ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. October 15, 2015

Transcription

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2100 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 ARLINGTON, VA (703) CHRISTOPHER FORINASH CHAIR NANCY IACOMINI VICE-CHAIR MICHELLE STAHLHUT COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK October 15, 2015 Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia SUBJECT: 3. Clarendon West (Red Top Cab Site) A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT to the Arlington County Comprehensive Plan s Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Map to delete a portion of N. Ivy Street south of 13 th Street N. B. ENACT AN ORDINANCE OF VACATION TO VACATE: 1) a Portion of 13th Street North Between Washington Boulevard and North Ivy Street Abutting the Western Boundary of Property Known as Wood- Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lots 234, 235,236,237 and 259, RPC # ; 2) a Portion of 13th Street North Between Washington Boulevard and North Ivy Street Abutting the Western Boundary of Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lot 259, RPC # ; 3) a Portion of 13th Street North Between North Ivy Street and North Irving Street Abutting the Northwestern Boundary of Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lot 224, RPC # ; 4) a Portion of Washington Boulevard at the Northeast Intersection of Washington Boulevard and 13th Street North, Near the Southwestern Boundary of Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part of Vacated N. Jackson Street, RPC # ; 5) a Portion of Washington Boulevard Abutting the Southern Boundary of Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lots 259 and 258, RPC # ; 6) a Portion of North Ivy Street Abutting the Western Boundary of Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lot 224, RPC # ; 7) a Portion of North Ivy Street Running in a Southeast Direction from 13th Street North and Between and Abutting Property Known as Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lots 224, Lot 223, Lot 222, Lot 221, Lot 219, RPC #s , -011, -021, -010, -022 and Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lots 234, 235, 236, and 237 and Abutting and to the North of Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, Part Lots 253 and 252, RPC # and ; 8) and an Easement for Public Street and P.C. #39.A.B.C.D.

2 Page 2 Utilities Purposes Running From the Northeast to the Southwest and then to the Southeast and then to the East, Located on Property Known as Part Lots, 252, 253, 254, 237, 236, 235, 234, 259, 258, 257, 256, 255 and Part of Vacated N. Jackson Street, Wood-Harmon s Addition to Block 6, Clarendon, RPC #s and , all with Conditions C. ZOA ZOA Adoption of an ordinance to amend, reenact and recodify the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance to revise Maps 1-8 in the Clarendon Revitalization District to reflect changes to block structure ( ) by eliminating N. Ivy Street south of 13th Street N. and shifting the location of 12th Street N. to the east, and to revise Map 1 to reflect changes in building height ( 9.2.5) for the properties proposed for redevelopment with Site Plan #438, as detailed in the full text amendments and accompanying maps. D. SP# 438 CLARENDON WEST, The Shooshan Company, LLC for a final site plan for the construction of an approximately 580,374 sq. ft. building containing up to 580 residential dwelling units and approximately 3,477 sq. ft. of retail use in the C-3 zoning district under ACZO 7.19, 9.2, Property is approximately 152,953 sq. ft., located at 1126 N. Hudson St., 1229 N. Irving St., 1237 N. Irving St., 1220 N. Hudson St., 1125 N. Irving St., 1205 N. Irving St., 1123 N. Irving St., 3251 Washington Blvd., 1200 N. Hudson St., 1227 N. Ivy St., 1239 N. Ivy St., and 3275 Washington Blvd. (RPC# , -008, -011, -012, -013, -014, -016, -017, -018, -019, -020, , - 010, -011, -012, -021, -022, and -024). The proposed density is 3.79 FAR. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: Clarendon Revitalization District design requirements, parking, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends that the County Board defer Action on parts A, B, C, and D of the Clarendon West Sector Plan application for a minimum of 1 month. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission heard these items at its October 7, 2015 public hearing. Aaron Shriber, Department of Community Planning Housing and Development (CPHD)-Planning, gave a presentation on the background and details of the proposed project. Other staff present included Steve Cover, Director, CPHD, Bob Duffy, Director, CPHD-Planning, Joanne Gabor, Department of Environmental Services (DES)-Development Services, Linda Collier, DES-Real Estate, and Jennifer Butler, DES-Real Estate. Brian Scull, Shooshan Company, is the applicant and gave an overview of the project. George Dove, WDG Architecture, provided details on the proposed architecture. Also present were Jon Kinney, Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C., John Lutostanski, Bowman Consulting, and John Shooshan, Shooshan Company.

3 Page 3 PUBLIC SPEAKERS There were two public speakers for this item. Barnes Lawson, Jr., spoke on behalf of the owners of the New England Furniture shop and said they are working with the applicant in coming to an agreement on sale of their property, and are optimistic about conveyance of the property. James Lantelme, Lyon Village Citizens Association, emphasized their interest in the setback zone for this site and their view that this property is in a situation created by the way the residential zoning boundary is drawn along 13 th Street. He noted the proposed pedestrian passageway between 12 th and 13 th Street needs to be guaranteed into the future. REVIEW PROCESS Commissioner Schroll reported the Transportation Commission recognized there are good transportation benefits but stopped short of recommending approval. Rather it had a conditional vote to support the project if staff achieved the negotiations that would make additional transportation improvements to the site. Commissioner Gutshall reported a joint Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) and Zoning Committee (ZOCO) meeting was held early in the process to provide feedback to staff and applicant on early issues related to block structure change and height maximums. Post-Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) meetings, ZOCO reviewed the amendments to the maps and it was agreed the only changes to the maps would be specifically related to height maximums on this block and change in block structure. The project was also reviewed by the Historic and Landmark Review Board, and will be reviewed by the Housing Commission prior to County Board. Commissioner Ciotti reported there were five SPRC meetings for the project. It is a 3.51 acre project in the Clarendon Revitalization District and completes redevelopment of the west end of Clarendon. Guidance is derived from the Clarendon Sector Plan, the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and the zoning ordinance that includes the Clarendon Revitalization District. It will have three buildings with FAR 3.87, 580 units and 3,477 square feet of retail space. There is no information on the affordable dwelling units since those are part of the community benefits package that is still being negotiated. The applicant was responsive to many concerns expressed in SPRC, including setback of the 6th story of Building One along 13th Street, revised architecture along 13th Street North, a compact parking ratio modification which was withdrawn, and retail along Washington Boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Planning Commission noted that the draft staff report includes no recommendation from the County Manager. This is a very unusual situation, as the lack of a Manager s recommendation reflects a site plan that is not fully negotiated and agreed, and therefore incomplete in important ways. As an indication of the fluid state of site plan negotiations, the Commission received revised site plan conditions after 4pm on the date of its hearing. By bringing it to the Planning Commission public hearing in such an incomplete state, Staff and the Applicant do not afford the

4 Page 4 public and Commission the appropriate and required opportunity to review all details in order for the Commission to make an informed recommendation to the County Board. The Commission expressed substantial dissatisfaction and angst with this state of affairs. Chairman Forinash stated his intent to introduce a motion to recommend deferral before entertaining other motions. However, he noted his openness to conducting a full discussion of the materials available to the Commission in advance of that motion. The consensus opinion of the Commission was to conduct a discussion to give feedback to Staff and the Applicant and potentially inform Board deliberations. The Planning Commission discussed to varying degrees the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, MTP amendment, Vacations, Building Design, Transportation Improvements, Zoning Ordinance modifications, Bonus Density, Retail, Site Plan Conditions, and Phasing and Interim conditions. The Planning Commission discussed deferring the project without a full discussion due to the lack of a County Manager recommendation. Staff clarified the lack of recommendation was based on ongoing Applicant negotiations regarding transportation improvements and community benefits. Although the Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the County Board defer all four parts of the item, it held a full discussion and offered suggestions on several topics, as outlined below and detailed in the appended transcript. With regard to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, a Commissioner asked about Map 8 and whether the Washington Boulevard step-back should be extended to the west side of the proposed location of 12 th Street North, staff agreed there was a drafting error in the map and it would be corrected for the Board. Additionally, the Planning Commission requested additional information on the justification of the amendment to Map 1. The Planning Commission also discussed including pedestrian passageways on Maps 2 and 5, even though these are not generally included in the MTP. The conclusion based on staff advice was to show such connections in the sector plan but not in the MTP. Regarding building height, the Planning Commission asked staff to clarify the position that the height modification for this project is not precedent setting for other projects in the Sector. Staff clarified it is not a precedent because there are three other development sites in Clarendon within 165 feet of a property zoned R or RA. Two of those are already developed, and the third is the Catholic Church across Washington Blvd from the subject site. While redevelopment could be proposed, staff does not see this as a likely precedent. Staff committed to expand this rationale in the Manager s report to the Board. The Planning Commission was concerned that there was too much flexibility in the building materials shown on the elevations in the site plan. Specifically, the Applicant did not make a materials board available, making it difficult to assess the quality of the various surfaces. In addition, ambiguous labels on site plan elevations and renderings leave open the possibility of substituting materials of lower quality after approval of the site plan. This would undermine the expectations of the community developed during the SPRC and Commission hearing. Applicant and Staff agreed that this was not the intention, and they would work to clarify the intended materials in elevations, renderings, and specifications.

5 Page 5 The Planning Commission expressed a desire to keep affordable units on-site as part of the community benefits package, and staff responded that the County Manager is strongly encouraging on-site units as part of the package that is under negotiation. Additionally, a Planning Commissioner asked that Condition 43B.4 include a marketing period of 180 days instead of 60 days for accessible affordable housing units. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION Commissioner Forinash made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the County Board defer consideration of all four actions related to the Clarendon West sector plan application for a minimum of one month. Commissioner Ciotti seconded the motion. Commissioner Forinash noted that he included all four actions in his motion. For a proposed vacation (Part B here) the Commission is required to make a finding that the vacation conforms to the intent of the Master Transportation Plan. For other parts, the Commission s action is a recommendation to the Board for its action. Since the motion includes all four parts, the Commission has not made the required finding in support of the vacation. Commissioner Forinash invited substitute motions to recommend approval or denial, but no substitutes were forthcoming. The Planning Commission supported the motion to defer with Commissioners Siegel, Ciotti, Schroll and Forinash in support, Commissioners Gutshall, Brown, and Harner against, and Commissioner Iacomini abstaining. Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Christopher V. Forinash

6 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 1 of 36 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF DEFERRAL OPTION >> Commissioner Forinash: I do want to have committee reports. Thank you, Commissioner Iacomini, but I'm a little bit torn because I consider it, as I mentioned before, a very unusual situation that we're faced with here, not having a staff recommendation. And I appreciate what we've heard verbally from Mr. Shriber and from the applicant that they're close on community benefits, and they're close on transportation improvements, and they're close perhaps on acquiring the furniture site. But it's not done, right? We have here, to my eyes, a project that looks very good, but a site plan application that is not complete, a site plan proposal that is not ready, in my opinion, for full consideration by the planning commission. We would be faced with the situation of offering our advice to the County Board on a project which is not finished when it comes to us. It's been over 2 months, probably close to 10 weeks, since the last SPRC meeting on this. I know there's a lot that needs to be done after SPRC before it comes to planning commission. That's true of almost every project. And the fact is it wasn't all done in this case. So, I am entirely willing to go on and hear our committee reports and have a full discussion of this project, but I will not vote in favor of this project tonight. I intend to move that we defer or that we recommend that the County Board defer consideration of this project until it's--until the site plan application is complete. I could offer that as a motion now and we could defer our discussion until such time when this project is ready and comes back to us, or I could hold that deferral motion until after we hear the reports of our commissions and committees. But either way, I do plan to introduce it. So, I'm looking for some feedback from you all before we head into a full discussion of this project on whether--honestly, whether you think it's worth our time to do so tonight. Staff's comment that the design of the project is finished is partly necessary, I think, to assuage my concerns about this. But the fact is things could change between now and when it comes to the board on the design as well. And regardless of whether the design is finished, I cannot consider a completely unfinalized community benefits package and provide the kind of advice that I feel that we are required to provide to the County Board with what's in front of us tonight. So, does anybody have any thoughts on that? I'll especially look to Commissioner Ciotti because she, of course, chaired the site plan review for this, and I know from conversations shares some of the concerns. But if you think a different direction than offering a deferral--or excuse me, moving a deferral now is advisable, if you think that we should invest in a full discussion tonight, I would love to hear your thoughts on that. >> Commissioner Ciotti: A couple questions. If we defer, what are the implications for County Board? Would they hear it even if we deferred? >> Commissioner Forinash: I'll offer what--you were certainly looking at staff, but I'll offer my understanding, which is the County Board can do what the County Board wants to do. We have to have heard an item before it goes to them, but they certainly have acted independently of our motions many times in the past. But Mr. Duffy I'm sure has some thoughts as well. Page 1 of 36

7 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 2 of 36 >> Mr. Duffy: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good evening, members of the planning commission. The chairman is correct. I mean, the County Board could, in fact, if we resolve these differences, which we believe we will. The negotiations have been challenging, but we've made progress almost hourly over the last several days, last week or so. So, we're confident that we will get there. And I would respectfully encourage that the planning commission to consider the application, consider--i think the SPRC chair has laid out a good outline of the topics that we staff would certainly encourage you to discuss this evening. Mr. Chairman, I understand your concerns. You are correct, this is an unusual place we're at tonight, bringing you a staff report with no recommendation. But as Mr. Shriber has indicated, this project is very successful. I think staff and the applicant and the SPRC and the community have worked very hard from day one, since the early days in April when we began this process, to take it from the concept schematic level to what you see tonight. And I think as Mr. Scull has indicated and staff concurs, it is a transformational project in terms of Clarendon and how it will implement the sector plan. So, while we have this issue on community benefits and the transportation improvements, I'm confident we'll get there. I would encourage the commission to deliberate tonight. But again, Mr. Chairman, I understand your position. This is unusual and I wish we were at a final point this evening. So, thank you for considering that. >> Commissioner Forinash: One comment on your response. Just about every project that comes through the site plan review process of this size is transformational, but they're also finished when they come to us, and this one is not. >> Mr. Duffy: Well, we could discuss that, Mr. Chairman. I think we are in a good place with the site plan and the design and the project. But again, community benefits packages are always complex. And this one has a number of utility and road-related improvements that are somewhat unique. So respectfully, I urge the commission to consider moving forward. But again, I respect your position, Mr. Chairman. >> Commissioner Forinash: Did staff consider or did the manager consider recommending deferral on this? And if so, why was that rejected? And if not, why wasn't it considered? >> Mr. Duffy: At this point, again, as Mr. Shriber has indicated, we've been negotiating, making good progress with the applicant. And at this point, we felt--we still feel comfortable that we will get there and perfect an agreement consistent with the staff report and the conditions. But we're not there yet. We think this is an alternative way to proceed and a sound way to proceed. >> Commissioner Forinash: Is there some--is there some imperative timing that requires this to be moved this month? >> Mr. Duffy: From staff's perspective, we believe it's certainly ready to be considered. That may be a question for the applicant. >> Commissioner Forinash: It may be. I'd like to hear from other members of the commission, your thoughts on how we should proceed this evening. Oh, excuse me, Rosemary, were you finished with your thoughts? I didn't mean to cut you off. Page 2 of 36

8 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 3 of 36 >> Commissioner Ciotti: I appreciate that. I just am concerned that this is really irregular. Can't remember a time when we got a project without a recommendation with so much outstanding. And having said that, I have to thank staff and particularly Aaron Shriber for tirelessly working with this and being incredibly responsive. But I'm very concerned that we're being asked to review this with a promise that it's going to get done for County Board. You know, and that really concerns us since our state mandate is to advise the County Board. We're the only state mandated advisory committee that we have a state mandate for. And how can we do our job well if we don't have all the information? And that really gives me pause. And I will wait to have input from my colleagues. >> Commissioner Forinash: Thank you, Commissioner Ciotti. Commissioner Iacomini? >> Commissioner Iacomini: I have a question of staff as well. We have several actions in front of us, A, B, C, and D, D being vacation. And is it not part of the responsibility of planning commission to state whether we find that vacations are in conformance with the general plan? I know I said that wrong. >> Mr. Shriber: That is correct. There does need to be a motion or some form of a recommendation, whether that's approval, denial, or you can go with a deferral as well. But there does have to be a finding with that action item. The others, it's not necessary by the ordinance. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Right, but it is by statute that the Planning Commission must do a finding. And if we don't, if we defer that, then the board cannot hear the vacation? Is that correct? >> Commissioner Forinash: Can you approach and use the microphone, please? We're newly recording our meetings. And also identify yourself, please. >> Ms. Collier: The Planning Commission-- >> Commissioner Forinash: Can you start by identifying yourself, please, for the record? >> Ms. Collier: I'm Linda Collier from the Real Estate Bureau. And the planning commission is required to make a finding as to whether or not a plan vacation is in conformance with the master comprehensive plan. I don't know if they don't--if they defer that or don't make a finding one way or the other, we'd have to check with the county attorney's office, but I would assume that some type of finding one way or the other probably needs to be made. But we would have to check on that. I think the planning commission could conversely say it did not conform and the board probably could disagree, so that's my only hesitation as to whether a finding at all needs to be made. But we could check on that tomorrow. I know that's not helpful. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Mr. Chairman, I have a question related to that. I note that in the staff report for D, that on page two, a lot of this is contingent upon once compensation has been agreed upon. And I take it that that is a large part of the community benefits package, of which remains unresolved? Page 3 of 36

9 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 4 of 36 >> Mr. Shriber: Yes, because what we're talking about here with the transportation improvements, and as was mentioned with the open space, you know, parcels, one of the things that we're--the ultimate goal with the transportation improvements is to complete that. And there are--if you want to just dumb it down to two simple issues, you essentially have two buckets of compensation. You have the bucket for the vacations, there's compensation that is required, and then there's that $5.8 million for the community benefits. And so, what we're looking at are ways to credit dedications and transportation improvements in lieu of the value of those vacations. So, that is all part of the discussion right now. So yes, it is about we know the value of the vacations, but the compensation is partly contingent upon the dedication of the two parcels that Mr. Nichols owns. We're also looking at options of in the event that the applicant is able to acquire the parcels that the furniture store occupies, crediting those against that as well. So, it's really looking at how can you, you know, receive that full compensation, but also get credit in order to allow for these improvements to happen in a beneficial manner for all. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Thank you, I think that's helpful. In my mind, I am linking the lack of compensation on the proposed vacations because it is stated that we haven't finished that. And so, I wish to hear from my fellow commissioners. I am--but yet, we also know that part of the community benefit goes with parts A, B, and C, which we are considering this evening, so it's not just the vacation portion. But it seems that perhaps the bulk of it goes with the vacation. So, I know it's hard to separate these out. I guess I'm just--i'm trying to think out loud, which is never a good thing, about how to parcel this out, if you forgive the pun, this evening. That, you know, it might be that we not take an action on the vacation and that we still have a discussion on my part about the rest of the site plan. I do not know what the County Board's pleasure will be, whether they would want to go ahead. And one hopes that something has been worked out among all parties when it goes to the County Board on October 16th. So, I feel as though we should have a discussion so the County Board can have the benefit of that. On the other hand, the vacation is a very large part of which we need to make a finding, and it's hard to make the finding without all the pieces. >> Ms. Collier: Well, your finding, though, has nothing to do with the amount of compensation that may or may not be agreed upon for the vacations. >> Commissioner Iacomini: It has to be if it helps--if it is in conformance-- >> Ms. Collier: If it's conformance with the master comprehensive plan. So, the compensation issue is something that ultimately is for the board to decide, and is not a component necessarily of your recommendation on the vacation. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Thank you, that is helpful. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Harner? >> Commissioner Harner: Thanks, Commissioner Forinash. I appreciate the discussion on this issue. I don't think I heard Mr. Shriber state explicitly why this is in front of us tonight and not deferred. Let me take a stab at it and tell me if I'm wrong that simply--the staff simply can't in good conscience or for other reasons make a Page 4 of 36

10 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 5 of 36 recommendation without resolution of some of these financial transactions revolving around the furniture store and the vacation and the community benefits package. Is that in any way close to a correct summary of why we're where we are? >> Mr. Shriber: Yes, whereas the county manager would--you know, his recommendation to the County Board is on the project in its totality. And so, that is a component that is a large aspect here because of the way the density is configured with the Clarendon revitalization district and because of the large amount of the vacations. So, in the absence of a final agreement of that, that's why the county manager does not have a recommendation. But as we mentioned, we are continuing to resolve those issues. They are complex, but we continue to work with the applicant in terms of finding a way to allocate costs in terms of getting a positive vacation compensation package, as well as community benefits package. So, really just looking at how are those dollars allocated amongst the categories that I mentioned, those being on-site affordable housing units, open space dedication, transportation improvements. And one of the things that we've been discussing recently was the acquisition of the furniture store. And that has not yet occurred. We have some potential solutions to that, but we just keep going around it and finding a way to resolve that. And we still have the belief that we can have that finalized prior to the board-- >> Commissioner Forinash: Mr. Shriber, everything you've said is a reason for deferral in my mind. It's not done. Commissioner Harner, you have the floor. >> Commissioner Harner: You know, I'm just a little bit torn on this. You know, on the one hand, we had a project that we reviewed on Monday that had been deferred simply over some transformer vault locations, you know, which was a relatively minor reason to defer something. And then, on the other hand, we have a deferral tonight, or not a deferral because--and yet some major unresolved issues relative to the community benefits. The reason I'm a little bit torn is that, in general, the planning commission I feel has had a somewhat spotty relationship with the issue of community benefits and the financial analyses that go on, and the kinds of transactions. And from my own-- personally, from my own viewpoint, I know that my own consideration and discussion here in the commission is not all that helpful relative to some of these kinds of things, and probably not all that helpful in a lot of other things too. But if there's some compelling reason why this needs to move forward, you know, I'm perfectly happy to discuss the other aspects of the project. I do have questions about certain things such as materials not necessarily being finalized, which I don't understand. So, there are things I think worthy of discussion. So, I personally would be inclined to proceed with discussion, notwithstanding all the questions that Commissioner Iacomini has raised. And Commissioner Forinash, I very much appreciate your flagging this issue. >> Commissioner Forinash: And I don't want to belabor it. If we're going to have a full discussion of the project, I want to get going on that, so I want to hear from others, especially if you think that a quick deferral is the right path. Commissioner Schroll. >> Commissioner Schroll: Hey, Mr. Chair. At last week's Transportation Commission, the transportation commission did, as Mr. Shriber said, kind of walked a middle path. I'm sort of in a similar place as Commissioner Harner. There are some good things about Page 5 of 36

11 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 6 of 36 this project, but I have some strong reservations about not having all the information. I mentioned that last week at the Transportation Commission that I, as a commissioner, need to know how the density is being earned, what transportation or other benefits come to this area because of this project. And we don't know the answers to those questions right now. And so, I would be more where you are, Mr. Chairman, about moving to a deferral. I do think this is a good project. I expressed that last week. I think staff has done a good job. There are good things about this project and I hope to support it when it comes back. So, this is not about the project. I just want to kind of do the due diligence that I think we need to do. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Siegel. >> Commissioner Siegel: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a question for Commissioner Harner. Are you proposing that we discuss elements that are fixed, like materials or building mass, and to stop short explicitly of recommending the full project? I didn't quite understand. I feel a little bit torn too, but I didn't understand if we did go forward, what would we go forward on? We can't go forward on everything because it isn't there for us to look at. >> Commissioner Harner: Thanks, Commissioner Siegel: So, for me, I would feel comfortable personally going forward on the whole project. I do have a couple procedural questions if we did go in that direction, one which would be for staff, at what point prior to a board hearing would staff think is the appropriate time for the community to actually be able to see the community benefits package so that at least there could be public testimony and consideration of it at a board hearing? And that's--we certainly wouldn't want that package to be lingering, you know, well into the pre-board hearing period. So, that's a concern for me. And I could be off base on that. But given the project, the SPRC process, the reviews that we've had, you know, I'm personally comfortable going forward with the discussion and review, you know, whether or not-- whatever the outcome would be, I can't predict. >> Commissioner Forinash: My concern on that is that it's a negotiation. Until the negotiation is done, nothing is done. And they may feel comfortable that, you know, the massing and detailing of the built project, or the project as proposed, is not going to change, but this is all a negotiation right now. Commissioner Gutshall, did you--sorry, Commissioner Siegel, were you finished or no? >> Commissioner Siegel: I think I just had one more concern, which is that if we do go forward, discuss, and make a recommendation that is not a deferral, do we set a precedent that we could anticipate future site plans coming to us unfinished? I would be really, really uncomfortable if this were the start of that kind of situation. >> Mr. Duffy: It's a very good question, Commissioner Siegel. Again, as I think both Mr. Shriber and I have indicated, this is highly unusual. And but we're confident that we'll resolve this, but we think the county manager's current position is certainly the correct one. But I don't see this setting any precedent. >> Commissioner Forinash: Yeah, I disagree with that. I mean, once the door is open to not having negotiation concluded before a planning commission hearing, every Page 6 of 36

12 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 7 of 36 applicant is going to take advantage of that, I'm sure, so I have a different opinion. Commissioner Gutshall. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Yeah, very quickly. So, good thoughts all the way around. I would just like to say, Mr. Chair, I appreciate very much your interest in sort of the care and keeping of the planning commission and as the custodians of the community process basically here. And so, I'm very sympathetic to that. However, I think I'd probably come down ultimately very similar to Commissioner Harner and perhaps some others here that I would like to do a full hearing right now, but I would certainly entertain a motion for deferral after we've done a full hearing. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Brown. >> Commissioner Brown: I agree with Eric, Commissioner Gutshall, and Commissioner Harner on this one. I think we should move forward with the hearing and entertain a deferral at the end. PUBLIC HEARING >> Commissioner Forinash: Seems to be a general sense of the Commission, so let's do that. Let's hear a little bit more about the transportation commission hearing because, as Mr. Shriber noted, it was incorrect in the presentation, you did not vote to recommend approval? Can you give us a flavor of the discussion, but also specifically what action did the transportation commission take? Commissioner Schroll. >> Commissioner Schroll: Thank you, Commissioner Forinash. So, the Transportation Commission did consider this last week. The discussion was somewhat on the transportation improvements, certainly 13th Street, the proposed ones for Washington Boulevard, the new alignment as it relates to the Clarendon Sector Plan, the changes to those maps and the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the MTP amendments, not the new Ivy Street, but the new pedestrian connection, we discussed those. Certainly some discussion of not having--what we just went through. I mean, certainly having a discussion of the community and transportation benefits being absent. The transportation commission did recognize and acknowledge in its motion that there were some good transportation benefits that would be achieved through this SPRC. But the commission did stop short of saying it approved or recommended approval of the plan because of the outstanding issues. >> Commissioner Forinash: So, did the commission take a vote? >> Commissioner Schroll: It did. And it was a conditional vote. So, the transportation commission voted to essentially conditionally support the project if staff were able to achieve the negotiations that would--make additional transportation improvements to the site. And then kind of outlined a few of those in its motion. So, it's essentially a conditional approval. But during the discussion, Chairman Slatt did express his concern where we were, as did some others. >> Commissioner Forinash: And let me ask a follow-up question to the point [inaudible] made, which is about the pedestrian pathway between 12th and 13th not appearing on the master transportation plan. Do we have--hopefully you know the MTP Page 7 of 36

13 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 8 of 36 better than I do at this point. Do we have pedestrian pathways shown at all, pedestrianonly rights of way shown at all in the MTP? Because I know we're heading that way in Rosslyn for--i've already forgotten the name of the street, 19th street, 18th street? Whatever it is. Thank you, how quickly we forget. >> Commissioner Schroll: So, I don't know if this would be shown on the MTP, but I don't--my inclination is not--staff can correct me on that. I did ask a question about the easement question, which we can get to in a moment, but to [inaudible] point tonight, there would be an easement on the pedestrian right of way. And if this proposal didn t go forward, there would still be a protection to that because, you know, things wouldn t be filed until this construction was essentially underway, so there wouldn't be an issue of not preserving the pedestrian connection. It would only be lost through something else. >> Commissioner Forinash: I realize I've strayed into questions I should probably be directing to Miss Gabor and staff, so thanks for indulging me on those in what's normally just a report out of what the transportation commission considered. So let's--as Mr. Shriber noted, ZOCO and LRPC heard this item at least once, so we'll turn to Commissioner Gutshall. And if you could update us on the LRPC part of that too if you remember, that would be terrific since Commissioner Cole is not with us. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Sure. So, the first meeting, really part of the first SPRC, was a joint LRPC-ZOCO meeting. And that was just to make sure--to provide feedback to staff and the applicant, I think, going into the process of where did we see the issues were and how do they play out. And generally, I think that commissioners--and of course, it's one and the same whether you're speaking as a member of ZOCO or a member of LRPC. There was no distinction, so it was a committee of the whole. And I think generally, the feedback was that, yes, this was within the realm of possibility to look at the change in block structure, and also to revisit the height maximums exactly as we did. So, that was that initial meeting in April. Then after the SPRCs, it came back through ZOCO for the actual amendments to the maps, as Mr. Shriber did an excellent job of walking everyone through. And without going through all of them again, I think just to reiterate, he had described that we are--it was our feedback at ZOCO. And where it is now is that the only changes to the maps that are in the zoning ordinance that codify the Clarendon sector plan would be specifically related to the height maximums on this block and to the change in block structure,that we were not going to revisit other elements. Having said that, I do think it's probably going to be an item for discussion. There is one map that does have--i have a question on that I'll get to at the appropriate time. Thank you. >> Commissioner Forinash: Thank you, Commissioner Gutshall. Now to Commissioner Ciotti for a quick review of the SPRC process, and then the outstanding remaining issues, at least at the end of SPRC. Perhaps an update for changes since then and the suggested discussion outline, please. >> Commissioner Ciotti: You should have an outline in front of you. And it also reviews the dates that you've already heard, that long-range planning in ZOCO. And a project summary. It is complex, it's large, 3.51 acres located at the west end of Page 8 of 36

14 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 9 of 36 Clarendon. It is part of the Clarendon Revitalization District and will complete the redevelopment of the west end of Clarendon. The guidance for this redevelopment is derived from the Clarendon sector plan, the master transportation plan, and the zoning ordinance that includes the Clarendon revitalization district. It will--when it comes in, if it's built, it will have three distinct buildings with an FAR of 3.87, 580 units, and 3,477 square feet of retail space. Typically here, we would know if we had and how many affordable dwelling units, but we don t have that information because it's part of the community benefit package. As Aaron Shriber has so well outlined, we have zoning amendments that will be necessary for this site plan to be approved. The maps that we talked about will have to be approved to revise where we're going to measure the 165 feet from, from the residences of the R and RA district and not from the middle of 13th Street. And also, the vacation of North Ivy Street and the shifting of 12th Street North to the east. Those are really the major highlights. And the rest will be, you know, be fleshed out. And you heard the issues addressed and agreed upon by the developer since the completion of the SPRC. And many of these were requests from the community, from Lyon Village, and that setback on the 6th Street story building, the one along 13th street, they asked for that and received that. They wanted the architecture revised along 13th Street North to reflect some of their concerns, and that was done. Compact parking was a big area of concern. And ultimately, that ratio modification was withdrawn, so we don't have to deal with that. There was concern about no retail on Washington Boulevard, but we have retail-like that we're going to have. And that's also part of the discussion. Then we go to the discussion outline and we can start with zoning, block structure, and building height. >> Commissioner Forinash: Before we start through the outline, let's quickly review it and see if there are other areas that folks know they want to have some discussion around. So, the items on the outline are the zoning ordinance amendment, the MTP amendment, vacations, building design, transportation improvements, zoning ordinance modifications. Should that go up with the zoning ordinance amendment, Commissioner Ciotti? >> Commissioner Ciotti: Sure. >> Commissioner Forinash: And bonus density. Then my page two is blank, so hopefully that's the end of the list. >> Commissioner Ciotti: You have a page for notes. >> Commissioner Forinash: Oh, great, thank you. Very thoughtful. Other areas, Commissioner Harner? >> Commissioner Harner: Just a point of clarification. Where would the discussion of the 165-foot taper zone fall? >> Commissioner Ciotti: That I believe would be under zoning ordinance amendment, the building height and block structure. >> Commissioner Forinash: Other topic areas? Commissioner Schroll. >> Commissioner Schroll: I have some questions about the retail. Page 9 of 36

15 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 10 of 36 >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Gutshall and then Commissioner Iacomini. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Site plan conditions. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Iacomini? >> Commissioner Iacomini: I have a question about phasing and interim conditions. >> Commissioner Forinash: Others? And of course, if other things come up during the discussion, we will certainly tackle them. All right, let's start from the top. Zoning ordinance related topics, including the amendment and modifications. Specific call-outs by Commissioner Ciotti include block structure, building height, taper, which we just added, Clarendon revitalization district, and parking. Commissioner Gutshall. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATIONS >> Commissioner Gutshall: Thank you. Mr. Shriber, looking at map 8, this is on page 41 of the staff report. So, this is the step backs map. And I am curious. So, when we look at the current map and there's the dark blue-- >> Commissioner Iacomini: Can we get it up on the screen? Thanks. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Yeah, which I won't begin to try to read the legend from my copy and with my eyes. But the point being is that, when we look at the proposed map and we look at the Washington Boulevard frontage for the beacon, the dark blue there does seem to truncate before it hits what will be the new 12th Street. And so, I'm just curious if that was intentional or inadvertent. My interpretation of not trying to necessarily accommodate as-built, but more what was the vision would have been that that dark blue would have continued all the way to 12th Street. >> Mr. Shriber: No, I agree with--excuse me. I agree with you that it looks like it is a drafting error. Once again, following the ZOCO's recommendation, our intent was to not change anything, so it's merely a drafting error that we can correct. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Were these advertised? >> Mr. Shriber: Yes, they were. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Is that within--we're still within scope of advertising? >> Mr. Shriber: Yes, I think so because, once again, we're talking merely about--in this case, I think what we related that to was we were measuring those frontages. And I think that we were just off a little bit in terms of the actual shift of 12th Street,where that occurs. I don't think that that's outside of the scope if we were to add that portion back. I mean, that is the portion of the existing Beacon building, but clearly it was our intent to keep those the way that they were. >> Commissioner Gutshall: Sure, okay, thank you. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Iacomini. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Mr. Shriber, I have a question that involves map five and map two. Page 10 of 36

16 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 11 of 36 >> Commissioner Forinash: Oh, Commissioner Iacomini, we've had a request for follow-up on map eight. Commissioner Harner. >> Commissioner Harner: Thanks, Commissioner Forinash. Just quickly, I believe that MTP map that you showed showed an altered alignment for 12th Street as it extends south of Washington Boulevard. And I'm wondering if there's an implication for how this proposed map, if that should be consistent. Because this is still showing the other alignment of 12th Street. And I have some concerns about that. >> Mr. Shriber: Once again, following the advice of the ZOCO, what we didn't want to do is make any changes to the existing, you know, structure or existing element outside of those related to block structure for this specific block and then building height. So, you're right in what the sector plan shows is 12th Street would align with the new portion of 12th Street on the south side of Washington Boulevard. Obviously, that would only occur in a redevelopment scenario of the church's property, as well as property owned by the county. But what we didn't want to do is shift that point over to align with this, as that was not our direction. We were only looking at what would occur here. So, in terms of any impact, you know, that's something that we would look at with any site plan proposal that would come in on a redevelopment of the church property. If you actually look at-- >> Commissioner Harner: Mr. Shriber, so I got that. The Northside Social property with this realignment of 12th Street, is that--does 12th Street sort of angle back away from Northside Social with this other realignment? The reason I'm asking these questions is because I think when we make changes like this, you know, we need to make sure that they're consistent and that we can implement them without confusion in the future. And I'm confused about what staff intent is for this 12th Street alignment. >> Mr. Shriber: Well, once again, not considering any--the purpose of 12th Street, it's not a signalized intersection, so it's not considering full movement of vehicles going, you know, southbound or northbound on 12th Street to be crossing Washington Boulevard in its entirety there. If you consider the entirety of that map, number eight, and I'm looking at a full version, is that as 12th Street continues on the south side of Washington Boulevard, you're right, it does have to go through the Northside Social property. It is not an entirely vehicular street. It does go to a pedestrian street only portion once it goes in-between Washington Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. And then it crosses there and it continues across. So, once again, we didn't want to make any judgments at this stage. >> Commissioner Harner: What is the staff proposal? Because it's just a simple question. I see two different things. One is a realignment of 12th Street from the plan that we see here, and the other is 12th Street in its planned alignment. What is the-- >> Mr. Shriber: In staff's proposed zoning ordinance amendment, there would be a reconfiguration from an alignment perspective of 12th Street on the north side of Washington Boulevard with no impact to the alignment as shown on the south side of Washington Boulevard. >> Commissioner Harner: So, the proposal is an offset intersection. Page 11 of 36

17 Red Top Cab Transcript Page 12 of 36 >> Mr. Shriber: That is correct. Once again, 12th Street is not going to be a signalized intersection. It's 13th Street that will be a signalized intersection. >> Commissioner Harner: Okay, was I wrong? Did I see something else in the marked up-- >> Mr. Shriber: No, there is an offset. But once again, all of the nature of the block structure on the south side of Washington Boulevard is not in any way altered or affected by this. It remains the same on the map. Once again, we only change the alignment of 12th Street on the north side of Washington Boulevard as it goes through this block. >> Commissioner Harner: Yeah, that's what--in the applicant's presentation, I guess I saw on page A10, sector plan street map, I saw a proposed realignment of 12th Street, which I would have thought was more in line with our transportation plan goals of providing this circulation street for access to loading and parking that's off of the main street. That's pretty typical of the kind of sort of back street circulator we always look to implement. So, that's the alignment I saw, and this is what's creating my confusion. >> Mr. Shriber: That's merely an exhibit prepared by the applicant showing how an alignment could work on the south side, but that is not anything that's reflected in the proposed maps or the amendment as proposed by staff. >> Commissioner Harner: Thanks. >> Commissioner Forinash: Commissioner Gutshall, related to this still? Please. >> Commissioner Gutshall: I just wanted to share with Commissioner Harner and the rest of the commissioner, since I did not cover that in my ZOCO report, we actually did discuss the very topic that you're talking about. And it was the consensus of those members present at the time not to expand the scope and to try to look at south of Washington Boulevard, and to re-figure out how it would work. I think there were comments made that the obvious intent originally was to have an alignment there. And then there's also a recognition that we've got, you know, Northside Social there and everything else, and that we would probably not seek to disrupt that at this point. That was not in place at the time that the Clarendon sector plan was adopted. So, I just wanted you to know that it was discussed, and members present agreed to leave south of Washington Boulevard alone for now. >> Commissioner Forinash: Thank you. Commissioner Iacomini. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Somewhat following along with that, again, just talking about map two and--what did I say? >> Commissioner Forinash: Five. >> Commissioner Iacomini: Five, okay. I'm getting confused between maps. And what I want to talk about is the pedestrian connection that--i know, I'm sorry, but I do think it is an important element. And I understand the reasoning that we don't show pedestrian ways in the master transportation plan. But we do in planning documents, as we just said that part of 12th Street south actually will be pedestrian-only between Northside Page 12 of 36