25
5.5.2014 1 Long Range Planning Committee Meeting May 5, 2014 CCBP – M -1 (the Crystal Plaza Block)
5.5.2014
1Long Range Planning Committee Meeting May 5, 2014
CCBP – M -1
(the Crystal Plaza Block)
5.5.2014
Block Plan Purpose
2
• Purpose - To facilitate coordinated and incremental
redevelopment that arrives at sector plan vision, does not
preclude future achievement of planned improvements for
surrounding sites, and considers interests of all parties on the
block
• Relationship to Sector Plan - An updated long-range
planning vision for specific blocks in Crystal City, over
time. Intent of block plan is to confirm that proposed site
plan advances or does not preclude sector plan goals.
• Opportunities to Amend - block plan updates will be required
for all future site plan submissions and will be evaluated
against most recently adopted block plan where refinements to
the vision have been made. The sector plan will otherwise
apply.
5.5.2014
Meeting Purpose
• LRPC #2 - review proposed Crystal City Block Plan, Block M
• Work towards determining whether there is:
A) General LRPC consensus that one or more of the block
plan scenarios meets sector plan goals and is ready to inform
the SPRC review of final site plan
or
B) General LRPC consensus that major issues are
outstanding with the proposed Block Plan and should be
addressed before SPRC commences
• Next steps going forward to be informed by outcome of this
meeting
3
5.5.2014
Submission
of Final Site
Plan and
Block Plan
LRPC review of Block
Plan (& CC Community
Amenities Inventory)
Conclusion of
LRPC review
of Block Plan
SPRC review
of Final Site
Plan
Block Plan, Site Plan,
and Rezoning to
Planning Commission
hearing
Block Plan, Site
Plan, + Rezoning
to County Board
for action
Next Site Plan on Block4
Context – CCBP Review Process
LRPC Chair
Memo to
SPRC (based on
general
consensus of
LRPC)
Major issues with
Block Plan persist
Block Plan ready
to inform SPRC
OR
PC/County Board
RTA on block plan
Block Plan
revised
OR
START
FINISH
5.5.2014
5
Response to LRPC #1 Comments
5.5.2014
6
Response to LRPC #1 Comments
LRPC Requests for Additional Information and Analysis
• Relationship of Block Plan to Progress/Status of Sector Plan
Goals for Crystal City
– Staff to Address
• Proposed Block M Open Space Function & Form
– Applicant to Address
• Additional Information on Current and Proposed Block M Retail
– Applicant to Address
5.5.2014
7
Response to LRPC #1 Comments
Information Requests from LRPC Discussion in 2/18/2014 Meeting
• Use Mix Knowing current use-mix balance in Crystal City to
help inform LRPC input on use mix proposed in Block Plan
Scenarios
• Public Space Knowing existing status of parks and open space system in
in Crystal City would help inform LRPC input on proposed
open space in Block Plan Scenarios, in light of goal of 14 to
15 total acres of publicly-available open space east of
Jefferson Davis Blvd
• Connectivity Seeking clarity on Crystal City Sector Plan plans and policies
as they relate to increasing connectivity
5.5.2014
8
Response to LRPC #1 CommentsUse Mix
Office45.5%
Retail3.9%
0.1%
Residential36.3%
Hotel14.3%
Existing Crystal City Development
Notes:
-As of January 1, 2014
-Includes Study Area of Crystal City Sector Plan only
Compiled by CPHD - Planning Division: Urban
Design and Research Section
ESTIMATED
SQUARE FEET
OFFICE 10,609,208
RESIDENTIAL 8,486,279
HOTEL 3,340,075
RETAIL 899,561
OTHER 12,945
TOTAL 23,348,068
5.5.2014
9
5.5.2014
10
Response to LRPC #1 CommentsPublic Open Space Areas
Existing
Public Open
Space Areas
(in acres)
Planned
Public Open
Space Areas
(in acres)
Aspiration per
Board
Guidance in
CCSP
Appendix 3
East of Route 1 10.3 9.8 14-15 acres
West of Route 1 0.3 2.0 N/A
TOTAL 10.6 11.8 N/A
NOTE: Existing Public Open Space Areas include those spaces that are identified as being
Clearly accessible outdoor space that is either publicly or privately owned
5.5.2014
11
Response to LRPC #1 Comments
• Retention and/or reestablishment
of the interior pedestrian
concourse (or “Underground” is
key element of adopted Sector
Plan
• Keeping an Underground
between 12th and 23rd Streets
poses challenges to creating
new east-west streets on certain
blocks
• Where new streets cannot be
achieved, policies aim to add
through-block pedestrian
connectivity
ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN
Connectivity
5.5.2014
12
Applicant Presentation of Updated,
Proposed Crystal City Block Plan Scenarios
transition
5.5.2014
13
Staff Assessment of Proposed
Crystal City Block Plan
5.5.2014
14
Scenario 1: Min Residential
Key Distinguishing Characteristics
• Generally retains existing Crystal
Plaza Apartments
• Primarily office fronting on Jefferson
Davis Hwy
• 45% Residential/Hotel
5.5.2014
15
Scenario 2: Mid Range A
Key Distinguishing Characteristics
• Reconfiguration of Crystal Plaza
Apartments
• Office and Residential fronting on
Jefferson Davis Hwy
• 50% Residential/Hotel
5.5.2014
16
Scenario 3: Mid Range B
Key Distinguishing Characteristics
• Reconfiguration of Crystal Plaza
Apartments
• Office and Residential fronting on
Jefferson Davis Hwy; additional
residential on 20th St
• 60% Residential/Hotel
5.5.2014
17
Scenario 4: Max Residential
Key Distinguishing Characteristics
• Redevelopment of Crystal Plaza
Apartments
• Straightening of Clark-Bell
• Smaller 23rd/Clark-Bell Plaza
• Primarily residential fronting on
Jefferson Davis Hwy
• 67% Residential/Hotel
5.5.2014
18
For context: WeLive proposal
Pending SP amendment proposal
for Crystal Plaza 6
• Adaptive re-use of vacant office building
for the WeLive concept
• Proposed residential use as a
temporary/interim condition (exact
period of time TBD); goal of ultimate
redevelopment of Crystal Plaza 6 is
unchanged
• For purposes of Crystal City Block Plan
review for Block M, maintain long term
vision of redeveloped Plaza 6,
realignment of Clark-Bell, and creation
of 23rd Street/Clark-Bell plaza
5.5.2014
19
Initial Staff Observations of CCBP
Review Criteria Block Plan Scenarios
1 2 3 4
Building Heights
Bulk Plane Angles
Build-To Lines
Street Network and Typology
Tower Coverage
Land Use Mix
Public Open Space * * * *
Retail Frontage + Underground Connections * * * *
Architectural features * * * *
Surface Transitway
Service and Loading * * * *
* = Potential conflict with sector plan goals
5.5.2014
20
Public Open Space Issues
• Open Space #10 does not
adhere to location and
configuration within build-to-
lines recommended in Sector
Plan – lacks features to
activate and encourage use
(all scenarios)
• Open Space #10 lacks
building wall along northern
edge to help define space (all
scenarios)
• In Scenario 4, 23rd St/Clark-
Bell plaza smaller than
recommended size
Initial Staff Observations of CCBP
Sector Plan Public Open Space map
Block Plan Scenario 1
5.5.2014
21
Retail Frontage &Underground Issues
• Zero retail frontage
provided along 23rd
Street/Clark Bell Market
Plaza* (all scenarios)
(*Updated concepts for north
edge retail liner would reduce
plaza size)
• Limited retail frontage
along 23rd Street due to
length of office lobby
frontage (all scenarios)
Initial Staff Observations of CCBP
Sector Plan Retail Frontage map
Block Plan Scenario 1-4
(w/ retail frontages noted)
= required retail frontage
5.5.2014
22
Architectural Feature IssuesInitial Staff Observations of CCBP
• Lack of building at
northern edge of 23rd and
Clark-Bell plaza precludes
opportunity for
coordinated frontage (all
scenarios)
= coordinated frontage
Sector Plan Architectural Features map
5.5.2014
23
Service and Loading IssuesInitial Staff Observations of CCBP
• Proposed garage
access location along
23rd Street is not
preferred location (all
scenarios);
• However, proper
amount and locations of
access points should
be informed by detailed
traffic studies
associated with the site
plan
= preferred street frontage locations for garage and
loading access points
Sector Plan Service and Loading map
5.5.2014
24
Next Steps
Discussion
25
