ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. October 12, 2016

Transcription

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2100 CLARENDON BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 ARLINGTON, VA (703) NANCY IACOMINI CHAIR ERIK GUTSHALL VICE-CHAIR MICHELLE STAHLHUT COORDINATOR GIZELE C. JOHNSON CLERK October 12, 2016 Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia SUBJECT: 2. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments in furtherance of the goals of the Rosslyn Sector Plan, including: RECOMMENDATIONS: A. GP Amendments to the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map and Booklet; B. Amendments to the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Map; C. ZOA Amendments to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, C-O Rosslyn District. The Planning Commission recommends the County Board: A. Adopt the resolution attached to the staff report dated September 26, 2016, to amend the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map and Booklet. B. Adopt the attached resolution dated September 26, 2016, to amend the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Map with the following changes: 1. References to pedestrian street be changed to pedestrian priority street be changed to Pedestrian Priority Street. C. Adopt the Ordinance dated September 26, 2016, to amend, reenact and recodify the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance C-O Rosslyn District with the following amendments: 1. Changes to zoning text: a Add the following language to line 16 of the proposed zoning text: as stated in the Rosslyn Sector Plan before the words The P.C. #33.A.B.C.

2 Page 2 goals of this district are Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. b (A)(1)a. c B. i. Line 76. Delete the word physically and add the words on site so the line reads, Where it finds that additional density is necessary to accommodate on site ii. Line Delete platform, tunnel, entrance(s), or the like and insert and associated infrastructure. i. Line 89: Add Density to line 89 so that the line reads B. Building Heights and Density, thus applying findings b-e to density as well as heights. ii. Lines 94 and 95: Add the words the urban design and building heights form after the words consistent with so that the line reads: where it finds the development project is consistent with the urban design building heights and form policy of the Rosslyn Sector Plan, including but not limited to; and, insert a new paragraph a that reads, a peaks and valleys building heights policy. d. General amendments. i. Direct staff to develop a set of objective criteria derived from the Rosslyn Sector Plan that would implement the findings referenced in the zoning text. ii. Direct staff to begin a conversation with the Planning Commission and the development community to study creative ways to increase public open space in the RCRD zoning district in addition to what is recommended in the Rosslyn Sector Plan. Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard this item at its October 5, 2016 public hearing. Elizabeth Weigle, Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (CPHD) Planning gave a presentation on the background of the proposed amendments. Also present were Steve Cover, Director, CPHD, Bob Duffy, Director, CPHD Planning, and Deborah Albert, CPHD-Planning.

3 Page 3 PUBLIC SPEAKERS There were three public speakers for this item. Jim Huryz, Fairlington resident, said Rosslyn, Bluemont, and Williamsburg residents have been expressing dissatisfaction with loss of park space and they oppose densification and oppose attempts by New Urbanism adherents to convert open space to multi-purpose activity areas. There should be a moratorium on development. Fairfax approved redevelopment of Bailey s Crossroads and neighborhoods in McLean up to 5.0 FAR. It is time for a change. Stuart Stein spoke on behalf of Stan Karson for Fort Meyer Heights Civic Association and said they are concerned about the lack of codification of the heights map, which puts the neighborhood at risk of density higher than what is outlined in the plan. Transfer of Development Rights should be used to achieve the density in the plan, not to exceed it. Brian Harner, former Planning Commissioner and Rosslyn Process Panel Chair, said that the use of a set of findings referencing key goals in Rosslyn Sector Plan--rather than codification of the heights map itself opens the door to a variety of interpretations depriving the communities of clarity regarding Board decision-making. The Planning Commission, staff and the Board must embrace the Plan giving clear direction to the process of rebuilding. Therefore, for greater precision, and to better honor the Plan, the links between the findings and objective criteria already enumerated in the plan should be made more explicit. The intent of the Plan offers the community value; the implementation must give the process of rebuilding clear direction. REVIEW PROCESS Commissioner Siegel reported ZOCO held several meetings to discuss several topics including but not limited to codification of the heights map, findings, density, open space, and evaluation framework. Commissioner Brown reported there was a joint LRPC/ZOCO meeting that briefly discussed the GLUP and MTP amendments. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Building Heights Maps vs. Findings Commissioner Siegel noted that the Board had had a good conversation during its meeting on the RTA for implementation of the Rosslyn Sector Plan, discussing the pros and cons of two zoning strategies that had been laid out by staff: codification of the heights map as opposed to developing a strong to ensure consistency of a proposed building with the Plan. Commissioner Siegel suggested that in its discussion, the Planning Commission should now focus on the findings approach, to evaluate whether this approach will uphold the vision and intent of the Rosslyn Sector Plan.

4 Page 4 In response to a question by Commissioner Iacomini, Ms. Weigle asserted that the Board wanted the zoning to allow for modulation of the height of the buildings and thought it was more appropriate to reference the map, and elevate key findings for Board scrutiny. Commissioner Sockwell noted the Board could revisit any policy in a resolution before them. Commissioner Iacomini said that a map codified in the zoning code would not guarantee that the height will not be changed, up or down. Strong findings language is an important feature of the zoning. Commissioner Iacomini asked Mr. Harner to speak more about the proposal that the findings could be strengthened through the development by staff of concrete and objective criteria to which the findings would be subjected. Mr. Harner noting that the Taper policy failed, asserted that the findings approach needs more direct linkage to the urban design elements of the Plan for them to be effective in helping to implement the vision for Rosslyn. Discussion of the Findings Approach Commissioner Schroll asked how the findings would be applied during the review process. Ms. Weigle said the findings are general but during site plan review, guidelines would be presented that would be related to the findings. Commissioner Sockwell noted that the general phrase in the preamble is not as strong as it could be. He asked for previous examples of zoning that referenced a specific plan. Ms. Albert said sector plans are often referenced but specific sections of the plan are not referenced. Commissioner Siegel said she would like to see prior to site plan review the analysis that staff would use to ask the Board to make their findings. Commissioner Gutshall said that in his view, the reliance on only the peaks and valleys policy is insufficient to cover all of the design elements and priorities of the community. There is more in the Plan. Ms. Weigle said the findings are specific to building height. There are numerous places in the zoning ordinance that work in this way. The strategy is to base decisions on the intent of the plan. Commissioner Gutshall replied that he would like to see an accurate record of staff s deliberations, asserting that the zoning ordinance is the contract between the community and the developer. Height and Safety Commissioner McSweeney asked where it is appropriate to talk about safety. Mr. Duffy responded there is a condition associated with all site plans referring to FAA review. There was an extensive discussion about FAA review as well as an ongoing study of OEI at the federal level. The FAA reviews every project in Rosslyn and issues a clearance prior to the project moving forward. Transformational Infrastructure Mr. Stein was asked to expound upon his comments. He said the community would like to see a new metro station and associated infrastructure, but expressed concern about the proposed zoning language. Mr. Duffy responded that it is difficult to uncouple the transportation issues from the economic issues. There was extensive study of the blocks in Rosslyn. Commissioner Gutshall asked what assurance there was to the community that ground floor uses are not just

5 Page 5 merely advisory and not subject to the whims of implementation. Ms. Weigle responded the previous C-O Rosslyn zoning simply referenced the previous station area plan, and staff did not think it necessary to call out specific uses. Density and relationship to height Commissioner Siegel asked Mr. Harner to expound upon his view on the relationship between density and height. Mr. Harner responded that he believes the findings should be applied to the density as well, since density and height are almost always related. Open Space and community benefits Commissioner Gearin expressed concern about removing the 20% open space requirement that exists in CO-Rosslyn zoning. She argued that removing this tool is removing a way to gain space from developers. She noted that demand for open space far outstrips supply, and was looking for something that could replace the removal of this provision. Ms. Weigle responded that there is extensive discussion of open space in the Plan. Commissioner Siegel suggested that getting rid of the 20% per site is probably a good idea, since the Plan has a detailed discussion of the location and design of the major parks planned for Rosslyn. The real question is what tools and funding are to be used to ensure that the open spaces indicated in the plan are realized. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS A. GLUP Map Commissioner Siegel moved the Planning Commission recommends the County Board adopt the resolution attached to the staff report dated September 26, 2016 to amend the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map and Booklet. Commissioner Schroll seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 in support of the main motion as amended with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin, and McSweeney in support. B. MTP Map Commissioner Schroll moved the Planning Commission recommends the County Board adopt the attached resolution dated September 26, Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion. Commissioner Schroll moved that the Planning Commission recommend the County Board amend the main motion so that references to Pedestrian and Bicycle Priority Street be changed to Shared Street; and that references to Pedestrian Street be changed to Pedestrian Priority Street. The Planning Commission voted 9-0 in support of the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin, and The Planning Commission voted 9-0 in support of the main motion as amended with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin, and McSweeney in support.

6 Page 6 C. Zoning Ordinance Commissioner Siegel moved that the Planning Commission recommends the County Board approve the Ordinance dated September 26, 2016 to amend, reenact and recodify the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance C-O Rosslyn District. Commissioner McSweeney seconded the motion. Amendments to Zoning Language Purpose. Line 16: Commissioner Siegel moved to amend the main motion. The Planning Commission recommends the County Board add the words as stated in the Sector Plan.. before the words: The goals of this district are.. Commissioner Siegel argued that there are more goals in the Plan than those enumerated in the Purpose section. She said it should be clear that all of the Plan s goals should be referenced in the zoning language. Ms. Albert said that the preamble is clear and staff is not trying to codify the Sector Plan. Commissioner Iacomini said the purpose of the amendment is to say what is written in the document is important. Commissioner Iacomini asked for unanimous consent to include the word Rosslyn before Sector Plan. There was no objection and the amendment was added to the motion. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 9-0 in support of the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Sockwell, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin, and B. Apply findings to density Commissioner Siegel moved to amend the main motion. She moved the Planning Commission recommends that findings b-e should be also applied to density. Commissioner Gutshall seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegel asserted that height and density are almost always related. Using the findings to evaluate the effects of altered height and density will increase the transparency of the discussion and help implement the peaks and valley policy. Commissioner Gutshall pointed out there is no mention of peaks and valleys, but supports the motion because it should be tied back in the same way B. Apply findings to urban design and building form elements from Plan Line 94 and 95. Commissioner Gutshall moved to amend the main motion. He moved the Planning Commission recommends that findings a-e (lines ) should be applied to the urban design and building form elements in the Plan. Amend these lines and add the words the urban design and building heights form after the words consistent with so that the line reads: where it finds the development project is consistent with the urban design building heights and

7 Page 7 form policy of the Rosslyn Sector Plan, including but not limited to. Also, insert a new paragraph a that reads, a peaks and valleys building heights policy. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 9-0 in support of the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Sockwell, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin, and (A)(1)a Transformational Infrastructure Line 76. Commissioner Gutshall moved to amend the main motion. He moved that the word physically be removed so that line reads: Where it finds that additional density is necessary to accommodate on site Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 9-0 to support the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Sockwell, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin and The Planning Commission voted unanimously 9-0 to support the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Sockwell, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin and Lines Commissioner Gutshall moved to amend the main motion. He moved that the words platform, tunnel, entrance(s), or the like) be deleted and the words and associated infrastructure be inserted. Commissioner Schroll seconded the motion. Commissioner Gutshall said the language would allow a developer to get a lot of density for a minor contribution to Metro. It should be clear that to get the extra density, a major contribution should be required. The Planning Commission voted 8-1 to support the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Sockwell, Siegel, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, and Gearin in support and Commissioner McSweeney opposed. Other Amendments 5. Objective Criteria to support Findings Commissioner Siegel moved the Planning Commission recommends the County Board direct staff to develop a set of objective criteria that would operationalize the findings referenced in the zoning text. Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegel asserted that the framework should be reviewed by LRPC to facilitate a better more informed discussion at the time of SPRC review. Commissioner Sockwell asked for unanimous consent to strike the word operationalize and substitute implement. There was no objection and the motion was changed.

8 Page 8 The Planning Commission voted unanimously 9-0 to support the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Sockwell, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin and 6. Increase Open Space in RCRD Commissioner Gearin moved that the Planning Commission recommend the County Board direct staff to begin a conversation with the Planning Commission and the development community to study creative ways to increase public open space in the RCRD zoning district. Commissioner Schroll seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegel argued against the proposed motion. She noted the clear guidance for large parks/open spaces in the Plan and felt such direction could confuse, if not detract from the implementation of these major open spaces. The Planning Commission voted 6-3 to support the amendment with Commissioners Iacomini, Sockwell, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, and Gearin in support and Commissioners Gutshall, McSweeney, and Siegel opposed. 7. Community benefits and density (withdrawn) Commissioner Siegel moved that the Planning Commission recommend the County Board direct staff to develop a clear and consistent methodology for determining community benefits in terms of the related impact on project-level feasibility from planned buildings heights below and above 300 feet. Commissioner McSweeney seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegel noted that in general the County pays for privately-provided open space by offering developers additional density. But the cost of the tradeoff is often not clear to the public. In the case of Rosslyn, this cost could very well undermine the peaks and valleys policy, which the Plan enshrines. Commissioner Gutshall expressed support for the motion, because it asks for greater clarity, Commissioner McSweeney said she could not support the motion because it implies there isn t a consistent methodology for determining community benefits. Commissioner Iacomini indicated she would not support the motion. Commissioner Gutshall suggested that the relationship between density and community benefits could be discussed at greater length in the upcoming joint work session between the Planning Commission and the County Board. Commissioner Siegel withdrew the motion. The Planning Commission took up the main motion as amended and voted unanimously 9-0 to support the motion with Commissioners Iacomini, Gutshall, Siegel, Sockwell, Brown, Schroll, Hughes, Gearin and

9 Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission Page 9