BRIAN HARNER CHAIR

STEVEN R. COLE

VICE CHAIR

FREIDA WRAY COORDINATOR

GIZELE C. JOHNSON

CLERK November 8, 2013

Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201 SUBJECT: 3. Latitude Apartments

A. Z-2565-13-1 Rezoning from "C-2" Service Commercial- Community Business Districts to "C-O" Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and Multiple Family Districts and related update to ACZO Map 34-1 to indicate the Zoning District and extend Line A (indicating where mixed use zoning districts face residential districts) around the property boundary when necessary; 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive (RPC# 14-032-001, -002, -003, & -004).

B. SP #426 The Penrose Group for a site plan to construct up to

265 apartment dwelling units, 3,115 sq. ft. of retail, and 2,802 sq. ft. of cultural/educational uses and modifications of zoning in the "C-O" zoning district under ACZO §7.1, §7.13, and §15.6. Property is approximately 42,126 sq. ft.; located at 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive and identified as RPC # 14-032-001, -002, -003, & -004. The proposed density is 6.5 FAR. Modifications of zoning ordinance requirements include: setbacks, parking ratio, bonus density for LEED Gold, LEED EBOM, affordable dwelling units, density exclusions, and other modifications as necessary to achieve the proposed development plan. Applicable Policies: GLUP Office-Apartment-Hotel "High" and Virginia Square Sector Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Defer the proposed rezoning, Z-2565-13-1, from "C-2" Service

Commercial-Community Business Districts to "C-O" Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and Multiple Family Districts and related update to ACZO Map 34-1 to indicate the Zoning District and extend Line A (indicating where mixed use zoning districts face residential districts) around the property boundary when necessary, at 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive.

P.C. #26.A.B.

B. Defer consideration of site plan SP #426 to construct 265 apartment dwelling units, 3,115 square feet of retail, and 2,802 square feet of cultural educational uses. The County Board should initiate a review of specific land uses as called for in the Virginia Square Sector Plan, paying particular attention to changing economic conditions and changes in the markets for office and residential spaces in the Arlington and Northern Virginia markets. The County Board should reconsider the proposed site plan SP #426 at the conclusion of the above referenced review.

Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard these items at its November 6, 2013 recessed meeting. Mr. Tom Miller, CPHD Planning, provided an overview of the discussions since the Planning Commission and County Board last reviewed this proposal in July 2013. At that time an Ad-Hoc Committee of the Planning Commission was established to report on the relationships between the sector plan and the proposed site plan, and Mr. Miller described the process that followed. He explained the reasons why staff finds that the proposed site plan, while not meeting all of the indicated uses of the sector plan, is generally consistent with the Virginia Square Sector Plan guidance for the site and the GLUP. Mr. Miller outlined staff’s justification for approval of the proposed rezoning and site plan for the Latitude Apartments. The proposal includes bonus density for affordable housing and LEED Gold certification, with a commitment to 18% energy efficiency, reporting on energy usage to the County after the building is constructed for a period of 10 years, and LEED Existing Buildings Operation and Management (EBOM) after the building is constructed. Mr. Miller also presented a list of the proposed community benefits. Also present were Lisa Maher and Melanie Jesick of DES Planning, and Marc McCauley of AED. The development team for the applicant, Fifth Penrose Investing Company, LLC, was present, including Mark Gregg and Olav Kollevoll, Jr., applicant (Penrose); Nan Walsh, attorney (WCLEW); Doug Carter, architect (Davis, Carter, Scott); Bob Cochran, engineer (VIKA); Dan Dove, landscape architect (Studio 39); and Chris Kabatt, traffic engineer (Wells & Associates). Ms. Walsh provided a brief overview of the presentation made by Mr. Steve McIsaac, Arlington County Attorney, at the first meeting of the AD-Hoc Committee. He established the framework for considering site plan proposals in light of County regulatory and policy documents, noting the distinctions between these documents. He advised that if there is a departure from the policy documents, it should be considered in the context of the broader over-arching goals of the GLUP and sector plans and whether the departure supports other goals in the sector plan that would not otherwise be achieved with strict compliance. Ms. Walsh applied this framework to the proposal, and presented in detail how it meets the broader goals of the GLUP, sector plan, and the site-specific guidance provided in the sector plan, noting that it complies with 95 sector plan goals and objectives. With regard to the land use question, she explained how the land use reference to this and the funeral home sites has not been as specifically clear in the 2002 Virginia Square Sector Plan as in more recently approved sector plans, sometimes referring to the sites as commercial office and other times as office or mixed use. Ms. Walsh presented the unique legislative history of this and the funeral home sites, noting that when the first site plan was approved for the funeral home site the County Board clarified that

2

the phrase “or mixed use” opened the door for something other than office, such as residential. The funeral home site was approved twice for residential, and the last (third) approval was for office. Ms. Walsh concluded that with approval of the black box theatre on the funeral home site, it freed up the subject site to address other important goals of the sector plan. She urged the Commission to evaluate the project as advised by the County Attorney, in terms of the sector plan’s over-arching goals. Mr. Carter briefly presented some of the details of the building and site design, including the two urban plazas that are connected by a central pedestrian walkway, building façade and roof top treatments, building tapers and setbacks, streetscape design, and activation by retail, cultural and educational uses. Report of the Ad-Hoc Virginia Square Committee Charles Monfort, Chair of the Ad-Hoc Virginia Square Committee, reported the Committee met three times. The purpose of the Committee was to clarify the requirements and recommendations of County planning documents, including the Virginia Square Sector Plan, regarding the subject site and how the proposed development complies with and fails to comply with the policy guidance included in these documents. Mr. Monfort noted that at the first meeting of the Ad-Hoc Committee the County Attorney suggested that this and other projects should be evaluated in terms of how they contributed to the achievement of sector plan goals. He indicated that his goal was to achieve consensus on what the sector plan requires versus what it recommends. Among the most important sector plan goals was the construction of 1,500 new residential units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial buildings. The matrices developed by staff made it clear that the proposal meets almost all of the requirements for the site with the exception of one very important recommendation of the sector plan – land use, that calls that any building on the site be an office building. Mr. Monfort highlighted the topics that were discussed and the findings of the Committee. Because of the residential use, very little shared parking is provided during the evening; pedestrian traffic is shifted from daytime to evening; and the privacy of adjacent residential uses is impacted because of shared use patterns. With regard to impacts on Metro passenger traffic County staff determined that the project would have minimal impact, contrary to concerns raised by residents. County planning documents and the sector plan do not address or require a balance of incoming and outgoing Metro passenger traffic. In general, the committee reached a consensus that the project is in compliance with the vast majority of the sector plan recommendations, but had different views on the importance of compliance with the sector plan. Mr. Monfort concluded that the issue for the Planning Commission is whether the project’s general compliance outweighs its noncompliance with the fundamental recommendation of the sector plan. Commission for the Arts Leo Sarli, Chair of the Public Art Committee of the Arlington Commission for the Arts, reported that the Commission strongly supports the proposed development’s cultural/educational use. The applicant had suggested that the space might be used by multiple users. While the Arts Commission supports and believes there is a need for a multiple use space, it did express concern for how the space would be managed. The Commission would prefer that the space not be managed by the building owner or property manager, but rather a tenant of the space. Public Speakers

3

David Tevelin, who served on Ad-Hoc committee, stated that staff reached the wrong conclusions regarding the proposal’s compliance with the sector plan. The sector plan calls for an office building on this site and the proposal clearly violates the sector plan goals. The County is approximately two-thirds away from meeting its goal of achieving 1.5 million square feet of office development. The sector plan calls for development that will achieve active daytime population, which will not be met by the proposed residential development. Mr. Tevelin urged the Commission to stick to the sector plan and the goals and objectives established for development in Virginia Square – of only approving office buildings on the north side of Fairfax Drive. Mariah Nelson, a resident of the Monroe Condominiums, stated that when she moved to the area she envisioned a FDCI type of office development that would be quiet at night. The proposed development represents two deviations from the sector plan: it is not commercial and it is not mixed-use. It is almost entirely residential, with only one restaurant use and one cultural use. The applicant has requested an exemption to extend their balconies over 10th Street, which creates a privacy issue. Additionally, the building’s setback from North Monroe Street is too insufficient. Kerry Thomas, President of the Unit Owners Association (UOA) of the Monroe Condominiums, indicated that the UOA was represented on the Ad-Hoc Committee. He acknowledged that there are land use and parking conflicts in the sector plan. The Transportation Commission voted 6-1 to oppose the proposal. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning and site plan as well. He had previously enumerated the issues at the July hearing, including shallow setbacks, balcony encroachments, concern for nuisance retail uses, use of the plaza, etc. The Commission’s decision would affect the character of neighborhood. Ellen Dayton, a member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Square Condominiums, opposed the proposal because of the residential use. The County must stay true to the planning goals established in the sector plan. She hoped the Planning Commission would give more weight to the comments of citizens who live in the neighborhood rather than those who live outside the neighborhood. Nia Bagley, a resident of the Monroe Courts townhouses and Vice President of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, participated on the Ad-Hoc Committee. She stated that residents who live closest to the project are not in favor of the proposal because it deviates from the sector plan and the value that they place on the sector plan. The proposed residential use is out of balance with the rest of the community. She echoed the comments of Ms. Dayton and agreed that as a part of the process they heard from a lot of people who do not live in the neighborhood. On behalf of residents who live closest to the site, she hoped the Planning Commission would give their concerns more weight and consider the impacts on them. She referred to a petition opposing the proposal. Mary Rouleau, representing the Alliance for Housing Solutions, stated that she supports the project and its consistency with County housing goals. Steven Austin, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, stated that the proposal is not supported by County records. Contrary to the applicant’s presentation, the only link between this site and the funeral home site is the goal for a cultural facility, and not land use. The sector plan

4

provides a path for consideration of residential use only on the funeral home site and not the Virginia Square site. James McMullin, a resident of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association and a local business owner, commented that the proposal fulfills a number of goals of the Virginia Square Sector Plan. The County’s intent is to allow for flexibility to ensure the creation of two community uses. The proposed development provides quality architecture, a mix of cultural and retail uses, and a strong affordable housing package. There is greater flexibility in the Virginia Square Sector Plan than the Clarendon Sector Plan. He endorsed the project for its exceptional qualities. Laura Lattimer, a member of the Board of Directors of Jane Franklin Dance, stated that she welcomes the proposed cultural and educational space. It will be a welcome addition to the Virginia Square area, as it will open up new opportunities for long term planning and programming in the arts. Ken Schellenberg, an Arlington resident, supports the proposed development. He is a long time patron of WSC (formerly Washington Shakespeare Theater) and the developer has been very supportive of the WSC being a potential tenant of the cultural space. The location is ideal – it is between two vibrant restaurant districts and accessible to Metro. An arts tenant will be in keeping with the quiet nature of the community. Walter Coker, a real estate property manager, is very familiar with Arlington’s processes and its accomplishments. The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor is the number one place in the country for attracting young professionals. The proposed development will create a sense of place. This is not the last opportunity for commercial development in the area. Virginia Square has the lowest Metro ridership in the corridor. Commercial development will increase vehicular traffic. David Alperstein, an Arlington resident and previous resident of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, owns a commercial real estate investment firm. He supports the proposed development, as it promotes the goals of the sector plan and is highly responsive to current market conditions. Virginia Square cannot support additional office space and will not be able to do so for a number of years, and the recent loss of federal tenants in the area, such as the National Science Foundation, will make office marketability much more difficult. Furthermore, office development will not enhance the neighborhood context, but rather result in a less animated street experience, fewer through-block connections, and narrower building setbacks. Doug Root, a resident of Lyon Park, is a very strong advocate of the proposal. It addresses all of the sector plan goals and will be an iconic asset to the neighborhood. This is a unique time for housing development, as there is a tremendous need for urban housing. The proposed development can address these changing dynamics in population and urban fabric. Patrick McGlohn an Arlington resident who lives and works one-half mile from the project, has always felt that this local neighborhood lacked the many amenities that exist in Ballston. He supports the project, as it offers many community benefits, including – affordable housing, cultural/educational use, a public plaza, retail use, and prominent building architecture. He did not understand the citizen concerns about Metro ridership and the orange crush. This Metro station has

5

the lowest ridership in the R-B Corridor. Parking in and around the neighborhood has never been an issue. Apartment vacancies are low and office vacancies are high. The proposed development will help to activate the Virginia Square neighborhood. Loria Porcaro, a member of the Lyon Village Citizen’s Association, expressed concern about the applicants deviating from sector plans, which have been carefully crafted through and approved through a public process. Allowing such changes to the approved sector plans undermines the public process and approval. There needs to be a good balance of uses in the Virginia Square area. Peter Shkreli, an Arlington resident, stated that the project continues to maintain the overarching goals of the sector plan. It provides ground floor retail, an urban plaza, and through-block connectivity. The proposed 70 foot setback from the Monroe Condominiums is appropriate. The majority of features in the site plan would not be accomplished with office development, including the LEED elements and affordable housing. He supports the project. Katie Zimmerman, a resident of the neighborhood and the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, supports the project. The development blends good urban design and project amenities through provision of residential and maintaining the community atmosphere of Virginia Square. It provides a significant 70 foot setback from the Monroe Condominiums and a generous plaza. An office development would not be able to provide these concessions. She is not concerned about daily ridership on Metro because the Virginia Square station is the least frequented in the R-B corridor and will be able to accommodate new riders from this and other new projects. In addition, there is always sufficient on-street parking available. Kevin Riordan, a resident of Arlington, supports the project. Although there has been a lot of back and forth on the land use issue, this project meets most of the goals of the sector plan. The project design and building architecture are extraordinary. This neighborhood has always lacked a sense of identity and the Latitude project will help to create that. Metro ridership will not be an issue. The project will provide much needed on-site affordable housing. He urged the Commission to keep in mind the main sector plan goals. Natalie Marano, an Arlington resident, stated that the project would provide quality architecture, good urban design, and much-needed cultural and educational uses. She is an art teacher, so she appreciates the need for cultural amenities. She urged the Planning Commission to endorse the project. Anthony Liberto, an Arlington resident, stated that the project would provide quality development and beautiful architecture. It will help to create a community atmosphere and foster a sense of place. It will improve the lives of the residents of Virginia Square and the County as a whole. The Planning Commission should not get hung up on one element of the sector plan. Philip Posner, a member of the Virginia Square Condominiums Board and participant on the Ad-Hoc Committee, stated that they were told at the Ad-Hoc Committee meeting that in order to support a change in the sector plan there must be a compelling reason to do so. In his opinion, compelling means “better than”. The Planning Commission needs to consider the potential impacts on public safety. There are significant transportation impacts, such as the “orange crush” issue with Metro ridership. It is not a question of the number of people accessing the train, but the number of people standing on the platforms waiting to access cars that are not filled to capacity. Furthermore, it is difficult to cross Fairfax Drive and a second Metro entrance is needed.

6

Carol Van Hartesveldt, a resident of the Virginia Square Condominiums, stated that the Planning Commission heard from a lot of people who do not live in Virginia Square that are enthusiastic about the project and from people who live in Virginia Square that are not enthusiastic about the project. She is in favor of maintaining the goals of the sector plan, which simply lays out the locations along Fairfax Drive for office and residential development. If this exception to the sector plan is allowed, she asked what would be the basis for future changes to sector plans. Sector plans are living documents and any exceptions would make them dead. Clifford Chieffo, a member of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association, remains neutral on the project. He stated that he worked on the Virginia Square Sector Plan 13 years ago, and the provision of residential, educational and arts center were important goals. Some level of flexibility must be maintained in order to for the plan to have relevance for 25 years. Choosing office over residential is an incorrect and narrow reading of the sector plan. The applicant will provide a unique and signature building, and the project will meet the vision of the sector plan. He strongly supports the project, which has paid particular attention to provision of a cultural amenity, affordable housing, Metro connectivity, and many other features. The project will complete the sector plan vision and provide a much -needed nexus for the station area. Carrie Johnson, a resident of Ashton Heights, was very much involved in drafting the 2002 Virginia Square Sector Plan. She respectfully disagreed with the comments made by Mr. Chieffo. Although the sector plan had elements of flexibility, there were two goals that were very clear: 1) A proportion was set between residential and office uses. The proposed development goes in the wrong direction of those numerical goals. 2) Now that the black box theater has been approved, although not yet constructed, it does not free up the subject site but rather puts more emphasis on other goals, such as cultural development which has not occurred as envisioned. Ms. Johnson suggested that if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the project, it must be clear as to why this project is different, and what should happen to the rest of the north side of Fairfax Drive and properties on the east end. She also suggested the option of revisiting the sector plan to consider the office and cultural elements, in recognition that the demographics have changed and/or office may no longer be desirable, and recommending an indefinite deferral of the proposal. If the sector plan is revised then the site plan could be approved as a reflection of the revised goals. She cautioned the Commission from moving away from stated goals as it is hard to justify continuing to do so. Planning Commission Reports SPRC Commissioner Ciotti reported that after numerous SPRC and Ad-Hoc Committee meetings, we are back to the same issues. She asked if the fact that the sector plan shows an office building on the site precludes consideration of a residential building. Another issue is parking, as the project proposes an exception to the standard residential parking ratio, from 1 space/unit to .9 space/unit. With regard to the cultural space, there are questions about how it will be managed, who will oversee the space, who will select the tenant, etc. There are questions about programming the plaza. In addition, issues were raised about the increased morning “orange crush” on Metro. The overriding issue is whether a project that fits within the zoning can be approved when the sector plan’s guidance on land use is different. Transportation Commission Commissioner Forinash reported that the Transportation Commission heard this proposal at its meeting on October 30, 2013. The Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the County Board deny the

7

proposal, for reasons of lack of shared parking, inconsistency with the sector plan; it exacerbates the imbalance in Metro ridership, and lack of an additional Metro entrance on Fairfax Drive. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Harner asked that the Commission focus on follow-up questions pursuant to the discussion outline in the SPRC report. Additional topics identified by Commissioners included the proposed height exception, management of the cultural space, sidewalk standards, and unit mix. Sector Plan Conformance Commissioner Sockwell indicated that there was citizen testimony that the site stands out as one of the last few remaining sites on the north side of Fairfax Drive that could be approved as commercial. Mr. Miller responded that the sites, westward to North Quincy Street, are presently approved for office, including the funeral home site (3901 North Quincy Street), the Georgetown Medical Office site, and the former DARPA building, which has not been confirmed as leased. Commissioner Cole, in clarifying the intent of Commissioner Sockwell’s questioning sought to get at the potential for achieving the desired level of office, he followed asking if there are residential sites that could be converted to office. Mr. Miller responded that there is very little opportunity for residential to office conversions. There is only one residential-planned site that would be available for office conversion; this is the located on the east end north of 9th Street in the block between North Kansas and Kenmore Streets. Commissioner Ciotti asked Mr. McCauley to summarize the analysis of the office market in Virginia Square. Mr. McCauley explained that when he spoke to the Ad-Hoc Committee he made it clear that AED shares the concerns of the Commission that sector plans should not address short-term economic or market conditions. AED’s analysis did not address the office vacancy rate today or office demand in the next two to three years. AED was asked by CPHD to give their opinion on whether the subject site is a critical office site. AED has been very protective of the County’s office sites, especially in areas where they are maturing. There are some differences with the subject site: 1) with the approval of office on the funeral home site, there was a natural clustering of office buildings around that site in Virginia Square which allowed a connection to the adjacent office cluster in Ballston. 2) the subject site, while not precluding office development, was not determined to be critical to the development of the Virginia Square office cluster given the long term nature of office clusters in that area. Office clusters tend to cluster in areas where there are significant amounts of office square footage, and being located between a very mature office cluster in Ballston and a relatively mature office cluster in Clarendon, Virginia Square is an area that falls somewhat in between and from an economic development perspective is more favorable toward institutional uses. Commissioner Gutshall asked the applicant to provide a count of the number of units by number of bedrooms. Ms. Walsh responded that of the total number of market rate units (251), 78 percent are efficiencies (68) and one-bedroom (129) units and 22 percent are two-bedroom units (54). There are 14 affordable units, with 11 two-bedroom units (78%) and three one-bedroom units (22%). Commissioner Siegel inquired about whether the size of the site affects its ability to accommodate an institutional or small office use. Mr. McCauley responded that that site is not too small to accommodate office or institutional use. Office buildings take on a certain type of character to be efficient. They are boxy and have certain requirements that would make it difficult to achieve other site plan goals such as

8

connectivity through the site. There is a wide range of building typologies and there is a limit to how small an office floor plate can be due to efficiencies and core uses. A typical corporate office building requires 20,000-24,000 square foot floor plates; larger buildings for headquarters, for example, require 30,000-35,000 square feet; smaller buildings for associations, for example, require approximately 19,000 square feet. Market efficiencies tend to drive the building size and private property owners tend to want to create as much efficiency as possible to keep the leases marketable. Parking Exception Commissioner Forinash asked staff to describe the shared parking opportunities in the building and if the residential parking unbundled from the apartment rent. Ms. Jesick responded that Condition #51 requires that a minimum of 23 tenant parking spaces in the garage be made available to the public. Condition #51 also requires that renters or purchasers of residential units not be required to also rent or purchase parking spaces. For a rental project, the residential management would manage the parking spaces; and for a condominium project, the condominium association or other entity would manage un-sold parking spaces. Management of the Cultural Arts Space Commissioner Ciotti stated that there have been additional developments regarding the use of the cultural/educational space, in response to further discussions with the applicant and community. Condition #80 outlines certain parameters for use of the space. The County Manager will determine the appropriateness of potential uses based on the criteria outlined in the condition. Commissioner Malis asked for clarification regarding the financial parameters for the cultural/educational uses. Mr. McCauley responded that the space would be available rent-free, but it would not include operational costs associated with the space, which would be the responsibility of the tenant. This is not included in the condition language and Commissioner Malis asked why since it is a part of the community benefits. Mr. McCauley responded that conditioning the economics of the space is more challenging because the County does not have an active role in that aspect of the use, unlike the Artisphere for example. There is a wide range of possibilities that could occur and no commitments can be made at this time. The community benefit is that the space will be dedicated for cultural/educational use (whether or not it is rent free) and cannot be used for retail or any other use. There are many cultural and educational uses that will have the ability to pay market rent. While the use is conditioned, the economics is up to the landlord and the market. This is different from other situations whereby the County was a beneficiary – it produced certain constraints and by definition limited the market. Commissioner Malis followed asking if there was language in the condition limiting the timing on leasing the space. Mr. McCauley responded no, because of the issues that could occur. The County is relying on the developer acting in good faith and that it is in everyone’s best interest that the space becomes active and vibrant. The landlord will want the space occupied. Ms. Walsh added that the difficulty is that the applicant is not requesting bonus density in order to provide the space free of charge. The applicant has publicly committed to provide the space free of charge, and if the Commission wishes to require it by condition, then the applicant will agree. Commissioner Kumm referred to Condition #80c), where it states “If at any point the designated Cultual/Educational Use space is vacant for twelve (12) consecutive months, the Developer can request in writing that the County Board consider granting such relief from use limitations through a site plan amendment.” She asked if there should be additional language in the condition to identify the types of uses that would replace the cultural use to guarantee that they will activate the space. Mr. McCauley

9

responded that the reality is that the applicant can always come in and request a site plan amendment to revise any condition of the site plan approval. He does not believe more guidance is required in the condition, as the language requires County Board review and approval to relieve them of the required use. Commissioner Harner asked if the condition language requires the applicant to consult with the County Manager on a specific use and the County Manager would work with the applicant, or does it require that the County Manager identify a list of appropriate uses. Mr. McCauley responded that the intent of the language is that the County Manager would provide final approval of the tenant for the cultural/educational space as meeting the requirements and criteria of the condition. The County Manger would not be providing a list of potential tenants or uses. It will be in the best interest of the applicant to work with the County to ensure the tenant meets the criteria. Commissioner Forinash stated that in office buildings public meeting spaces have been required to be made available after-hours free of charge at certain times of the year, and asked if the proposed scenario is similar. Mr. McCauley responded that it is slightly different. With meeting spaces in office buildings, the requirement has been to mandate a certain amount of public access to private office uses. The proposed cultural/educational space would be publicly available space at all times. The County will work with the applicant to facilitate its availability rent-free. Commissioner Harner stated that there was citizen testimony regarding shared use of the space between different users and asked if this will require more management or if the County has considered providing support in this area. Mr. McCauley responded that it would require more management. Typically, there is a single entity managing the use of space with multiple tenants or managing the schedule for multiple use of the facility. It is similar to the County’s role in managing the Artisphere. The County will work with applicant, the arts community, and the Arts Commission to ensure that it works well. Programming the Plaza Commissioner Sockwell stated that there is no condition language addressing programming the plaza. Mr. Miller and Ms. Walsh responded that Condition #71, paragraphs “ l” and “m”, identify the types of uses that will be allowed in the plaza access easement area (paragraph “l”) and requires that the developer be responsible for programming and managing the public uses in the plaza access easement area (paragraph “m”). Commissioner Sockwell followed stating that there is nothing in the condition language allowing staff and the community a role in the programming of the space. Mr. Miller pointed to paragraph “m”, which states “The developer is encouraged to work with AED staff and the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association to obtain feedback regarding local public arts events/programs that are needed/desired in the community.” In response to Commissioner Sockwell’s question about use of the term ”encouraged”, Ms. Walsh agreed to change the language to “will work with AED staff…” Height Exception Commissioner Cole asked if the 128 feet building height is due to the first floor of 18 feet and whether this first floor height is required by the Sector Plan. Mr. Miller responded no, that the maximum permitted building height in the “C-O” district is 180 feet (versus 125 feet in the Virginia Square Sector Plan). He added that the three feet of additional height beyond the sector plan is needed to accommodate the above-grade passageway. Ms. Walsh noted that the Sector Plan does require a first floor height of 18 feet, which makes an overall height of 128 feet the result.

10

Sidewalk Standards Commissioner Harner stated that he was unclear on how the public sidewalk standards were integrated into the proposed swoop design, which seems to penetrate the public realm and depart from County standards. Mr. Miller responded that the proposed streetscape sections are consistent with the R-B Corridor Streetscape Standards, the Virginia Square Sector Plan Site-Specific Guidelines (2002), and the County’s Master Transportation Plan: Street Elements. Mr. Miller also referred to Condition #21 which specifies the sidewalk and streetscape requirements. Commissioner Forinash asked for clarification about the proposed above-grade balcony encroachments. Mr. Carter described the two locations on 10th Street North where the balconies and a canopy overhang and will encroach on the right-of-way easement. The balconies are located on the 3rd through 10th floors, and the canopy is located 12 feet above the easement. The affected area is left-over street easement. A separate request to permit an ordinance for the proposed encroachments will be heard separately by the County Board in association with the proposed rezoning and site plan. Planning Commission Motions

Commissioner Ciotti moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board adopt the resolution to approve the rezoning Z-2656-13-1 from "C-2" to "C-O" and the related update to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance Map 34-1 to indicate the Zoning District and extend Line A around the property boundary where necessary. Commissioner Sockwell seconded the motion. Commissioner Iacomini stated she does not intend to support the motion. She thanked everyone that came out from the cultural community who expressed excitement about use of the facility. Throughout the course of its consideration, this proposal has been linked to the funeral home site building. While there may be comfort in that a black box theater has been approved, it has not yet been constructed, and therefore does not yet exist. The applicant’s attorney noted the County Attorney’s comments at the first Ad-Hoc Committee meeting. Commissioner Iacomini noted Mr. MacIsaac’s comments were interesting, and the comments emphasized that we focus on the sector plan goals. The goals can be considered if you want to entertain residential development on this site, but the goals do not compel or require us to approve residential on this site. The County Attorney’s remarks set up the consideration but not the outcome. Commissioner Iacomini noted Mr. McCauley talked about the current economic conditions and the seeming over abundance of the vacant office space in large buildings in the R/B corridor. The current market issues should not deter us from accomplishing accepted long- term goals. She admired the applicant’s “stick-to-itiveness”, but believes in the best interests of the corridor this site should remain one for an office building. Commissioner Iacomini noted that while there is not an office cluster in Virginia Square of large office buildings, there is already the start of a smaller office building cluster and a small office building at this site would fit right into this cluster. Commissioner Iacomini stated that she does not want to forego this possibility because of current desires. There are users she felt would like to have a smaller office building – perhaps not at this moment, but at some point. Commissioner Sockwell stated that he will not support the motion. He struggled with this because there are things that he likes about the project, such as the architecture, the outreach to the community and the basket of community benefits. However he agreed with Commissioner Iacomini

11

that that there is an approved sector plan which should not be changed just because of current market conditions. Sector plans should be viewed as long term. The County Board established an ad-hoc process, but public views continue to be split. He believes the community is correct, that the proposed deviation from the sector plan is a fundamental issue. Commissioner Kumm stated that she had been on the fence about this for many months. She believes that the project is excellent and would like to approve it but the sector plan calls for office. She referred to the Ad-Hoc Committee’s findings that although the project supports many of the plan’s objectives, it does not comply with the plan’s land use recommendations. As residents in the area have said, if we do not respect the plan then it becomes a dead document. She referred to Ms. Johnson’s public testimony when she stated that a way out of this may be to undertake a minor sector plan amendment for the Virginia Square area and re-evaluate it’s land use recommendations in terms of it’s changing demographics and appropriateness of office versus residential. Commissioner Kumm added that land use is a fundamental element of planning and should not be disregarded in consideration of other plan objectives. She stated, unfortunately she cannot support the project. She believes the best way to move forward is to defer the proposal and ask the County Board to consider a revision or update to the sector plan. Commissioner Malis stated that she has been giving a lot of thought to trying to understand how we got to where we tonight. It is a very nice project; however, the mood of this meeting is that something went wrong and it is unclear where the failure is. Was it that that the sector plan was not written clearly enough? The applicant acted based on support, if not encouragement from staff, to submit this proposal and staff believes it is sufficiently consistent with the sector plan. On the other hand the community and the Planning Commission have come to believe that the project is significantly inconsistent with the sector plan. There is a basic lack of clarity and agreement on the issue of whether or not this proposal represents a significant departure. She noted that the lack of a stated, compelling reason to depart from the sector plan influenced the discussion in SPRC and she wonders whether the unstated reason is that there has been a change in market conditions which support such departure. If this is a factor as why staff is moving in a different direction it should be stated and the balance of the sites in the Virginia Square sector plan needs to be examined. Commissioner Malis indicated that she is in a similar place as Commissioner Kumm, that while she does not want to deny the project because it is a good project, there is some underlying notion that the sector plan needs to be examined. This should be addressed before the project is approved. Commissioner Ciotti stated that she respectfully disagrees with some of her fellow Commissioners because she supports the project. She had previously been involved in the review of the funeral home site which had two separate approvals for residential, and the last (third) approval was for office. We did not go through this on that site. Per the sector plan the applicant was required, and has agreed, to provide a connection to the park, affordable housing, a diversity of tenants, family-size two-bedroom units, a public plaza, and cultural space which will be conditioned to be rent-free. These are extraordinary community benefits. If it were office, we would not have achieved the plaza or connection to Quincy Park. The proposal meets the vision and goals of the sector plan. There is precedent, when there was compelling reason at the time to approve the funeral home site as residential when the sector plan called for office on that site. As an aside, if office development on this site is required, it could result in a secure building where there will be no shared parking or

12

connections through the site. The proposed development meets the spirit and goals of the sector plan in very significant way. Commissioner Gutshall stated that he does not support the proposal, although it is a very attractive project. The County should stick with the commercial use planned for the site. He finds no overwhelming compelling reason to depart from the sector plan. A number of community benefits are becoming de-facto elements of the majority of site plan buildings, including LEED and affordable housing contributions. He cannot support a project that does not sufficiently address housing for families, with 78% of its units as one-bedroom and efficiencies. There should be affordable housing for all income levels. Commissioner Harner stated that he appreciated the comments of his fellow Commissioners, especially those of Commissioner Malis when she asked how we got to the place in the process. However, he supports the motion. He noted that we are not living in a perfect world in which we were able to predict 10-15 years ago future market conditions and we should not trivialize the County’s efforts to respond to the market. He asked why an office building is more compelling and, as a use, vastly more superior than the proposed residential development. He has seen an amazing transformation on Columbia Pike with new residential development and he is not convinced that office use is the key ingredient that makes for a vibrant community. There are so many other things that also influence vibrancy. Although there is peril in repeatedly violating sector plans, we are not living in a perfect world. He would have a hard time opposing a project that has a number of compelling elements. He has seen a number of dying communities in his travels across the country. We have had a paradigm shift in our community and sometimes we struggle with that shift. Given these factors, he will support the project. Commissioner Cole stated that what has struck by the fact that this site plan was under public review for over a year, which is extraordinary. The issue to him is not whether the proposed development is for an office or residential building. One of the obligations of Planning Commissioners is to be respectful of the County’s process. In Arlington, we have developed a General Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance that, in our commercial corridors, leave land use decisions to property owners. The only way the community can shape the place we live in in the context of sector plans. The core question is whether we respect our sector plan or do we ignore them. He agreed with many of his colleagues that the proposed development is very good, but for him to support it at this time would require unique and compelling reasons in the face of a different land use called for by the sector plan. He believes it is important that if we are going to approve this proposal we establish a justification that would not result in a precedent that could increase the number of site plans that seek to be approved for a land use that is inconsistent with the relevant sector plan. Commissioner Cole concurred with Commission Kumm that land use is the fundamental issue and at base of everything that the Planning Commission does. He cannot support the proposal because he has not heard the adequate justification for why it should be approved given the sector plan and uncertainty with respect to the effect on our whole system of planning. The Planning Commission voted 4-6 to oppose the motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Harner, Forinash, and Siegel supported the motion. Commissioners Cole, Gutshall, Iacomini, Malis, Kumm, and Sockwell opposed motion.

13

Commissioner Cole moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board defer consideration of the proposed rezoning, Z-2565-13-1, from "C-2" to "C-O", at 3601 and 3625 Fairfax Drive. He further moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board defer consideration of site plan SP #426 to construct 265 apartment dwelling units, 3,115 square feet of retail, and 2,802 square feet of cultural educational uses. He further moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board initiate a review of specific land uses as called for in the Virginia Square Sector Plan, paying particular attention to changing economic conditions and changes in the markets for office and residential space in Arlington and Northern Virginia. Finally, he further moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Board reconsider the proposed site plan SP #426 at the conclusion of the above referenced review. Commissioner Malis seconded the motion. Commissioner Cole explained that his motion is an attempt to address the steps needed for a change in the application of a sector plan on a particular site. Site plan applications should not be the vehicle for changing sector plans and County policy. It is his hope that the study will provide the needed guidance as to whether or not this kind of proposal should be approved for the site. He believes the study should be conducted very quickly, in a few months, so that if the applicant desires to come back and if the study determines that that the proposed use is right for the site, then the proposal can be approved rather than denied. Commissioner Cole stated that he is not opposing the development, but rather opposing the extraordinary request to make an exception to the sector plan. Commissioner Siegel stated that she will support the motion. She had to conclude that the Commission’s role is as guardians of Arlington County planning. This is a compelling project that responded to the goals for cultural uses and elements that will enliven the pedestrian and community experience. With PenPlace there was an office development with citizens urging for more residential; with this proposal there is residential development, with citizens urging for office. Further review is needed. The Planning Commission voted 8-2 to approve the substitute motion. Commissioners Cole, Forinash, Gutshall, Iacomini, Malis, Kumm, Siegel, and Sockwell supported the motion. Commissioners Ciotti and Harner opposed the motion. Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission

Brian Harner Planning Commission Chair

14

SPRC Report on Latitude Apartments 3601 and 3625 N Fairfax Drive

SPRC chair Rosemary Ciotti

Background

November 6. 2013

This site is located within the Virginia Square Sector Plan and the Ballston VA Square Civic Association.

The Sector Plan refers to this site as the Virginia Sq Site.

The Sector Plan map has the site designated as Office

The site is currently zoned C-2 Service Commercial and the recommendation is to rezone the site to C-0 Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and Multiple Family Residential that would allow the site to be redeveloped Up to 4.8 FAR residential/3.8 office

Public Meeting Chronology:

There have been 6 SPRC meetings as well as 2 civic association meetings and one Monroe Condominium HOA meeting attended by Mr. Duffy and myself. At the July 2013 PC meeting this site plan was recommended for deferral and was guided through a Planning Commission ad hoc process lead by then Commissioner Charles Monfort.

Discussion Outline: The single issue that has been identified is the inconsistency of the site plan with the Sector Plan. The sector plan labels this site for Commercial Use

Additionally, the developer is requesting a site plan exception to reduce parking from 1:1 to 0.9. The residence in the blocks to the North are concerned that there will be spill over into their block. Are there other tools that could be offered to assist in curtailing parking by visitors who are not guests of those residents?

The Cultural Arts Space that will be built is without a clear vision on what activity should occupy the space. How will this space be used and who will determine the use of the cultural/educational space now and in the future.? Should a recommendation be made to establish a VA SQ arts and cultural advisory group?

Programming of the Plaza: How to have assurance that this will not be another lifeless plaza? Should there be site plan conditions that ask the developer to work with the Ballston-Va Sq Civic Association to establish on going ways to keep this space a valued and interesting place that enhances the pedestrian experience.

Residents in the area continue to be concerned about over crowding of the VA SQ METRO. How is this considered in light of it having the lowest over all ridership in the R-8 corridor? How should we evaluate this when the stated MTP goal is to increase ridership? Is this the proper time to begin to anticipate a rider split of future residents in VA SQ when the Silver Line opens in the Spring of 2014.

Shared parking is in the goals of the VA SQ Sector Plan. Is the shared parking sufficient? How do we evaluate that?

Ad Hoc Virginia Square Committee Report Charles Monfort, Chair

November 2013

The Ad Hoc Committee on Virginia Square held three meetings on the Virginia Square Sector Plan and the proposed Latitudes residential building. The purpose of the meetings was to clarify precisely what is required and what is recommended by County planning documents relevant to the site, and where the proposed projects complies and fails to comply.

It was suggested to the Committee that this and other projects should be evaluated in terms of how they contributed to the achievement of sector plan goals. Among the most important sector plan goals was the construction of 1500 new resident units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial buildings. Without this building, the sector has already seen the construction or approval of approximately 1350 new residential units and 1.0 million square feet of new commercial buildings. Thus the County is much closer to achieving its residential goals in Virginia Square than its commercial goals; the proposed project would allow the County to exceed its residential goals but would do nothing for the commercial goal.

As part of this process, the Committee asked staff to develop matrices that outlined where the proposal met County planning requirements and recommendations, where it fell short, and where the issue was unclear. These matrices, which are attached, make it clear that the proposal meets almost all of these requirements, but fails to meet one very important recommendi;ltion of the sector plan: that any building on this site be an office building.

Committee discussion made it clear that this is not an academic issue, as the characteristics of an office building are very different from a residential building, and affect achievement of sector plan goals in several important ways.

In one instance, the availability of shared parking- one of the sector plan's goals- is greatly affected by substitution of a residential building for an office structure. An office building, as recommended by the sector plan, would need parking during daytime business hours, but mostly would be empty at night, making surplus parking available for residents. The proposed residential building, on the other hand, would reverse those patterns, making very little parking available at night for the community.

In terms of pedestrian impact, an office building would increase daytime pedestrian traffic, thus increasing the potential client base for local restaurants and other businesses, increasing pedestrian traffic in general and providing more "eyes on the street" during the day, while a residential building would provide little new business for local firms, and would have no impact on daytime pedestrian traffic, instead shifting that to the night.

In terms of impact on adjacent buildings, the sector plan's recommended office building would be used during the day, having little impact on neighboring residential buildings at

night. A residential building would share use patterns with other residential structures, and could impact the privacy of current residents.

The Committee also discussed the impact of the proposed building on the Metro, both in terms of overall impact and in terms of a balance of incoming and outgoing passenger traffic. County staff has determined the project would have minimal impact on Metro, although nearby residents disagree with this conclusion. Although some Committee members felt the passenger balance issue was relevant, there is nothing in the sector plan or in other County planning documents about balancing incoming and outgoing passengers here or at any other Metro station.

I believe the Committee reached a general understanding about how the proposed building complied or failed to comply with County planning requirements and recommendations. Committee members had different views on the importance of those areas where the project is not in compliance, and had different views on the importance of compliance with the sector plan.

In short, for this project, as for many others considered by the Planning Commission, does not meet all County planning requirements or recommendations. The issue for the Planning Commission is whether this project's general compliance outweighed its noncompliance with what appears to be a fundamental recommendation of the sector plan.

From: Kerry Thomas [mailto:kthomas@absconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:33 AM To: bharner@mac.com Cc: CountyManager; Bob Duffy; Cole.arl@qmail.com; Rosemary.Ciotti@qmail.com: ofallon591@aol.com; Christopher Forinash; erik@gutshall.net; Srklein@verizon.net; IAMalis@cs.com: cmonfort@comcast.net; kkumm@comcast.net: siegelplanninq@icloud.com; sock3@verizon.net: Gizele Johnson; Arlova Vonhm; Freida Wray; cbren73930@aol.com: Colleen Brennan (colleen.brennan@dot.gov); Peter Schnall (peter.schnall@qmail.com); Dee Peterson (dee@dweckproperties.com); Steve Austin (austinsa@verizon.net) Subject: Monroe Condominium Letter Concerning Proposed Latitude Apartments Importance: High

Dear Chairman Harner,

As the elected Board of Directors for the Unit Owners Association of the Monroe Condominium at Virginia Square Metro, we are writing you today on behalf of our residents to thank you for the recent opportunity to participate in the Planning Commission's Ad-Hoc Committee established to review the Fifth Penrose Investing Company's site plan application for 3601-3625 Fairfax Drive- the Latitude Apartments.

We were pleased that many members of the Ad-Hoc Committee agreed with us that the Latitude Apartments proposal conflicts directly with the land use specified in the Virginia Square Sector Plan for this site. We were also pleased that Ad-Hoc Committee members raised the question of whether the Latitude proposal would better advance the goals of the Sector Plan than following the land use specified for this site would.

As you know, the Virginia Square Sector Plan calls for 1,500 new dwelling units, 1.5 million square feet of new commercial office space, and new street level-facing retail. According to the County staff's presentation to the Ad-Hoc Committee, approval of the Latitude site plan application would result in the Sector Plan's goal for new residential units being exceeded by 115 units. At the same time, new commercial office space would remain 500,000 square feet- or a full third- short of the Sector Plan goal, with one of the last and most attract ve sites for an office building no longer available. Clearly, t e Latitude proposal fails the test of better a vancing the Sector Plan.

In our view, the land use issue is pivotal- specially if the desired balance between residential and commercial space is to be achieved in Vir inia Square. Current statistics also suggest there is a glut of both new, unrented apartments, as well a office space in the region, making it difficult to predict wha is truly needed for the long term. Beyond the land use conflict, however, the County staff's analysis also found that the currently proposed height and parking design of the Latitude Apartments conflict with the Virginia Square Sector Plan.

The County's Transportation Commission considered these same facts at its meeting on October 30, 2013. In voting 6-1 to reject the Latitude site plan application, the Transportation Commission adopted a motion that expressly concluded that:

• The sector plan calls for an office building;

• Building a residential structure would be inconsis.tent with the County's desired mix of residential and commercial buildings by adding to the glut of residential buildings while the number of commercial buildings remains low;

• The building would add to the "Orange Crush" on the Metro;

• Virginia Square needs to be "activated" during the day time by retail establishments that would serve office workers in the area;

• The proposed plaza on the site would be more likely to be activated by commercial workers during the day; and

• The Latitude's plan does not include a Metro entrance on the north side of Fairfax, which would benefit the community and disabled members of the community in particular.

In light of these issues, and coupled with the fact that any decision today will affect the character of the neighborhood for the life of the building built there, we urge the Planning Commission to either reject the Fifth Penrose Investing Company's site plan application or defer a decision until such time as a more compelling rationale exists for deviating from the intended land use in the Sector Plan. We also ask that you include the attached, signed letter as part of the official record of the upcoming hearing on November 6, 2013.

Respectfully,

/s/ Kerry L. Thomas, President /s/ Colleen Brennan, Vice President /s/ Peter Schnall, Treasurer /s/ Dee Petersen, Secretary /s/ Steve Austin, Director

Board of Direct rs The Monroe Co dominium at Virginia Square Metro 3625 10th ST N

Arlington, VA 22 01

October 31, 2013

Mr. Brian Harner Chair Arlington County Planning Commission #1 Courthouse Plaza 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington County, VA 22201

Dear Chairman Harner:

THE MONROE atVirginia SqunreMetro

As the elected Board of Directors for the Unit Owners Association of the Monroe Condominium at Virginia Square Metro, we are writing you today on behalf of our residents to thank you for the recent opportunity to participate in the Planning Commission's Ad-Hoc Committee established to review the Fifth Penrose Investing Company's site plan application for 3601-3625 Fairfax Drive- the latitude Apartments.

We were pleased that many members of the Ad-Hoc Committee agreed with us that the latitude Apartments proposal conflicts directly with the land use specified in the Virginia Square Sector Plan for this site. We were also pleased that Ad-Hoc Committee members raised the question of whether the latitude proposal would better advance the goals of the Sector Plan than following the land use specified for this site would.

As you know, the Virginia Square Sector Plan calls for 1,500 new dwelling units, 1.5 million square feet of new commercial office space, and new street level-facing retail. According to the County staff's presentation to the Ad-Hoc Committee, approval of the latitude site plan applica

1ion woul'd result in the Sector Plan's goal for new resid,ntial uni s being exceeded by

115 uni s. At th same time, new commercial office space wo~ld remai 500,000 square feet­or a full third-s ort of the Sector Plan goal, with one of the Ia t and m st attractive sites for an office b ilding n longer available. Clearly, the latitude propo al fails t e test of better advanci g the S ctor Plan.

In our view, the land use issue is pivotal- especially if the desired balance between residential and commercial space is to be achieved in Virginia Square. Current statistics also suggest there is a glut of both new, unrented apartments, as well as office space in the region, making it difficult to predict what is truly needed for the long term. Beyond the land use conflict, however, the County staff's analysis also found that the currently proposed height and parking design of the latitude Apartments conflict with the Virginia Square Sector Plan.

The County's Transportation Commission considered these same facts at its meeting on October 30, 2013. In voting 6-1 to reject the Latitude site plan application, the Transportation Commission adopted a motion that expressly concluded that:

THE MONROE atVirginia SquareMetfo

o The sector plan calls for an office building;

o Building a residential structure would be inconsistent with the County's desired mix of residential and commercial buildings by adding to the glut of residential buildings while the number of commercial buildings remains low;

The building would add to the "Orange Crush" on the Metro;

o Virginia Square needs to be "activated" during the day time by retail establishments that would serve office workers in the area;

o The proposed plaza on the site would be more likely to be activated by commercial workers during the day; and

o The Latitude's plan does not include a Metro entrance on the north side of Fairfax, which would benefit the community and disabled members of the community in particular.

In light of these issues, and coupled with the fact that any decision today will affect the character of the neighborhood for the life of the building built there, we urge the Planning Commission to either reject the Fifth Penrose Investing Company's site plan application or defer a decision until such time as a more compelling rationale exists for deviating from the intended land use in the Sector Plan.

Respectfully,

~c~ Colleen Brennan

Treasurer

Steve Austin Director

cc: Members of the Arlington County Planning Commission Arlington County Planning Commission Staff

z::r;~ Dee Peterson

Secretary

Ms. Barbara Donnellan, County Manager, Arlington County Mr. Robert Duffy, Director, Arlington County Planning Division

From: Leonardo Sarli <lsarli@ me.com> Subject: Re: Latitude notes Date: November 6, 2013 10:40:31 AM EST To: Brian Harner <bharner@mac.com>, Avonhm@arlingtonva.us Cc: Wanda Baez <wanda@yus-baez.com>, Robert Galer <robert goler@ hotmail.com>, Janet Kopenhaver <janetk@ eyeonwashington .com>

Dear Chairman Harner

Bellow is a summary of the discussion we're had at the Arts Commission regarding the Latitude Project. The Arlington Arts Commission supports the general direction of the cultural benefit.

1. Arts Commission supports the cultural element of this project 2. Welcomes the rehearsal space, which is in high demand within Arlington County 3. The Commission encourages staff to provide guidance as needed for the user(s) to make sure the benefit is being used according to policy 4. The Commission is willing to help the developer by sending an RFQ to all supported arts group to solicit interest in managing the site 5. The Commission has major concerns about management of the space. We would strongly urge Arlington County staff to provide guidance as needed for managing the space or if feasible as part of the benefit that the developer/owner provide funds for an arts mgt position and/or service if a single user is not identified 6. In lieu of these management concerns the Commission also is willing to have a single user take over the space. We prefer the user be a group that works closely with the community such as the weavers currently located in Ballston mall

Please feel free to distribute this summary to the other commissioner. Let me know if you need any other information and I will be at tonight's PC meeting and can speak to these points or answer any questions.

Thanks, Leo

November 6, 2013

Loria Porcaro, President Lyon Village Citizens' Association

Planning Commission Arlington County

Re: Latitude Apartments

Dear Planning Commission:

Members of the Planning Commission, I am Loria Pocario, President of Lyon Village Citizens' Association, the civic association directly to the east of the Ballston-Virginia Square Civic Association (BVCA). I am writing in support of the concerns being raised by BVCA about development of the site as primarily residential, when the Virginia Square Sector Plan calls for the site to be a commercial office building. I note in particular page 14 of the Virginia Square Plan, which states that the building type on this site is to be "commercial office buildings." It also calls for a mix of office and cultural uses, and for shared parking in off-peak hours to serve community facilities and the general community. A residential building is not an office building, and a residential building does not generally provide opportunity for shared parking. I also note that staff concedes on page 4 of the staff report that the residential building being proposed is inconsistent with the plan.

The primary reason for this letter is to express our concern in Lyon Village that this change in use may serve to undermine other sector plans, such as the Clarendon Sector Plan. Let me raise three overarching concerns.

First, our sector plans were carefully drafted with community input and support, input and support from our County commissions, including this commission, and staff input, and approved by the County Board. If there is to be a significant change to a plan, and I believe this would be such a change, then the change should have the support of those who approved the original plan. That isn't the case here.

Second, our sector plans are drafted with goals in mind, to create vibrant urban places, with a mixture of uses. The Virginia Square plan is so drafted, with specific blocks designated for this use, that use, or a combination of uses. This block is designated for office use. If this site plan proposal is approved, Virginia Square will have already exceeded the intended residential use, and will be way under the intended office use.

The Clarendon Sector Plan was similarly drafted, and approval of this project will undermine the Clarendon plan. The 2006 Clarendon plan also calls for office uses on specific blocks. One such block is at the corner of Highland, Washington Blvd., and Garfield, where Penzance is building an office building. The building follows the Clarendon plan and is already leased. The Clarendon plan was specifically drafted so that all of Clarendon would not be built in the use prevailing at a given point in the building cycle. Other blocks in Clarendon, such as the Wells Fargo block, are also designated as office. It is hard to imagine the Virginia Square site, given its location right across the street from a Metro station, as not being a desirable site for an office building- if not this year, then next year or the year

after. Patience can pay off. A bit of Clarendon history-- in Clarendon about 15 years ago, Home Depot wanted to build a big store where Market Common now stands. It was to be a store without doors or windows facing the street, and with a big above grade open parking garage facing east. My neighbors in Lyon Village and other nearby civic associations opposed it because it was not consistent with the Clarendon plan. Fortunately, Home Depot went away, and McCaffrey Interests bought the site a year or two later and built the Market Common. The neighborhoods supported the Market Common because it was consistent with the Clarendon plan. Can you imagine Clarendon today with a Home Depot and no Market Common?

Third, for an urban village to be successful, it needs a mixture of daytime and evening/weekend activity. Office workers support a restaurant by day, and residents support it at night and on weekends. Without both the daytime and evening customer base, it is hard for a business to succeed. Also, to reduce traffic and pollution, it is important to have the mixture of uses that allows people to live and work in the same community, without having to drive or even take transit to get to work. Office use allows for shared parking, while residential use generally does not. A good balance in uses also helps promote balance in transit comings and goings, helping to reduce the crush on morning and evening Metro trains.

In summary, Arlington has put together good plans for its station areas, including Virginia Square and Clarendon. When we allow significant changes to be made to these plans, such as under the circumstances presented here, we undermine our whole planning process and fail to meet important goals. The Lyon Village Citizens' Association urges you to deny this application.

V/r, Loria Porcaro, President Lyon Village Citizens' Association