Adoption of the Rosslyn Sector Plan - Amazon Web Services · • Illustrative concept plan •...

County Board MeetingJuly 22, 2015

Adoption of the Rosslyn Sector Plan

2

Subject

AGENDA ITEM #41

• Adoption of the Rosslyn Sector Plan

3 3

Project Scope: Areas to Address

4

Planning Process and Timeline

5

Review of Draft Rosslyn Sector Plan

Month Public Meetings attended by Staff Milestones

April • RAFOM C.A. (4/15)

May • Process Panel (5/13)• E2C2 (5/18)• Rosslyn BID (5/20)• LRPC (5/20, 5/21)• Park and Recreation Comm. (5/26)• Urban Forestry Comm. (5/28)• Transportation Comm. (5/28)

June • Planning Commission (6/3)• Housing Commission (6/4)• County Board (RTA) (6/13)• Transportation Commission (6/29)

July• County Board work session (7/7)• Open House (7/8)• Planning Commission (7/8)• Housing Commission (7/9)• Planning Commission (7/21)• County Board (Action) (7/22) Rosslyn Sector Plan

Adoption

May 6th Draft Plan

July 1st Draft Plan

July 16th Draft Plan

Project Schedule

6

Sector Plan Organization

1. About this Document2. Positioning Rosslyn3. Rosslyn Master Plan

• Framework• Vision statement and principles• Goals and policies• Illustrative concept plan• Sustainability• Land use• Transportation• Parks and open space• Urban design, building height and

form4. ImplementationAppendix (additional street-cross sections)

Project Schedule

7

The Rosslyn Vision

8

A Two-way Streets

B 18th Street Extension

C Metro Plaza

D New Ped/Bike BridgeConnections

E Gateway Park

Illustrative Concept Plan

F Freedom Park

Improved pedestrian and bicycle network

9

Illustrative Concept Plan

9

G 18th Street Corridor of Parks and Plazas

H Rosslyn Plaza Park

I Esplanade

J Observation Deck

L

M Land Use Goals

K Peaks and Valleys

Project Schedule

RCRD* Modeled Peaks and Valleys Land Use – Ultimate Build Out

Potential Illustrative Development Characteristics (square feet)

Rosslyn Sector Plan

Building Use Existing Existing/Approved

New Construction

Demolitions Build Out

Office 7,903,000 9,582,000 7,294,000 (5,017,000) 11,859,000

Retail 426,000 576,000 468,000 (346,000) 698,000

Residential 635,000 1,971,000 4,193,000 (297,000) 5,867,000

Hotel 681,000 740,000 590,000 (478,000) 852,000

Other 119,000 100,000 0 (71,000) 30,000

TOTAL 9,764,000 12,969,000 12,545,000 (6,209,000) 19,306,000

* 1555 Wilson Blvd. not included in these figures

RCRD* Modeled Taper Policy Estimated Build Out

TOTAL 9,764,000 12,969,000 11,087,000 (6,209,000) 17,847,000

RCRD* Hypothetical 10FAR All Sites Estimated Build Out

TOTAL 9,764,000 12,969,000 14,100,000 (6,209,000) 20,860,000* 1555 Wilson Blvd. not included in these figures

A Plan for Significant Growth in Rosslyn’s future

Project Schedule

11

Plan Revision Highlights since the RTA Draft

• Building Height and Density• Observation Deck Views• Criteria for Height Flexibility• Future Zoning Ordinance Amendments

• Design Guidelines• Language should match intent• Ground floor use guidelines

• Land Use Mix

• Areas for Future Study

• Transportation

• 18th Street Corridor additions

• Corridor of Light

• Project Feasibility and Community Benefits

Project Schedule

12

Building Height and Density• Observation Deck View spreads (p 170-175)

• Added 6 new pages specifically on observation deck views• Express, through text and imagery, views desired for preservation• Site plan proposals should demonstrate how they preserve these views

Added V. 7/1; Revised V. 7/16

Project Schedule

13


• The riverfront along the east bank of the Potomac River from the southernmost building of the Watergate Complex south to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge

Exhibit from July 16th Draft Rosslyn Sector Plan

Added V. 7/1; Revised V. 7/16

Project Schedule

14


Exhibit from July 1st Draft Rosslyn Sector Plan

In V. 7/1;

Project Schedule

15


• The east bank of the Potomac River, an unbroken line of treetops along the eastern edge of TR Island, and intervening portion of the Potomac River, south of the Watergate Complex

In V. 7/1; Revised in V. 7/16Added V. 7/1; Revised V. 7/16

Project Schedule

16



Project Schedule

17



Project Schedule

18

Building Height and Density• Criteria for Height Flexibility (p 168)

Revised V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Project Schedule

19

Building Height and Density• Criteria for Height Flexibility (p 168)

• Total building height should be limited to 300 feet; • Density should not exceed 10.0 FAR unless involving TDRs; • Priority view corridors from the public observation deck should be retained;• Sensitive edge transitions should be achieved where called for;• Additional height used for sculpting distinctive and dynamic skyline, where building volume above the height depicted in Map 3.16 is no greater than the amount of building sculpted away from the maximum potential building volume resulting from the sector plan’s height depicted for the site;• Additional height does not result in unplanned open space eroding street wall;• Above grade parking should only be included if wrapped with active uses; and• Development proposals receive sign-off from FAA.

Revised V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Project Schedule

20

Building Height and Density

Future Zoning Ordinance Amendments (p 155)

• Earlier drafts (5/6 and 7/1) of the sector plan included the phrase “Guidelines recommended to be codified in the Zoning Ordinance” when referring to density, building height and step backs

• Since then, staff has come to understand that people have been interpreting “codified” in various ways

• Text has been revised to clarify that the exact way in which plan elements will be addressed as part of Zoning Ordinance amendments will be determined through future processes

Included V. 7/1; revised 7/16

Project Schedule

21

Design Guidelines

Language should match intent

• Removed the phrase “form-based”

• Use the term “should” instead of “shall”

• Revised design guidelines to remove or scale back on use of specific dimensions, and use qualitative guidance where appropriate

In V. 7/1; Revised in V. 7/16

Project Schedule

22

Design Guidelines• Ground floor use guidelines (p 158-161)

• Increased consistency of guidance with County Retail Plan • Streamlined tabular guidance, for transparency and entrances• Changed designation of Oak south of Clarendon (from Red to Gold)


Project Schedule

23

Design Guidelines• Ground floor use guidelines (p 158-161)

• Increased consistency of guidance with County Retail Plan • Expanded precedent photos, to express creativity supported by plan

In V. 7/1; as is V. 7/16

Project Schedule

24

Land Use Mix (p 77-78)

For both timeframes of the sector plan horizon and full buildout, this plan establishes the following goals related to use mix for the RCRD:

• Residential gross floor area should meet or exceed 30 percent of all gross floor area;

• Add 2,500 to 3,000 new housing units by the plan horizon of around 2040, and 5,000 new housing units at ultimate buildout (beyond existing site plan approvals). 5,000 new housing units could translate to a population gain of roughly 7,000 to 8,000 people, assuming 1.4 to 1.6 residents per household.

• An evening population of at least 25 percent of Rosslyn’s daytime population.

Revised In V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Project Schedule

25

Areas for Future StudyRosslyn’s Northern Gateway

River Place

Added In V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Added in V. 7/16

Project Schedule

26

Transportation

• Revised sidewalk width map (p 113)

Revised In V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Project Schedule

27

Transportation• Provides more details on sidewalk elements (p 100)

Added In V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Project Schedule

28

18th Street Corridor

Additional context for redevelopment of each site along 18th Street corridor (p 98-99)

Recommendation to develop a public art plan for the 18th

Street corridor

Recommendation to develop guidance on paving materials, landscape standards, lighting and street furniture in coordination with and complementary to streetscape elements recommended in the Rosslyn BID’s Streetscape Elements Master Plan


New in V. 7/16

New in V. 7/16

Project Schedule

29

Corridor of Light

• Revised recommendation to state that the number of luminous bodies should be restudied, in consultation with the appropriate federal partners, with the planning and design for the Meade Street bridge improvements.


Project Schedule

30

Project Feasibility and Community Benefits

Discussion of project feasibility incorporated into Chapter 4, Implementation, as part of discussion on Community Benefits.

Goal is to not unintentionally preclude redevelopment of specific sites

Solution: an innovative approach for determining associated community benefits, taking into account key considerations

Approach should be founded upon basis of key principles (examples included)

New in V. 7/16

Project Schedule

31

Sampling of Other Revisions

• Expanded discussion on Boathouse Facility, Pop-Up Parks and Parklets, and On-Site facilities for tenants (pp 150-151)

• Clarifying diagrams for elements of the design guidelines, height recommendations (p 176, 178)

• Updates to Implementation Matrix and text in Implementation chapter (pp 192-201)

• Added centralized bike facility exploration (p 63, 116)

• Study of Trails underpass beneath Lynn Street included as its own Implementation Action (p 201)


Added V. 7/1; as is 7/16

Added in V. 7/1; as is 7/16


Added in V. 7/1; Revised in V. 7/16


Project Schedule

32

Sampling of Other Revisions (since 7/1)

• New text addressing future, unknown FAA actions (pp 32, 153)

• Additional text to air rights section on future planning (p 87)

• 18th Street corridor and Ames Center site (pp 98-99)

• Guideline on height variation between towers revised to 30 feet (p 168)

• Guideline on tower floorplate sizes expanded from up to 120’ to 130’ for office (p 178)

Project Schedule

33

Errata | Additional Proposed Edits

Page Proposed Edit

88 In last sentence of Air Rights section, please revise last sentence to end:“….benefits to the County, consistent with other “C-O Rosslyn” projects in the RCRD. in a manner similar to what is applied to other “C-O Rosslyn” projects in the RCRD ”

117 Update Map 3.11 by adding a “sharrow” designation on the portion N. Nash Street between Lee Highway and Key Boulevard, and the portion of N. Moore Street north of 19th Street N., and removing “sharrow” designation from 18th Street west of N. Lynn Street.Matrix and sections K and L show sharrow in both directions.

171 In 2nd paragraph, revise 2nd sentence to read: “The buildings depicted in these views are not necessarily modeled to the maximum heights depicted in Map 3.16 Building Heights “While the buildings depicted in these views are not necessarily modeled to the heights depicted in Map 3.16, they each are modeled within a few feet of them”.

•Fully Detailed in the July 21 Supplemental Report, Sampling provided below:

34

July Advisory Commission MeetingsAdvisory Commissions Outcome

Transportation CommissionJune 29

Voted 9-0 to recommend adoption of the Rosslyn Sector Plan

Planning CommissionJuly 8


Housing CommissionJuly 9


Planning Commission July 21, Special Meeting

Voted 10-0-1 to recommend adoption of the July 1st draft of the Rosslyn Sector Plan (augmenting July 14 letter)

In addition to the above, letters submitted to the Board from other Advisory Commissions after the June 13, 2015, Hearing on the RTA:

•Park and Recreation Commission•Economic Development Commission•Commission of the Arts

35

Planning Commission (per 7/14 letter on the 7/8 meeting)

PC Recommendation (page in July 1 draft) Staff Concurrence

Revise text prioritizing cash contributions for additional CAF units in the Rosslyn Metro Station Area. (p. 79)

Yes

Sector Plan’s tools to achieve targeted use mix in the Rosslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District is insufficient. (p. 78)

No

Amend Map 3.2, Ground Level Uses, to show Wilson Blvd. between Lynn and Nash Streets as “gold” segments. (p. 81)

No

Amend Map 3.11, Bike Facilities, to identify sharrows on four specific street segments (p. 117)

Yes (on 3 of 4)

Add to the Implementation Matrix an action item of working with Rosslyn BID to create centralized bicycle parking facility. (p. 199)

Yes

36


The community is best served by locating Rosslyn Plaza Park along Arlington Ridge Road.

No

For 18th Street Corridor, add actions to develop design guidelines and public art plan for the corridor. (p. 142)

Yes

Re-insert reference to building base facades having heights in the range of three to six stories. (p. 156)

Yes

Re-insert reference to building base and tower transition occurring between the third and sixth floors. (p. 176)

Yes

Inserting at end of the first sentence, “or a County-owned or controlled park or plaza in the public realm.” (p. 156)

Yes


37


Retain two of the bullets originally included as “Building Height Flexibility” criteria in the May 6 draft (p. 168)

No

Building heights should be set to ensure that existing views of eastern shore of the Potomac River and Teddy Roosevelt Island are retained to the maximum extent possible (p. 169-172)

Yes

Detailed guidelines for rooftops within primary viewsheds be strengthened to avoid distractions and unpleasant views (p. 180-81)

Yes

Reduce the building height for the Rosslyn Metro Center building to allow for high quality views west of Arlington’s neighborhoods (p. 179)

No


38

PC Recommendation

1. In the resolution, replace the final three “WHEREAS” paragraphs with the new language included in the 7/22/2015 PC Letter

2. In the resolution, replace the final three “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED” paragraphs with the new language included in the 7/22/2015 PC Letter

3. On page 154 delete the second paragraph that describes the potential ways in which additional density above 10.0 FAR could be achieved

•On July 21, 2015, the Planning Commission held a Special Meeting, which resulted in a supplemental letter to the County Board, recommending adoption of the July 1 draft of the Rosslyn Sector Plan, with the following additional changes (the PC letter dated July 14 still applies):


39

Comments Response Matrix

40

Item #41: Recommendation

County Manager Recommendation:

• Adopt the Rosslyn Sector Plan.

41

Discussion

42

43

Observation Deck Spread (page 173)

Text in July 1 and July 16 drafts

Discrepancy in red-line text edits

• Staff supports the text in the illustrated draft of the plan (unchanged between the July 1 and July 16 drafts)

44

Lee/Lynn and Trails Intersection

From July 1, 2015 Draft

From July 16, 2015 Draft

45

Best candidate sites for potential FAR above 10

46

Building Tops and Observation Deck Views

IntlPlace Gannett Building Site Rosslyn Plaza Phase 3

47

Building Tops and Observation Deck Views

Rosslyn Plaza Phase 3

48

Planning Commission Draft Change Item #1

RATIONALE: The pertinent text added since the 7/1/2015 draft seeks to:

Indicate that the building heights set forth in the plan may need to be revisited (intended as a wholesale revisiting) if one of two thing happens:

1) if the FAA makes a decision related to OEI, or some other issue, that effectively reduces acceptable building heights in portions of the RCRD; or

2) the FAA begins approving building heights for portions of the RCRD above 470’ above sea level.

Thus, the plan recognizes that contextual conditions on airspace navigation may evolve over time, and may warrant a rethinking on building heights in Rosslyn in a holistic way as part of a future process to update the plan.

FAA: text seems to open door to heights above the plan maximums in the future (pp. 20 and 73)

49


RATIONALE:

The more extensive text edits to this section, found on page 48, have been made primarily in response to comments from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The main intent here is to provide a clearer sense of the potential processes the Office of Public-Private-Partnerships could expect to follow to pursue potential air rights development in Rosslyn.

Air Rights: extensive text added (pp. 45-48)

50


RATIONALE:

This text was added to provide limited background and contextual information for the River Place site and to clarify that additional study would be needed to provide guidance should a development proposal emerge.

Staff believes that a site of this size and position would warrant a special planning study of some sort before considering a new site plan for this area.

River Place: new section added discussing River Place which had not been in the plan before (p. 49)

51


RATIONALE:

The intent of the change is to provide clarity regarding the redevelopment of the block and the potential varied outcomes based on whether there is joint redevelopment of multiple properties or not.

Without joint redevelopment, there may be a need for additional flexibility and staff believes it is important to highlight this.

The language states that 18th Street should still be achieved, and the plan’s guidance for 18th Street (page 98 of the illustrated document) would still apply.

Ames Center Site: new text added seeming to give more ability to deviate from goals of the 18th Street Corridor (p. 54)

52


RATIONALE:

The text that’s been added here since the 7/1/15 draft essentially aims to emphasize that regardless of whether it is located long Kent Street or Arlington Ridge Road, that the new park will have a location and presence along the 18th Street corridor.

The text repeats language that is found on page 150 of the plan, and staff believes it is appropriate to note the two park locations earlier in the Rosslyn Plaza Park description.

Rosslyn Plaza: new text added regarding park location (p. 68)

53


RATIONALE:

This topic was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2015, and staff incorporated the Planning Commission’s suggested edit to remove the word “most” between “be” and “effective” (see matrix comment #66).

The only other edit is a simple clean-up of verbiage in the last sentence.

Otherwise, the text edits shown in the document were already incorporated into the 7/1/15 draft.

Development Density: text modified and may be better than previous version, although preference is to state that a minimum of FAR 8.0 is needed rather than 9.0 FAR. (p. 73)

54


RATIONALE:

The July 1 draft of the plan already included this reference for certain sites being able to achieve more than 10 FAR.

This was also a concept discussed in several previous public meetings, such as an LRPC meeting on February 18, 2015, and at a March 4, 2015 County Board Work Session.

The only edit made to this section is a clean-up of the last sentence before the bullets to improve the clarity of the language.

Limit of 10.0 FAR: text changed regarding possibility to achieve an FAR greater than 10.0 (p. 73)

http://sites.arlingtonva.us/rosslynsector/files/2015/02/LRPC_150217_DRAFT_5a_low.pdf

http://sites.arlingtonva.us/rosslynsector/files/2015/03/CB_wksn_150304_DRAFT_4_NO_draftstamp_low.pdf

55


RATIONALE:

The draft plan has always recommended considering the elements of density, building heights and step-backs for codification, but the plan never specified how they would be codified.

The text was revised to make clear that the exact codification tools and language will be determined through future processes to update the Zoning Ordinance.

Building Height and Form Guidelines: text changed to remove reference to codification of height guidelines, and backing away from codification of density, building heights and step-back requirements (p. 74)

56


RATIONALE:

The text in the 7/1/15 draft was not consistent with the height variations shown on the Building Heights Map 3.16.

This change, from 40’ to 30’, reconciles the inconsistency in order to more closely align with the patterns depicted on the heights map.

Height variety among towers: text changed to require only two stories of height variation between towers on multi-building sites instead of three (p. 82)

57


RATIONALE:

The highlighted text at the bottom of page 84 in the text-only file reflects a new caption for Map 3.17, which did not have a caption in the 7/1/15 draft.

The intent of this caption is to clarify that the pink wedges shown illustrate general view corridors from the observation deck and do not suggest that the entire area within the corridors needs to be visible from the deck.

The images and language provided on pages 170-174 should be used as guidance for evaluating what elements should be visible from the observation deck.

View cones: text modified to make view cone definition unclear –intent of modification unclear (pp. 84-85)

58


RATIONALE:

First and second bullets under Tower – Street and Neighborhood scale transition modified based on input from the Planning Commission (see matrix comment #61 and Planning Commission letter).

No other changes were made since the 7/1/15 draft.

Tower step-backs: text modified (p. 85)

http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=866&meta_id=132808

59


RATIONALE:

In keeping with the other edits made since the RTA draft to use language that expresses a guideline rather than a prescriptive requirement, the text was edited to note a range of appropriate widths (110’-130’).

Tower floor plates: text change and slight expansion of dimension for commercial (p. 86)

60


RATIONALE:

The highlighted text was edited to provide further historical background on Arlington’s 4.1 special exception process, including conditions and community benefits.

Staff believes this text provides better context for the discussion of community benefits later in this chapter and does not suggest any policy changes.

Implementation: substantial changes to text (pp 92-93)

61


RATIONALE: Project feasibility was a topic of discussion at the County Board hearing for the RTA, and, as was stated in the 7/1/15 draft, staff has continued to consider possible tools. The 7/17/15 draft plan does not make reference to the tear-down credit. Rather, it now recommends that an innovative approach be developed to determine community benefit contributions of future “C-O Rosslyn” projects. This approach should recognize the distinct site-specific goals of the sector plan and take into account a number of considerations related to project feasibility. Furthermore, the sector plan recommends that this community benefits approach be founded upon a basis of key principles including elements such as advancing the implementation of the transformative vision set forth in the sector plan; a clear and consistent methodology for determining community benefits in the future; a process that provides for clarity and timeliness; an understanding of the purpose of community benefits in mitigating the impacts of density; a consideration of the impact of potentially reduced community benefits on planned infrastructure projects; and, the establishment of a timeframe for review and refinement of approved community benefits packages. Staff believes that by approaching community benefits in a different way, project feasibility challenges can be overcome and help with the timelier implementation of the vision of the sector plan.

Tear-down credit: put back in as a community benefit (p. 94)

62


RATIONALE: Please see response to comment #14 above.

Community Benefits: substantial text changes (pp 95-96)

63

64

7/7 County Board Work Session

Discussion about being able to see more of the Potomac River in views from the entire eastern edge of the public observation deck

Design guidelines for rooftop treatments/transparency

Potential for upper mezzanine in the observation deck itself?

Follow-up on status update on FAA’s proposed policy on OEI

Economic competitiveness of the plan; how do prescription and flexibility relate?

Interest in how good guidance in the plan gets incorporated into future Zoning Ordinance amendments and other tools

Project Schedule

65

Building Height and Density• Observation Deck Views (p 170-175)

•

*deck key maps to be corrected in final plan

**

*

Project Schedule

66

Building Height and Density

*deck key maps to be corrected in final plan

*

*

• Observation Deck Views (p 170-175)

Project Schedule

67

Affordable HousingPolicies Recommendations

Project Schedule

68

Revisions to Transportation Elements

• Added recommendation for central bike parking facility

• Expanded 18th Street discussion

• Revised sidewalk width map and provided more details on sidewalk elements

• Revised street classifications/typologies and labels for clarity

• Revised bicycle facilities map in response to comments

• Revised street sections in response to comments

• Other corrections/updates to text

Project Schedule

69


• Added recommendation for central bike parking facility

• Policy T9: Expand and enhance the system of bike facilities in and around Rosslyn, including the addition of protected bike lanes/cycle tracks, new connections to surrounding federal parkland and regional destinations, and exploration of a centralized bicycle parking facility.

• Bicycle network recommendation E: Increase street-side bicycle parking opportunities and enhance provision of secure bicycle parking within existing and planned buildings. Explore options for locating a centralized bicycle parking facility in Rosslyn.

Project Schedule

70


• Expanded 18th Street discussion

Project Schedule

71


• Revised street classifications/typologies and labels for clarity

Project Schedule

72


• Revised bicycle facilities map in response to comments

Project Schedule

73



Project Schedule

74



Project Schedule

75


• Revised street sections based on comments received

Project Schedule

76



Project Schedule

77



Project Schedule

78


• Revised to street sections based on comments received

Project Schedule

79


• Revised to street sections based on comments received

Project Schedule Two Way Streets (Lynn, Fort Myer, and Kent)

Project Schedule

81

18th Street Extension / Parks

Project Schedule

82

Metro Plaza/Station Enhancements

Project Schedule

83

Gateway Park Revitalization

Project Schedule

84

Freedom Park Expansion/Enhancement

Project Schedule

85

Esplanade

Date post:	16-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Adoption of the Rosslyn Sector Plan - Amazon Web Services · • Illustrative concept plan •...

Documents