1

Item 3.

Rosslyn Plan Framework

Planning Commission Meeting March 31, 2014

2

Realize Rosslyn Study Area

North Rosslyn and Radnor/Fort Myer Heights civic associations encompass the RCRD

• Rosslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District (RCRD)

• Rosslyn Metro Station

area for systems and context

Project Scope

Transportation Public Parks and Open Space

Building Heights and Form Urban Design

3

Project Schedule

4

Community Engagement

5

• Rosslyn Process Panel • Planning Commission • Other Advisory Commissions • Residents • Rosslyn BID • Property owners • Business tenants • Regional partners / agencies • Design professionals • Others

Draft Rosslyn Plan Framework

6

• Major milestone, foundation

for the full Sector Plan Update • Comprised of Vision

Statement, Principles and Policy Directives

• Based on analyses, preliminary concepts, and community input

Challenges and Opportunities

7

Recent Community Engagement

Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19):

Transportation Commission (3/27):

Long Range Planning Committee (3/27):

Planning Commission (3/31):

Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12):

8

County Board (3/18):

Key Comments from LRPC

• Status/Content of this Plan Framework (compared w/ others)

• Land Use Mix

• Public Parks and Open Space

• Rosslyn Plaza Open Space

• Dark Star Park, Freedom Park, Gateway Park, Esplanade

• Building Heights

• Building Form

• Bus Transit Center

• Moore Street

• Illustrative Sketches

• Anticipated Sector Plan Update Elements

9

Plan Framework General comment: Rosslyn framework less detailed/developed than other frameworks Rosslyn Framework generally similar to others: - Generally includes vision, principles/goals, directives - Role in the process – confirming areas of consensus - Helps focus efforts going forward Framework documents may differ based on: - Status of policies at a point in time - Individual aspects of each project/process - Impetus of the framework Rosslyn Sector Plan Update will be as detailed as comparable documents

10

KEY ISSUES

Land Use Mix

General comment: Framework should include more specific policy direction on use mix Policy Directive (U3) calls for more housing in central Rosslyn

Section Intro language notes more specific targets to be developed with Sector Plan Update Targets can be reviewed with LRPC when ready

11

KEY ISSUES

Approach to Parks and Open Space General comment: Should convey that active and passive recreation can be combined in same space

Concur, and will revise directives language and map legend descriptors based on suggested text

12

KEY ISSUES

Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park General comments: Using performance objectives instead of map could have unintended consequences.

If criteria are used, should include one calling for a space large enough to sustain a number of activities

13

KEY ISSUES

Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park Response: Staff considering two main options at this point: 1] Map approach per current plan framework 2 ] Replace mapped park space with symbol, and criteria addressing potential following topics: Size, area, form and critical dimensions Function, program and use Physical characteristics Critical access points/routes/connections Form, design and use of built edge Management/access Critical views

14

KEY ISSUES

Proposed Park Elements Dark Star Park: Consider a policy directive specific to this park Freedom Park: Use of term “high-line” should be omitted

Gateway Park: Details on Gateway Park should be incorporated into planning process The Esplanade: Would like more info on elevation, views, connections to river, etc.

15

KEY ISSUES

Concur; will add new directive Concur; will remove term Per scope, visioning for this/other spaces further advanced with Sector Plan Update; master planning to follow Sector Plan Update Will further detail specs for Esplanade as part of Sector Plan Update

Building Heights General comment: 1 ] In section intro, more clearly specify qualitative goals for view corridors, edge transitions, etc. 2 ] Maps and text should be more explicit that some areas in RCRD may have max. heights above 300’, and others may be limited below 300’ – which may be lower than current potential

16

KEY ISSUES

Intro includes reference to these goals; Map B2 can be revised to clarify purpose of view corridors Based on current policy, edge sites may not necessarily achieve 300’; specific conclusions and impacts will be better understood as we advance building heights analysis

Image courtesy JBG Companies

Building Form General comment: Would like to better understand the types of urban form recommendations likely to be included in Sector Plan update Draft Sector Plan Update outline identifies the general items addressing this topic to be included in the Update (included as appendix to staff report for County Board Meeting)

17

KEY ISSUES

Image courtesy JBG Companies

Bus Transit Center General comment: Framework should include aspirational reference to integrated bus transfer center Size of sites adjacent to Metro very challenging/infeasible

Even if, buses would need to use streets and cross sidewalks to access

Framework sees two-waying streets, potential close-in dispersion of stops as beneficial

18

KEY ISSUES

Moore Street General comment: Limit Moore St. to buses and pedestrians only (connect w/ Gateway Park) Framework sees Moore St as complete street accommodating buses, pedestrians, cars, etc.

Allowing for vehicles other than buses can help downplay the bus-dominant character of the street Improvements to pedestrian realm and building facades will help improve connectivity

19

KEY ISSUES

Illustrative Sketches General comment: Illustrative sketches should be removed if they conflict with other aspects of framework Sketches are rough drafts of more complete color renderings to be included in Sector Plan Update

Any inconsistencies in location of 18th Street corridor will be rectified in final renderings of Sector Plan Update Will add note on sketches for 18th Street noting that renderings in Sector Plan Update will show location consistent with map

20

KEY ISSUES

Sector Plan Elements General comment: Can an appendix be added to Plan Framework listing elements to be included in Sector Plan Update? We can add draft outline for the Sector Plan Update as an appendix to staff report

List will need to be qualified, since through the process we may find certain items may not end up being included or others may be added

21

KEY ISSUES

Flexibility vs. Specificity General comment: Transformational elements, such as 18th Street extension, shouldn’t be undermined by flexibility in site plan process Concur that Sector Plan should include enough specificity to implement major planning elements with success

Appropriate level of specificity will be determined as Sector Plan Update is drafted

22

KEY ISSUES

Recent Community Engagement

Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19):

Transportation Commission (3/27): (Recommended adoption, 9-0)

Long Range Planning Committee (3/27):

Planning Commission (3/31):

Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12):

23

County Board (RTA) (3/18):

Park and Recreation Commission (2/25): (Submitted letter to County Board)

24

Proposed C.M. Recommendation

That the County Board:

Adopt the Rosslyn Plan Framework.

25

Proposed C.M. Recommendation

That the County Board:

Authorize advertisement of public hearings at the April 12, 2014 County Board and associated Planning Commission meetings to consider the adoption of the Rosslyn Plan Framework