16-36 dwelling units per acre by-right. The remaining 9% of the site is zoned “S-3A”, which permits by site plan hospitals, schools, institutions of higher learning, and single family dwellings, among other uses. The applicant proposes to rezone the portion of the site currently zoned “S-3A” to “RA8-18.”

o At a previous SPRC meeting, committee members raised questions about the existing “S-3A” zoning on a portion of the subject property. Staff researched this further and found that while the property has been split-zoned since the 1950’s, the current “S-3A” portion was shown as “R-6” on zoning maps until 1998. Further, staff found that in December 1996, the County adopted several zoning map and General Land Use Plan amendments to the “S-3A” zoning district and “Public” GLUP category, respectively, as a means to reconcile these maps with the Open Space Master Plan and reflect County ownership and public use of the property. The subject property was not included among the list of parcels to be rezoned during this effort, however nearby properties were, including Lang Street Gardens, located on the 3000 block of S. Glebe Road, and Four Mile Run Park, located immediately east of this subject property. Staff shared this research with the Zoning Administrator and on March 11, 2014, the Zoning Administrator made a ruling that the current designation for the “S-3A” portion of the property was made in error. Therefore, the property is split-zoned between the “RA8-18” and “R-6” zoning districts. The Zoning Map and County records will be updated to correct this error.

The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with two, 5-story, multifamily residential buildings with a total of 287 units. The proposal includes 173 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) and 114 market rate units. The maximum permitted by-right density for multifamily residential uses based on the subject site area is 152 units under the current zoning and 167 units under the proposed rezoning. The applicant requests bonus density for the commitment to provide onsite affordable and LEED certification. 3 A total of 312 parking spaces would be required for an overall ratio of 1.09 spaces per unit



o The applicant has revised the initial proposal to pursue LEED GOLD certification instead of LEED Silver + LEED EBOM. The breakdown of the proposed density is shown in the chart below.

Density Calculation Site Area 200,873 sq ft (4.61 ac) Existing Zoning RA8-18 and S-3A Maximum Residential Density Permitted 36.3 du/ac and 7.26 du/ac Proposed Zoning RA8-18 Site Area Allocated to Residential 200,873 sq ft

(4.61 ac) Base Residential Density 167.3 units (36.3 units/acre) Average Unit Size 900 sq ft ADU Bonus—25% 41.8 units LEED Gold Bonus Density (0.40 FAR) 80,349 sq ft or 88.5 units LEED EBOM Bonus Density (0.1 FAR) 20,087 sq ft or 22.3 units Proposed Residential Density 287 units (62.2 units/acre)

Site and Design: The applicant proposes two “L”-shaped, five-story buildings, oriented towards S. Glebe Road. The buildings would be separated by an entry plaza and central drive that would connect to a rear driveway. The proposed driveway would extend from the intersection of S. Glebe Road and S. Meade Street and run roughly east-west through the site behind the proposed buildings, to provide access to the parking garage and loading areas. The main pedestrian entrances to both buildings would be facing S. Glebe Road, adjacent to a central entry plaza. The entry plaza would also accommodate vehicular pickup and drop off activities.

Conceptual Landscape Plan (revised 3/6/14) The front façades of both buildings are proposed to angle away from S. Glebe Road due to the location of an existing sanitary sewer easement along the north edge of the site. Landscaping is proposed for this area between the buildings and S. Glebe Road. Two private plazas are proposed, one at the rear of each building, and a children’s play area would be located at the far eastern corner of the site. A black iron fence would replace an existing rear fence on the



property and run east-west through the site, just south of the proposed driveway. A gate at the eastern edge of the property would provide controlled resident access to the adjacent Four Mile Run trail.

o In response to SRPC and staff comment, the site plan has been revised to remove a surface visitor parking area and replace it with permeable pavement to accommodate fire truck access. A node, including area for public seating, has also been added adjacent to the trail, in the southeast portion of the site.

o The applicant has added exterior balconies on the south side of the building, as well as at-grade entrances to individual units on the ground level.

The two residential buildings are proposed to share an underground garage, with the entrance located at the rear of the eastern building (Building 1). Loading access would occur at the rear of both buildings, in the shorter “wings” that are perpendicular to Four Mile Run. The two buildings are proposed to be of a modern design and comprised of masonry, powder coated aluminum frame glass, aluminum mesh, and cement and metal panels. The building design also includes a notched effect on the front façade to provide visual interest.

View looking east from the intersection of S. Glebe Road and S. Meade Street.



View looking west from the Four Mile Run trail. LEED: The applicant proposes that the residential buildings be certified under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED New Construction and Major Renovation program at the Gold level rating. Bonus density consistent with the County’s Green Building Density Incentive Program is requested at 0.40 FAR. In order to earn the bonus density, the buildings would need to meet the current minimum design standard of 18% energy efficiency and the applicant would agree to report post-occupancy energy usage to the County for 10 years. o The applicant has revised their initial proposal to increase the commitment for LEED

certification to the Gold level, instead of LEED Silver and LEED EBOM. Staff is currently reviewing the updated LEED Gold checklist.

Transportation: The Master Transportation Plan (MTP) classifies S. Glebe Road in this location as a Type D – Primarily Garden Apartments and Townhouse Neighborhoods. The MTP calls for on-street parking as a priority for this type of street, as well as a 6 – 8 foot sidewalk with a 5 – 6 foot green strip. Trip Generation: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted by the applicant, prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates and dated July 23, 2013. The analysis assessed the impact of the development on the adjacent street network. The analysis concludes that approximately 105 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 127 PM peak hour vehicle trips would be generated from the proposed development. In terms of comparing the vehicle trips of existing uses to vehicle trips of the proposed use, the analysis notes that the proposed project would result in 65 net-new AM peak hour vehicle trips and 56 net-new PM peak hour vehicle trips. The study states that, with the proposed development, there would be virtually no increase in vehicle delay. All intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) “D” or better, with the



exception of S. Glebe Road and Arlington Ridge Road during the AM peak hour. The added traffic from the development would only increase the delay by less than 2 seconds. Streets: S. Glebe Road is a four-lane arterial, with no on-street parking adjacent to the subject site. There could be an opportunity to provide some on-street parking on the project side of the street. The existing development has two (2) curb cuts and the proposed development would have two (2) curb cuts in the same location as today. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Connections: The existing sidewalk on S. Glebe Road is approximately six (6) feet wide with a grass strip adjacent to the curb. There are some shrubs and trees planted at the back of sidewalk. Proposed would be an eight (8) foot sidewalk and a five (5) foot planting strip with street trees, which would be compliant with what the MTP calls for on this type of street. Parking, loading and transit: Access to parking and loading for the proposed project would be at the back of the site, off of the proposed driveway. The applicant proposes a total of 264 parking spaces, 256 of which would be provided in an underground structure and eight (8) visitor spaces located at the surface at the rear of the site. The standard minimum site plan parking ratio for residential uses is one (1) parking space per unit. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for the first 200 units and one space per unit for each additional unit thereafter. The proposed residential parking ratio is 0.92. The site is not located within walking distance of a metro station, but there is a bus stop located on North Glebe Road immediately adjacent to the subject property. The bus stop serves Metrobus 23A and 23C, 10B, and ART 87. Metrobus 23A and 23C provide service to the Crystal City and Ballston metro stations. It also serves McLean. The bus stop is also served by the Metrobus 10B route, which provides service to Ballston and Braddock Road metro stations. The ART 87 route serves Shirlington and the Pentagon metro station. DISCUSSION: Modification of Use Regulations: The following modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements are requested with the subject site plan request:

Bonus density for LEED Gold (0.40 FAR); Bonus density for Affordable Housing (25%); Reduced parking ratio for residential uses at 0.92 spaces/unit; and Bonus height, one foot (1’) over the permitted 60’ maximum.

Adopted Plans and Policies: In addition to regulations provided in the Zoning Ordinance for “RA8-18” site plan development, the 2006 Four Mile Run Restoration Master Plan (Master Plan) and the 2009 Four Mile Run Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines) provide guidance for redevelopment of the subject site. The Four Mile Run Restoration Master Plan was a joint effort of Arlington County, the City of Alexandria, and the Army Corps of Engineers to address the lower Four Mile Run corridor, or 2.3 miles of land along the border between Alexandria, VA and Arlington County, VA. The planning process was led by a joint task force including members



appointed by both jurisdictions and the Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC). The plan began as a stream restoration project but also provides a vision for the future development of the corridor, with an emphasis on integrating natural areas with urban nodes, reconnecting to the stream, and improving ecology. The Master Plan includes guiding principles, an “in-stream” plan – dealing with hydrology and flood control, stormwater management, and vegetation and habitat, and a “near-stream” plan, which addresses development of areas adjacent to the stream with an emphasis on circulation and connection, urban form and neighborhoods, recreation, and education. The Master Plan also includes a “design language” section, which provides a set of design principles to help realize the overall master plan vision. These design principles were further developed into the Four Mile Run Design Guidelines, which was adopted by both the City of Alexandria and Arlington County, VA in 2009. The subject site is located within the study area for both planning documents. A summary of relevant master plan guiding principles and design guidelines are provided below. Four Mile Run Restoration Master Plan: Near-Stream Guiding Principles: Circulation and Connection

Increase pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities. Ensure that Four Mile Run is accessible to all who wish to use it. Increase connectivity between the two communities. Enhance the corridor’s effectiveness as a non-motorized and mass transit corridor.

Urban Form and Neighborhoods Encourage urban designs that develop the corridor’s aesthetics and reflect the excitement

of the watershed citizenry for this resource. Incorporate innovative and creative urban designs and watershed solutions. Develop urban life opportunities along the Four Mile Run corridor. Integrate the corridor with surrounding communities and proposed adjacent urban

development efforts. Create a balance between the natural elements of a restored corridor and urban activity

areas in order to generate a lively, safe, and well-used public resource. Coordinate with other ongoing planning activities. Such activities include affordable

housing initiatives, master planning efforts like the Arlandria and Shirlington planning efforts, and economic development planning initiatives.

Interpretation and Education Provide interpretive opportunities to educate and inform the public about the stream

corridor. Create a place for people to understand their connection with water and nature within an

urban context. Interpret the principles of “green design” in ways that underscore the important linkages

between design, use and sustainability.



Four Mile Run Design Guidelines: Green Design Principles

Green roofs are encouraged in the retrofit of existing buildings as well as for new development.

Litter control points are proposed (in-stream) south and east of the site. A variety of stormwater management measures are recommended, including bioretention

facilities, planters, and underground storage. Permeable pavement is recommended for walkways, driveways, and parking areas to

reduce runoff. New impervious surfaces should be minimized as much as possible. Public Spaces

A 12’ wide, asphalt pedestrian/cyclist commuter trail is called for at the southern portion of the site. Specific guidelines are provided regarding trail materials and design (p. 59).

A node opportunity is identified near the center of the site, which would connect the commuter trail to an informal pedestrian trail (5’ wide) and fair-weather stream crossing

Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on S. Glebe Road via a variety of methods including traffic calming techniques, street lighting and signage, textured and patterned crosswalk surfaces, and improved pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle crossings.

Provide additional tree canopy coverage in surface parking areas to provide shade, minimize heat island effects, and limit visual impact on the stream.

Built Features Enhancements to the surface of the retaining wall are encouraged in high-visibility

locations (at entry points or bridges). Perimeter fencing should be semi-permeable, include frequent openings to allow

pedestrian access, incorporate recycled/sustainable materials, and serve as an opportunity for public art.

Buildings should incorporate incremental building stepbacks and be oriented so that the longest sides are perpendicular to the stream for increased solar access.

Ground-floor transparency, interior/exterior visual connections, and active, pedestrian friendly ground floor uses are encouraged in locations facing the stream.

Parking, loading, and service entrances are restricted along stream frontage and near the top of the stream bank.

Residential buildings are encouraged to have ground-floor, stream-facing entrances and/or functioning doors (at 60’max. spacing) OR include architectural elements that engage the stream and pedestrians.

Balconies, terraces, and upper level fenestration are suggested as a means to increase real and perceived safety.

Usage, activity, and access along the promenade is achieved by locating at least one primary pedestrian access on the stream side, encouraging mid-block connections for sites with extensive stream frontage, providing bike facilities, and minimizing building features that detract from the pedestrian experience.

Create exciting, high-quality architecture via the use of innovative, sustainable building features.

Utilize a variety of building forms, incorporating distinctive building top features at key sightlines.



Encouraging design elements that teach about how the building works to protect the stream ecology.

Staff has provided a summary analysis of the project against relevant guidance from the Four Mile Run Design Guidelines in a separate attachment (see Four Mile Run Design Guideline Summary Analysis) Issues: The project has had four appearances before the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC), on November 21, 2003, December 9, 2013, March 13, 2014, and April 17, 2014. The April 17, 2014 meeting was held at Gunston Middle School and was preceded by an optional site tour. The following issues have been identified by staff and the SPRC for further analysis, review and discussion: Land Use and Zoning The combination of bonuses for LEED and affordable housing results in a proposed density

of 62 units/acre which exceeds the GLUP recommended density of 16-36 units/acre for Low-Medium Density Residential uses.

o The applicant requests bonus density for the provision of affordable housing, under Zoning Ordinance Section 15.6.9. The applicant also requests bonus density for committing to LEED Gold certification, permitted under Zoning Ordinance Section 15.6.7.A.1, provisions made for open space and other environmental amenities.

o At the request of SPRC, staff has reviewed approved residential site plans that exceeded GLUP density levels, a sample of which is provided below. Bonus density requests typically included the maximum permitted increase for the provision of on-site affordable dwelling units (25%) in addition to provisions found in Section 15.6.7.A.1. In looking for examples similar to the current request, staff found that most site plan projects in residential districts located outside the County’s major planning corridors were approved prior to the creation of the bonus density mechanisms being utilized here. However, the Buckingham Village I site plan project (SP #405) has similar characteristics to the current request with regard to existing zoning, GLUP category, and bonus density sought.

Site Plan Zoning

District GLUP Category Permitted

GLUP Density

Approved/ Proposed Density

Bonus Density Sought

SP#401 – Jordan Manor

RA8-18* (for West block)

Low-Medium Residential

36 units/acre 45 units/acre Affordable housing

SP#405 - Buckingham Village 1

RA8-18* Low-Medium Residential

36 units/acre 63 units/acre Affordable housing; historic preservation; dedication of street/open space

SP#416 – Rosslyn Commons

RA-4.8 High-Medium Residential

3.24 FAR 4.2 FAR Affordable housing; LEED certification

SP#420 – Bergmann’s

C-O-1.5* Low Office-Apartment-Hotel**

72 units/acre 109 units/acre Affordable housing; LEED Gold



SP#425 - Pierce Queen Apts

RA6-15 Medium Residential/ FMHNP Revitalization Area

3.24 FAR

4.25 FAR

Affordable housing; LEED Silver

SP#426 – The Latitude Apts

C-O* High Office-Apartment-Hotel

4.8 FAR 6.4 FAR Affordable housing; LEED Gold, EBOM

SP#431 – The Berkeley Apts

RA8-18* Low-Medium Residential

36 units/acre TBD/ 62 units/acre

Affordable housing; LEED Silver, EBOM

*Included a rezoning request to this district **Included a GLUP amendment request

o For site plan projects, the County Board may approve bonus density, which by nature

would exceed that permitted by a site’s Zoning and GLUP designations, if the project is in keeping with its adopted policies and stated goals. Further, there are established policies and criteria to assist the County Board to determine the appropriateness of any “bonus” density for a site plan project. The projects where density has been permitted above the GLUP have been found to be consistent with the County’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and its Green Building Density Incentive Program, meeting the County’s goals and established criteria for the provision of affordable housing and LEED/sustainability.

Site and Design Proposal does not thoroughly consider recommendations of the Four Mile Run Design

Guidelines, as evidenced by the following: o Lack of ground floor entrances o Driveway extends for nearly the entire width of the property, parallel to the trail, with

loading and parking entrances facing the stream. Consider providing vehicular access from the west side of the site.

o Long, unbroken building façades with little activation along the street or stream sides o Fencing is proposed at rear of the site and the only access proposed to the trail is

controlled and located at southeast edge of property o Building is oriented toward S. Glebe Road, lacking active frontage on the stream side

Building “wings” adjacent to central driveway fan out away from the center. Align these portions of the buildings to be parallel to the driveway.

Proposed entry plaza that currently fronts on S. Glebe Road would be better sited at the rear of the property; area could provide a small plaza/gathering place adjacent to the trail for both residents and the public.

Improve south edge of property adjacent to the trail: Provide a pedestrian connection(s) to the trail from the central access drive. The

connection(s) should be open to the public and not gated. Proposal should explore ways to improve site safety and security via design and lighting

as opposed to the use of a fence. o Staff met with Arlington County Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

(CPTED) Specialist Lieutenant Hurlock to discuss alternatives to fencing along the south edge of the site that would provide security and clearly define public vs. private space. Suggested alternatives included the reuse of excavated site materials in a



mulch covered berm, the use of natural materials, e.g., boulders or river rock, to create a separation between public and private space, and adding trees, protected by tree guards that may also serve as a barrier. Additional staff comments regarding this edge of the property are provided under the Landscape and Open space heading.

Building Architecture Provide more direct entrances on both sides of the building; south façade still does not read

as a “front” Consider how to better integrate the community services provided on site into the design Take more consideration of the appearance of the garage doors/loading area as viewed from

the trail Increase the size of the windows, particularly facing Four Mile Run – larger windows could

focus on the top two floors and/or areas with vertical accentuation Consider removing the vertical “fins” Provide a stronger base to the building. Simplify mix and disposition of façade materials (e.g., remove random horizontal expression

lines along the middle floors of the building) Provide more detail on the drawings/renderings, particularly around the building entrances It would be helpful for the articulation of the South Glebe façade if the area around the

balconies were to protrude out from the face of the building (as opposed to being inset as they are now) – this could mimic the way the façade is handled at the corners

Remove proposed notches in parapet and lower parapet wall The applicant’s most recent submission includes several changes to building architecture, including the addition of direct building entrances to ground floor units on the stream side, changing the building color palette, and increasing the size of windows on the upper levels on the S. Glebe side. Staff will continue to evaluate these changes against Four Mile Run Plan guidance as the design evolves. Transportation The applicant has requested a reduced parking ratio based on a survey of AHC-managed

affordable multifamily units that shows that the demand for parking is lower at affordable buildings, both in Metro corridors and out of Metro corridors.

Explore aligning the proposed driveway with the driveway of the shopping center across S. Glebe Road, for any potential future signalization of this exit.

Proposed pedestrian path on the stream side should be physically separated (by a curb) from the vehicular driveway.

A clear pedestrian path should be provided from the stream side of the building to the trail and/or to the S. Mead Street intersection.

Explain the retention of the curb nub just west of the building entrance on S. Glebe Road. Provide paving details for the driveway. Landscape and Open Space Improve landscaping along South Glebe Road:



The design aesthetic for this area should be consistent with the language outlined in the Four Mile Run Design Guidelines (pages 20-28). The landscaped areas could incorporate natural elements (p.28) such as wood, stone, boulders, and native plants. Consider using the design language and materials to tell a story about the area.

Staff feels that more landscape design effort is needed in the setback areas between the sidewalk and the buildings. While the sanitary easement in this area limits landscape design options, the design for this area should be more reflective of a natural landscape, and not an urban plaza. The space should feel more inviting and encourage residential use via the provision of lawn areas, landforms, landscaping that is visually appealing, seating, etc. Note: trees cannot be planted in the easement area- but lawn, grasses, perennials, shrubs, site furniture, boulders, stones, permeable paving, etc. are all acceptable. It might be good to showcase the stormwater management into the landscape with rain gardens in key areas.

Maximize street tree plantings throughout- spacing of 25-30 feet is recommended. Improve landscaping adjacent to the trail:

Maximize tree plantings along the south edge of the site, creating gaps only for prominent views and connections to the trail.

Use landscaping and elements from the design language and guidelines to create a living buffer to retain the soil and define this edge.

Consider the experience of the trail users and the views from the residences as well. If fences are used in areas where planting space is limited, please use a more transparent

fence that is light is appearance and fits into the landscape. Use plantings to conceal the fence and soften the edge where appropriate.

The design of the public seating area shown near the playground should be consistent with the design guidelines (p.66 “Nodes- Seating Areas”).

Environmental The majority of the site is located in the floodplain and RPA. Measures to reduce stormwater

runoff and increase infiltration should be incorporated into the design of the site. The proposed change to seek LEED Gold certification will require an updated checklist. Other Comments Subsequent to the April 17th SPRC meeting, Arthur Fox of the Arlington Ridge Civic Association submitted a letter to staff that included an analysis of the density proposed in the Berkeley site plan. Below are staff responses to letter’s four main recommendations. A copy of the original letter has been posted to the site plan project page. Recalculate site density to remove the Four Mile Run parkland

o The site area of the subject property, as shown on the survey plat submitted as part of the 4.1 application, is approximately 200,873 square feet, or 4.61 acres (RPC 38-02-0002). The southern portion of the property extends into Four Mile Run and an 8’ wide public access easement for the Four Mile Run trail runs east-west through the site. The entire area is owned by the applicant (AHC Limited Partnership). The General Land Use Plan (GLUP) map indicates the property is predominantly designated for low-medium residential uses, except for a thin border of public



parkland along the County’s southern boundary. As the property is entirely privately owned, staff would calculate potential site density using the entire site area, as we have for other site plan projects. The presence of publicly accessible features (e.g. public sidewalks, trails) on privately owned property is not uncommon. With the exception of public streets, these features are routinely included in site area for the purposes of calculating site density. Lastly, the enabling statute in the first Virginia State Code section referenced addresses transfers of development rights, which are not being sought as part of this site plan request. The second state code section has no bearing on the County’s Zoning Ordinance, which governs site plans, and therefore is not relevant to this request.

Enlarge existing unit sizes to create more 2- and 3-bedroom units, reducing the overall unit count.

o The proposed unit mix is subject to further review and discussion. In the most recent submission, the unit mix provides for all of the 3-bedroom units and the majority of the 2-bedroom units to be allocated as affordable dwelling units. Housing Division staff are still reviewing this proposal but generally support the provision of family-sized affordable dwelling units in site plans. If the project is approved, the site plan conditions would stipulate a minimum number of affordable dwelling units by unit type.

Affordable housing bonus should only be awarded the portion of the bonus that will be set

aside for affordable units (e.g., if project has 60% ADUs, then only 60% of the bonus density should be granted).

o The applicant requests bonus density for the provision of affordable housing, under Zoning Ordinance Section 15.6.9. As with all site plans, the County Board has the sole authority to grant bonus density for affordable housing above the GLUP. The tables below provide an analysis of the site, base residential density, and affordable housing component of the proposal.

Project Site Area

Residential 200,873Commercial 0Acreage: 4.61

Proposed Development

Proposed Residential Density 260,200Proposed Units 287Average GFA/unit 907

Base Density Density @ 36u/acre 1675% on-site affordable GFA per Ordinance 2,966



o The requested density bonus for affordable housing may permit up to a 25% increase in residential density, or roughly 37, 935 square feet for this project. With an average unit size of 907 square feet, this equates to approximately 42 dwelling units. If the ADU bonus is used in a site plan, the County’s target is to receive 20% of the total bonus units, bedrooms or gross floor area as affordable, with a stretch target of 50% as affordable. The percentage provided often varies based on the project location, economics, and characteristics (e.g., if the applicant is an affordable housing provider). Given the County’s targets described above and the square footage of the requested bonus, a “standard” site plan project would provide 11-24 on-site affordable dwelling units.

o The following table summarizes the affordable housing contribution proposed by this site plan.

Total Affordable Housing Contribution – Proposed Percent

Contribution on Base 131 79% of base

Contribution for Affordable Housing Bonus 42 100% of housing bonus

Total On-Site Affordable Units 173 60% of total units

Net New Affordable at this Site 63 57% increase in affordable units

o Since the bonus density attributed to LEED certification and/or Energy Star

requirements is not subject to ADU requirements, one could argue that 100% of the units created by ADU bonus density are being provided in the form of on-site dwelling units. Further, while the percentage of ADUs on site will decrease from 80% to 60%, the net amount of ADUs will increase by 63 units or 57%. In addition, the proposal would maintain the affordability of these units for a term of 60 years, which is double the amount of time required for the base ADU requirement.

Curtail or eliminate bonus density awardable for compliance with LEED or Energy Star standards.

o Finally, the applicant also requests bonus density for committing to LEED Gold certification, permitted under Zoning Ordinance Section 15.6.7.A.1, provisions made for open space and other environmental amenities. LEED Gold certification would yield a total bonus density of up to 0.40 FAR, or roughly 88 dwelling units. Per the County’s revised Green Building Density Incentive Program adopted in June 2012, bonus density may be granted by the County Board for projects that demonstrate compliance with LEED and Energy Star guidelines. The County Board has consistently granted bonus density in site plans, in keeping with this policy, as a way to help meet greenhouse gas reduction goals outlined in Arlington’s Community Energy Plan. The applicant’s LEED request is still being evaluated by DES staff.

A summary of each SPRC meeting has been posted on the site plan project page.



SPRC Neighborhood Members: Jan Bauer Long Branch Civic Association, President [email protected] Katie Buck Arlington Ridge Civic Association, President [email protected] Liz Birnbaum Arlington-Alexandria Joint Task Force on Four Mile Run [email protected] John Breyault Long Branch NCAC [email protected] Nancy Swain Arlington Ridge Civic Association [email protected] Interested Parties: Dirk Geratz Ron Kagawa

City of Alexandria Department of Planning and Zoning City of Alexandria Park Planning, Design + Capital Development

[email protected] [email protected]

Planning Commissioners: Steve Sockwell Chair [email protected] Erik Gutshall [email protected] Inta Malis [email protected] Staff Members: Arlova Vonhm Sophia Fisher

CPHD—Planning CPHD—Planning

(703) 228-3428 (703) 228-0771


Jane S. Kim Jason Papacosma

DES – Engineering DES—Watershed Programs Manager

(703) 228-3732 (703) 228-3613


2221 S. Clark Street – Crystal Plaza 6

I T E M 2 2221 S. Clark Street – Crystal Plaza 6 (SP #11)

(RPC# 32-020-002, -010) Jane Siegel, SPRC Chair

SPRC AGENDA 1) SPRC Chair Welcome & Introductions

2) Informational Presentation

a) Staff Review of Site Plan Amendment Request b) Applicant Presentation of Proposal

3) SPRC Discussion

a) Land Use and Zoning i) Relationship to Sector Plan

(1) Timeframe of Proposed Interim use (2) Relationship to 23rd Street

ii) Contextual Relationship to Adjacent Development/Redevelopment

b) Transportation i) Site Access and Circulation – Existing and Proposed (Pedestrian, Vehicular, Bicycle,

etc.) ii) Parking and Loading – Existing and Proposed

c) Building Architecture i) Façade Treatment, Materials, Fenestration ii) Street Level Activation iii) Accessibility iv) Retail Space

4) Wrap Up

a) Outstanding Comments/Questions b) SPRC Chair Meeting Summary & Next Steps

Site Location: 77,000 square foot site (1.77 acres) is located in the Crystal City

Metro Station area, on the block generally bounded by 23rd Street South to the south, Crystal Drive to the east, 20th Street South the north and S. Clark Street (Jefferson Davis Highway) to the west.

2221 S. Clark Street – Crystal Plaza 6 (SP #11)


Applicant Information:

Applicant CESC Plaza Five Limited Partnership c/o Vornado/Charles E. Smith 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22202 Toby Millman (703) 769-5572 [email protected]

Attorney Venable LLP 8010 Towers Crescent Drive, Ste.300 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 Martin D. Walsh (703) 760-1600 [email protected]

Architects ARExA 25 Broadway Street, 9th Flr New York, NY 10004 Rik Ekstrom (917) 796-1175 [email protected] WDG Architecture, PLLC 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20036 Jeff Morris 202-857-8300 x 1308 [email protected]

Engineer Bowman Consulting 14020 Thunderbolt Place, Ste. 300 Chantilly, VA 20151 Scott Delgado (703) 464-1000 [email protected]

Trafic Engineer Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Ste. 600 Washington, DC 20036 Dan VanPelt (202) 540-1924 [email protected]

BACKGROUND: A site plan amendment is requested to change the use of an existing 12-story office building, Crystal Plaza 6, to a residential building with ground floor retail. The proposed conversion looks to extend the concept of “We Work”, which provides flexible shared work spaces to companies and individuals while fostering an environment of collaboration and community, to housing under a concept called “We Live”. As proposed, the “We Live” concept would provide primarily for small, efficiency, micro units in a floor plan that connects these units to common amenity and gathering spaces between floors. This concept proposes to further the sharing of ideas and space beyond the work environment into a residential community environment. The following provides additional information about the site and location: Site: The 77,000 square foot site is located on the southwest corner of the block generally bounded by 20th Street South to the north, Crystal Drive to the east, 23rd Street South to the south and S. Clark Street (Jefferson Davis Highway) to the west. Immediate surrounding land uses and development include:

To the north: 2221 and 2101 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Plaza Apartment buildings constructed in 1966. Zoned “RA-4.8”, “M-2” and “C-O”; GLUP designation, “High” Office-Apartment-Hotel.

To the east: 223 23rd Street, 12-story Crystal Plaza 5 office building constructed in 1965



with approximately 155,000 square feet of office. Zoned “C-O”; GLUP designation, “High” Office-Apartment-Hotel.

To the south: 320 23rd Street, South, 13-story, Buchanan Apartments (SP #65) approved in

1968 and constructed in 1972 with approximately 442 residential dwelling units and 53,549 square feet of retail. Zoned “C-O”; GLUP designation “High” Office-Apartment-Hotel.

To the west: Across S. Clark Street and Jefferson Davis Highway, 2221 S. Eads Street,

BB&T Bank, by-right development of approximately 2,350 square feet of retail constructed in 1979. Zoned “C-2”; GLUP designation “High” Office-Apartment-Hotel.

Zoning: The site is zoned “C-O” Commercial Office Building, Hotel and Multiple-Family Dwelling district, and “M-2” Service, Industrial District.

Land Use: The site’s General Land Use Plan designation is “High” Office-Apartment-Hotel



which permits up to 3.8 FAR office density, 4.8 FAR apartment density, and 3.8 FAR hotel density.

Neighborhood: The subject site is located within the Crystal City Civic Association and is in the vicinity of the Aurora Highlands and Arlington Ridge Civic Associations.

Existing Development: Crystal Plaza 6 is one of eight buildings which comprises the mixed used, multiple building Crystal Plaza site plan. The site plan which was approved in 1963 with all buildings largely constructed in the mid-1960s, today comprises approximately 785,572 square feet of site area (18.03 acres) and is developed with approximately 989,707 square feet of office, 196,610 square feet of retail, and 1,143,326 square feet or residential for a total of approximately 2,329,643 square feet of development. The Crystal Plaza 6 office building which was constructed in 1965 is currently vacant. The 12-story building is comprised approximately of 157,670 square feet of office gross floor area. Proposed Development: The following table sets forth the preliminary statistical summary for the proposed site plan amendment for the Crystal Plaza 6 proposal.

Crystal Plaza 6 – Statistical Summary Existing Proposed

Site Area 77,000 sf (1.768 Ac) 77,000 sf (1.768 Ac) “C-O” 73,731 sf (1.693 Ac) 73,731 sf (1.693 Ac) “M-2” 3,269 sf (.075 Ac) 3,269 sf (.075 Ac) “C-O” Site Area 73,731 sf (1.692 Ac) 73,731 sf (1.692 Ac) “C-O” Site Area Allocation

Office 73,731 sf (1.693 Ac) --- Retail --- 3,080 sf (0.070 Ac) Residential --- 70,651 sf (1.621 Ac)

Density Office GFA 157,670 sf --- Retail GFA --- 5,848 sf Residential GFA --- 151,872 sf Office Commercial Density 2.14 FAR 1.90 FAR Residential Density --- 2.15 FAR “C-O” Max. Permitted Office, Commercial GFA 280,178 sf 11,704 sf “C-O” Max. Permitted Office, Commercial Density 3.8 FAR 3.8 FAR “C-O” Max. Permitted Residential GFA 339,124 sf “C-O” Max. Permitted Residential Density 4.8 FAR Height Average Site Elevation 40.81 feet 40.81 feet

Main Roof Elevation 176.75 feet 176.75 feet Main Roof Height 135.94 feet 135.94 feet Penthouse Roof Elevation 194 feet 194 feet Penthouse Roof Height 153.19 feet 153.19 feet

“C-O” Max. Permitted Height Office, Commercial 153 feet “C-O” Max. Permitted Height Apartment, Hotel --- 180 feet Parking Parking Spaces Office 159 Spaces Retail --- 12 Spaces



Residential --- 145 Spaces Parking Ratio Office 1 Sp Per 991 sf Retail --- 1 Sp Per 487 sf Residential --- .57 Sp Per Unit “C-O” Required Parking Ratio, Site Plan – Office, Retail, Service Commercial

1 Sp Per 530 sf GFA 1 Sp Per 530 sf GFA

“C-O” Required Parking Ratio, Site Plan – Multiple Family Dwelling

--- 1 Sp Per Unit

“C-O” Required Parking Spaces, Site Plan – Office, Retail, Service Commercial

297 spaces 11 Spaces

“C-O” Required Parking Spaces, Site Plan – Multiple-Family Dwelling

--- 252 spaces

Density and Uses: The applicant proposes 151,872 square feet of residential in 252 dwelling units and 5,848 square feet of retail with the proposed change in use for a total building GFA of 157,720 sf. This is a net increase in 50 square feet of GFA from the existing commercial office building of 157,670 square feet. The proposed change in use and resulting density is consistent with the site’s “C-O” zoning and GLUP designation of “High” Office-Apartment Hotel. Site and Design: With the change in use from office to residential, the applicant proposes modifications to the exterior of the building to include the addition of several new entry doors which would provide access around the site to the residential lobby and ground floor retail. In addition, the applicant proposes to paint the “fins” of the existing precast concrete on each façade of the building to create a lenticular in alternating colors. With the proposed site plan amendment, changes to the existing site layout would include the addition of paved walkways on both the north and south sides of the building to new entrances, a new access drive proposed immediately adjacent north of the existing building and a new loading dock accessible from this drive on the east side of the building. The applicant proposes that landscaping and streetscape would be maintained as it currently exists today. Existing parking allocated to this building for the site plan and access to parking as discussed below would remain as it exists today. Transportation: The Crystal Plaza site is easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation to allow for flexibility in transportation options. The site is ½ mile from the Crystal City Metro Station, several bus stops including one in front of the building, and seven Capital Bikeshare stations.



Streets: The Master Transportation Plan and Crystal City Sector Plan identifies S. Clark Street as a Type B-Primarily Urban Mixed-Use Arterial and 23st Street South as a Type A-Primarily Retail Oriented Mixed-Use Arterial. At this location, S. Clark Street is a three lane road one-way southbound with no parking on either side. Twenty-third Street South is a two-way road with a large median in the middle. The eastbound direction consists of three travel lanes with no parking on either side and the westbound direction consists of two travel lanes with parking on both sides. Vehicular access to the subject building is provided along a service road adjacent to the building that is accessed from S. Clark Street south of the subject building. The service road provides access to a surface parking lot adjacent to the subject building and continues north providing access to additional parking and building entrances throughout the block. The proposed project does not provide any changes to the surrounding roads, service road, or access to the surface parking. The project does propose a new curb cut north of the subject building to provide access to a new loading dock on the east side of the building adjacent to the existing surface parking lot. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Circulation: The subject building is accessible from S. Clark Street via sidewalks on the north and south side of the building. However, there is no direct pedestrian access to 23rd Street South. There are no proposed improvements to the surrounding pedestrian environment with the exception of the proposed walkways previously mentioned to the proposed building entrances on the north and south side of the building. Parking and Loading: The applicant does not proposed with the site plan amendment to construct any additional parking spaces as the building is currently served by a shared parking garage under the entire block. The amendment proposes to allocate 145 existing parking spaces for the 252 residential units for a parking ratio of 0.57 spaces per unit, and 12 spaces for retail use. No spaces will be reserved specifically for the residents, but residents may purchase a monthly pass to park anywhere in the garage that is not reserved. Currently, the garage has reserved spaces for residents of 220 20th Street South and the Crystal Plaza Apartments only. Additionally, the garage is available free of charge for public parking after 4 p.m. on weekdays and all day on weekends and holidays in any unreserved space. While the garage is under the entire block, the parking garage is designed such that there are four distinct areas accessed from separate entrances that do not connect. A loading dock is proposed on the east side of the subject building. DISCUSSION Adopted Plans and Policies: In addition to Section 7.13 of the Zoning Ordinance relevant to the site’s “C-O” zoning district, and the General Land Use Plan, the Crystal City Sector Plan (The Plan) adopted in 2010 provides additional guidance for the subject site. Following is background information related to the Crystal Plaza 6 site in regard to the Plan. Appended to this document are some of the figures from the Plan representing many of these concepts.

The subject site is located within Crystal City’s “Business Core”, a major neighborhood district. It is immediately adjacent to the Crystal Drive Shops which exists as a major destination/node.



The Crystal Plaza 6 office building is shown in the Crystal City Sector Plan as a “potential redevelopment site” with the opportunity for new development site area shown immediately south and west, extending north around the site. It is one of approximately 50 potential redevelopment sites defined by the Plan. “The plan is premised on the expectation over the next 50 years, that buildings will be renovated, reconfigured, or demolished and replaced.”

An illustrative concept plan for the block envisions a “Market Plaza” at the southwest corner of the block at the intersection of a proposed Clark-Bell Street and 23rd Street. This is the existing location of the Crystal Plaza 6 office building. The site is further shown in the proposed “Entertainment District”.

It is intended that the proposed “Entertainment District” would be recognized for its offering of culture and arts, and the creation of a robust and active restaurant and retail experience. It would build upon existing entertainment, restaurant and retail programming along Crystal Drive, 23rd Street and the Underground. The Concept Plan for the “Entertainment District” proposes:

o The realignment of Clark-Bell Street where new development sites would be created along Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) between 20th Street and 23rd Street (adjacent to the subject site) as indicated above.

o Greater circulation for pedestrians, vehicles and transit along with the provision of some relief to cross street intersections at Jefferson Davis Highway with the realignment of Clark-Bell Street. Specifically, with the proposed realignment of Clark-Bell Street, a new intersection with 23rd Street would be created that would further simplify the intersection with Jefferson Davis Boulevard.

o The 23rd Street Market Plaza mentioned above, to be a principal district center at

approximately 13,000 square feet and provide for an active pedestrian urban space. It would have retail frontage, café zones, landscaping and hardscaping elements and opportunities for public art.

o The long-term vision of 23rd Street to be classified as a Type A, retail oriented,

mixed use arterial and the long-term vision for Clark-Bell Street to be classified as a Type B, urban, mixed use arterial.

o The reconfiguration of 23rd Street by removing the center median and

accommodating two-way travel in the southern half of the existing right of way.

o A bike route on 23rd Street;

o Sidewalks on both sides of 23rd Street and Clark-Bell Street.

o A mid-term transitway alignment as an option for Clark-Bell Street.

o A transit stop at the intersection of Clark-Bell Street and 23rd Street.



o The expansion of ground floor retail along the frontage of 23rd Street with 23rd

Street shown as one where on-street retail is required.

o The accommodation on 23rd Street of a wide sidewalk, parking lane, bike lane and travel lanes in both directions with a proposed 110’ build-to line from building face to building face.

o A cycle track on Clark-Bell Street.

The Crystal City Sector Plan is intended to be a guiding document when considering future reinvestment and development proposals in Crystal City. Staff also notes that as stated in the plan, that by its adoption, the Plan does not modify any entitlements or development rights that exist at the time the plan was adopted, but instead attempts to communicate a preferred vision for the type of development the County would like to realize through proposed block plan and final site plan submissions. Further, with regard to transportation elements and improvements that the Plan envisions, it is recognized that the renovation, reconfiguration, demolition and replacement of buildings would occur over a period of 50 years. The Plan notes that it is not possible to implement modifications recommended to the transportation network in a single phase. Instead it is acknowledged that improvements to public streets, intersections, trails and transit services would likely need to be realized in phases in order to attract and support new development conditions. Further, the pace and timing of redevelopment and phased implementation of the transitway are anticipated to be what would determine the timing and phasing of transportation improvements envisioned in the Plan. Modification of Use Regulations: No modifications are requested with the subject site plan amendment. However, it should be noted as a result of the change in use and the way in which parking ratios and the number of spaces are determined, there would be a resulting substandard parking ratio of .58 spaces per dwelling unit. The current standard for residential parking by site plan is 1 space per unit. The resulting ratio would provide for 95 less spaces than required (252 spaces required, 157 spaces proposed). Finally, it should be noted that with the addition of a loading dock to serve the residential use within the existing building footprint, there would be one less loading dock than required by the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed number of dwelling units. With the existing layout and ceiling heights, it is not practical to provide an additional loading dock in the building. Staff continues to evaluate the proposed loading configuration with regard to capacity to accommodate the site plan amendment request. Issues: Staff has identified the following preliminary issues believed to be those that the applicant more fully address as part of the review of the site plan amendment request: Land Use and Zoning: The applicant will need to justify the request for the proposed Interim Use to remain for a

period of 20 years;



Additional information should be provided on the proposed ground floor retail and its viability. The current design, configuration and location of the retail space that is not proposed to change, may be challenging.

Building Architecture: Additional information should be provided with regard to the long-term care and

maintenance of the proposed paint to be applied to the precast concrete “fins” of the building facades; specifically how it weathers and wears overtime.

Repurposing an existing building in and of itself provides for some substantial environmental benefits. However, additional information should be provided on any LEED standard improvements or sustainability features that may be considered with the interior retrofit..

Transportation: The applicant will need to address parking demand, resulting access and circulation needs

associated with the proposed site plan amendment as related to both the subject building and in the context of the adjacent buildings;

The applicant will need to consider improvements to 23rd Street, or elsewhere adjacent to the site that will further goals of the Sector Plan.

Consideration should be given to landscaping and streetscape improvements to enhance the

pedestrian experience along the site’s frontage, in particular the vicinity of the masonry wall on 23rd Street.

SPRC Neighborhood Members: Christer Ahl Crystal City Civic Association [email protected] Judy Freshman Crystal City Civic Association [email protected] Jim Oliver Auroroa Highlands Civic Association [email protected] Katie Buck Arlington Ridge Civic Association [email protected] Interested Parties: Ralph Dweck Dweck Properties [email protected] Angela Fox Crystal City BID [email protected] Michael Cooper MWAA [email protected] Ben Helwig NPS [email protected] Planning Commissioner Chairing This Item: Jane Siegel (703) 307-5496 [email protected] Staff Members: Samia Byrd CPHD—Planning (703) 228-3529 [email protected] Michael Cullen CPHD – Planning (703) 228-3883 [email protected] Joanne Gabor DES – Transportation (703) 228-3692 [email protected]

2221 S. Clark Street – Crystal Plaza 6

Appendices – 2221 S. Clark Street (Crystal Plaza 6)

site plan review committee meeting agenda 2100 …...(rpc# 34-020-017) scheduled to be heard no...

Documents