STEVE COLE CHAIR

CHRISTOPHER FORINASH

VICE CHAIR

THOMAS H. MILLER COORDINATOR

GIZELE C. JOHNSON

CLERK March 7, 2014

Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22201 SUBJECT: 2. Realize Rosslyn Request to Advertise (Action Item) RECOMMENDATIONS: 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.

Elaborate on how the term "diverse community" found in the Vision Statement translates to goals for office versus residential uses, unit types, unit sizes, and levels of affordability. Define use mix targets necessary to support the vibrant 18/7 street life outlined in the plan vision.

Include parking policies regarding parking ratios, location of garage entrances, and permissiveness of above grade parking structures.

Provide information on any new public facilities that are required or proposed or described how they will be addressed in the plan that follows.

Provide examples of how the “peaks and valley” concept could constrain heights at various locations, in order to provide additional clarification [of the concept].

Include the Long Range Planning Committee report as an attachment to the Planning Commission recommendation letter to the County Board.

Achieve a substantial increase in the tree canopy throughout the urban district to reduce urban heat, to improve air quality, to

P.C. #29.

provide human scale and to bring nature into the city environment.

Add a new principle, Principle 7, to provide a vision that achieves a desirable urban form.

Dear County Board Members: The Planning Commission heard this item at its March 5, 2014 meeting. Anthony Fusarelli provided a presentation on the proposed Request to Advertise adoption of draft Rosslyn Plan Framework. Other staff present included Bob Duffy, Claude Williamson, Matthew Ladd, Kelly Cornell, Scott McPartlin, Meliha Aljabar and Kellie Brown. The Plan Framework is a major milestone leading to the Sector Plan Update. The focus has been on how to improve the public realm in Rosslyn. The Framework will continue to be refined in response to comments until adoption by the County Board in April. Mr. Fusarelli identified changes to the Framework following the February 27 Long Range Planning Committee meetings as described in a comments matrix. Staff is working to include draft list of implementation tools/studies in its report to the County Board. It is anticipated that the adopted Rosslyn Plan Framework would be the foundation for and incorporated into the final Rosslyn Sector Plan Update to be considered for adoption by the County Board in the Fourth Quarter, 2014. Ben Carlson, from Goody-Clancy, consultants on the project, described the Vision Statement for Rosslyn. He reviewed the themes of the vision principles. He discussed beginning analyses related to air rights, related potential land uses above I-66, and how this issue might alter the final Sector Plan Update. He added that building height and form, including the peaks and valleys concept is in need of further analysis. He noted that, at present, building height diversity is not resulting from current regulations and a an approach that results in greater diversity should be contemplated. Mr. Fusarelli reviewed recent community meetings with the Rosslyn Process Panel, the Park and Recreation and Transportation Commissions, as well as the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission. Public Speakers (4) Kedrick Whitmore, Venable, LLP representing the Weissberg Companies owner of the office building located at 1901 N. Moore Street, the “RCA” building, expressed serious concern with the Framework. The office building does not have the benefits of retail frontage across from it on N. Lynn St.; they would like the plan revised so that the adjacent section of N. Lynn Street, north of 19th Street is designated as “Secondary Active Uses” and Map T4, Street Classification, revised to designate the section of Lynn Street north of 19th Street is designated as Primary Urban Mixed-Use, Such a change would lower the expectation for this building that its N. Lynn St. ground floor frontage have a retail use. Mr. Whitmore also testified that the Planning Commission should defer consideration of the recommendation regarding building heights until the impacts of these policies and related proposed heights for the affected areas are known and can be considered. He further requested that language be added to the Plan stating that its recommendations do not conflict with

2

the Rosslyn Multimodal Study findings or prohibit curb cuts and parking/loading access on any particular roads. Tad Lunger, McGuire Woods law firm, representing owners of the Ames Center, 1820 N. Fort Myer Drive, expressed general support for the plan presented by staff, but as documented in a written letter they submitted, support is contingent on maintaining the presented alignment of 18th Street. Some maps in the plan show a different alignment and are inconsistent with their understanding of the proposal. Having two buildable lots is critical to the redevelopment of the Ames Property; having only one building site reduces the development potential for the site and could lead to a “super-block” development inconsistent with the goals of Realize Rosslyn. The 18th Street alignment shown in the Rosslyn Plan Framework bests meets the vision and policy directives set forth by the Process Panel. Stan Karson, President of the Radnor Ft. Myer Heights Civic Association (RAFOM) and a member of the process panel wanted to reinforce and clarify that he is one of two residential representatives. His main concern is to make sure that whatever comes out of this process has no adverse impact on surrounding residential areas. He expressed appreciation to Anthony Fusarelli and noted his organization’s position on four issues that will be flushed out after Framework Plan is advertised: (1) In general, RAFOM does not oppose the two-waying of Lynn Street and Ft. Myer Drive, although they have concerns about impacts during rush hour and hope studies will be done showing what impact could be;. (2) the location of the peaks and valleys are located related to building heights needs to be examined; the tapering concept is good and we should not negate tapering building heights from the metro; (3) the housing mix is a major problem. Most new housing is for upper income people and too expensive to provide an appropriate income, racial, and ethnic mix; and (4) the observation deck located at Central Place is an important community benefit. The community was assured this would be open to the public and this should stay. Tom Korns testified about the Framework Plan Foundations, transportation opportunities, building form, transit opportunities, and parks and open space. He suggested the plan needs to allow for ferry service between Rosslyn, the District of Columbia, Old Town and National Harbor. He also advocated for public access to places at high levels in new buildings with excellent views, as well as the street level, and capitalizing on Rosslyn’s crossroads transit character. In addition, Mr. Korns stated that Freedom Park should be included in the pedestrian transportation system. Finally, he stressed the importance of maintaining and enhancing pedestrian passageways and public access. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Harner reported on behalf of the Rosslyn Process Panel noting the Panel has changed from advising on process to commenting on the substance of the plan. He noted that Metro expansion, changes to Metro’s Blue Line, and increased capacity might affect the scope of the plan. He stated that air rights over I-66 and how to accommodate additional density will have to be reviewed. After the October 2013 workshop, the Process Panel focused on the policy framework, working to make sure there is a vision for Rosslyn that is bold and compelling, one that captures the pluses for Rosslyn and how it can be transformed. He stressed the importance of ensuring the vision statement carry bold ideas that can be implemented. Commissioner Harner noted that the18th Street corridor has been a focus of the Rosslyn urban design group and that the esplanade is a strong

3

addition. He encouraged staff to provide renderings of the concepts to show how these can improve Rosslyn. He further noted how improving the tree canopy could help to transform streets. He commented that the Process Panel has reviewed approaches to organizing building heights and form that optimizes public and private interests. Transforming the loop road into a green circle park also has been discussed. The Panel has some concern about the scope of work remaining and follow up work that needs to be completed. Several panel members continue to stress that significant open space at Wilson School, which is located outside the boundaries of the study area, is critical for support of the plan. The Panel will likely revisit the skywalks and two-waying of N. Lynn and Ft. Meyer streets. Commissioner Harner concluded his remarks noting that what makes a good vision is something that the community feels is worth moving forward. He stressed that it is important to not be afraid to have a bold vision. He asked rhetorically, what makes a good vision? He said, it is important that components of the vision are clear and implementation steps spelled out plan with sufficient specificity to implement the vision. He questioned how much detail has been provided and encouraged the Planning Commission to be as critical as appropriate. Commissioner Malis gave the report for the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) and also submitted a written report to the Commission. The Committee held a single meeting on February 27 to review the draft framework document. During the committee review it was clarified that, once adopted, the maps and policy directives would be fixed and thus “off the table” for further adjustment. Major areas of discussion in LRPC included the vision statement/principles, use mix targets, air rights, the transportation network, parking, open space, public facilities, achieving a peaks and valley central Rosslyn skyline, heights map and density. She noted that since this hearing is to review the Request to Advertise the emphasis was on whether the document was complete rather than whether there was agreement with the concepts presented. However, she suggested letting staff know now if there are any proposals in the Framework Plan are the “non-starters.” She further noted that staff has prepared a matrix in response to the issues raised at LRPC, and has also provided additional information in their presentation this evening. This information should be evaluated to see if it addresses the issues raised. Since there is no revised document tonight it may not be possible to fully determine what changes were incorporated. The commission will need to wait until the document is prepared for the County Board meeting and comment through the commissioner attending the County Board meeting. In terms of providing additional guidance, if the commission believes some policy areas have not been addressed in the Plan Framework it should be ascertained whether those areas will be covered in the next phase of work. Commissioner Malis suggested using the LRPC agenda from February 27 as an outline for discussion: Overview and Plan Foundations, the Rosslyn Vision, Policy Directives: transportation, public parks and open space, urban design and land use, and building height and form. Commission Discussion Overview and Plan Foundations Commissioner Kumm Morris commented that more detail is needed to recognize the importance of retail and public spaces to creating a good streetscape and the importance of renovating existing park facilities and expanding open space. Urban form policy should include that building form should be human scale and bulk and mass should be minimized. She is looking for consistency in the text.

4

Commissioner Gutshall asked about process. He was interested in understanding how the Plan Framework becomes part of the comprehensive plan and how it provides guidance. Mr. Fusarelli noted that this is the first part of what will become the sector plan update. The Framework Plan will likely become the first few chapters of the Sector Plan Update and guide the team as it fleshes out details. Commissioner Gutshall further asked about how current site plans under consideration, 1401 Wilson Boulevard and Rosslyn Plaza, would be affected. Mr. Fusarelli noted that the approach has been for staff to work with applicants and the SPRC to keep them apprised of areas of interest in the framework and to look for areas of common ground. Part of the goal of the framework is to engage the SPRC and applicants to embrace emerging ideas. Commissioner Gutshall suggested that language should not be wishy-washy, if the County Board intends that the Framework Plan shall be guidance until the sector plan is updated, the text should be unequivocal to avoid any confusion when reviewing current or future site plans. Commissioner Cole remarked on the comment matrix prepared by staff to address issues raised at the LRPC meeting and inquired about adding an 8th foundation related to land use mix. He wants to understand staff’s thinking on land use mix. The County Board did not provide direction on land use mix. He wonders if whether a notion of land use mix is needed to develop a good urban design, an appropriate transportation system, and open spaces that respond to the daytime and evening populations of Rosslyn. To illustrate the point, he asked, for example, if Rosslyn were to be developed entirely with offices or, alternatively, entirely as a residential neighborhood, whether transportation and open space needs would differ. Mr. Fusarelli responded that staff starts with Council of Governments projections for 2040 and determines whether these forecasts are consistent with the vision being set forward. Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy, noted that variations on use mix should be established based on trends. The scope did not include an analysis of uses and the impacts on transportation. Commissioner Cole asked about whether a use mix goal or target for Rosslyn would be desirable and whether any policies should be crafted to encourage a certain, desired use mix. Mr. Fusarelli noted that the scope of the study does not include establishing a use mix goal. Staff agrees, however, that understanding the use mix is important. Commissioner Cole the notion of a market-driven use mix and suggested that the kind of place we want to create in Rosslyn is dependent in part on use mix and that setting a use mix goal is essential to planning and urban design, building forms, and transportation and open space systems that are responsive to the needs of the people working, living and visiting Rosslyn Commissioner Kumm Morris asked about the magnitude of change and the basis for open space, recreation, and transportation given the magnitude of change that is forecast. Commissioner Malis asked if staff is saying that the market is driving the plan. Mr. Fusarelli responded that the market is not driving the Framework Plan but it is staff’s intent that the vision drives the plan. Staff is currently seeing project submittals that have a multiple buildings with a both office and residential. The Rosslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District (RCRD) is currently heavily weighted toward office and more residential is a good thing. In terms of looking ahead, this is not fully dependent on what the market suggests. The current market is generally consistent with what the vision is recommending. The Rosslyn Vision Principles

5

Commissioner Malis would like to understand more about what is meant by the phrase in the Rosslyn Vision Statement “diverse community” and what are the particular metrics and goals for achieving diversity. In the LRPC meeting the consultant had indicated this referred to diversity in workers and residents, unit types, bedroom mixes, and affordability. Commissioner Cole asked if there is an intention to provide more definition and to add language on diversity. Mr. Fusarelli agreed that staff will look at opportunities where appropriate and is looking for a vision that can be implemented. The intention with respect to community benefits, for example, is to achieve more affordable housing; the conversation about affordable housing will be one of the issues to address in preparing the final Sector Plan Update. Commissioner Malis noted that different types of buildings, unit mixes, bedroom mixes can also impact diversity and she does not see a clear path on how this would be implemented. Commissioner Malis further noted that the vision statement and vision principles paint a picture of an environment laden with daytime, nighttime, and weekend activity. This suggests a use mix that is heavily weighted to residential. If we are not managing use mix, it will be difficult to achieve the vision. It would be better to revise the vision and vibrancy goals rather than mislead the community in what they should expect. She noted residential development is mentioned on almost every page of the vision and goals section. If this is not where we are planning to go in Rosslyn, the text should changed. Commissioner Kumm Morris asked if the order of vision principles related to the priorities; she asked why transportation was presented first. Mr. Fusarelli indicated that the principles are not prioritized. In discussion with Process Panel, he noted, transit was major issue. Commissioner Kumm Morris suggested a vision should start with sense of place and the use mix is key. Urban form is also missing and should be included in the principles. Commissioner Cole believes that this may be addressed in Principle Two. Staff agrees in part. Many principles will address more than one topic including urban design, which is integrated throughout. Commission Kumm Morris suggested that urban form deserves a visionary statement. Commissioner Sockwell noted that he is somewhat struck by the order of the principles and whether a more logical approach that focuses on the Framework plans aspiration and pragmatic goals could be used. Commissioner Kumm Morris commented on Vision Principle 5, the nature principle, and that the goal should be to make a greener Rosslyn including into its the core and not just through connections to places outside the core or along the river. Rosslyn should be a tree-lined district and the tree canopy should be increased. Commissioner Forinash expressed appreciation for staff providing the comment matrix on issues raised at the LRPC meeting. He noted the maps are key. Given testimony from property owners, he wondered how the 18th Street alignment will impact properties and whether the Framework Plan would allow for two separate buildings on the Ames Center site. Mr. Fusarelli responded that tin response to concerns, the plan proposes flexibility, but would retain the church/gas station. There is no reason why the site could not accommodate two separate buildings. More time is needed to better under the owner’s concerns. Commissioner Forinash noted the maps are binding. Do the maps as presented imply multiple buildings? Mr. Fusarelli noted that the illustrative plans provide guidance

6

but there is some flexibility – the specific location is not binding. Staff will have follow up conservations with owners to better understand their concerns. The legend notes that the maps are not binding. Commissioner Forinash asked about retail on N. Lynn Street near Lee Highway. Currently, the one-sided retail is unsupported and is unlikely to improve. It could be made more welcoming for retail with changes, but he believes the block could benefit by being reclassified “Type B, Primary Urban Mixed Use” block. He expressed the same view with respect to the block south of Wilson Boulevard on N. Lynn Street, which today contains very little retail. He hopes that this block becomes more accommodating for retail uses. Commissioner Cole noted the confusion about maps whether the maps adoption of the RTA will make the maps policy. Mr. Fusarelli noted that all policy directives are definitive and equally important. The document should be taken as a whole. As adopted, a sector plan is a guide for the community to use, but it is not code. Commissioner Cole indicated that, to him, a sector plan incorporate a vision for a place where problems have been addressed – in the context of Rosslyn, a place transformed from one with challenging problems to a place where problems are addressed, a place that is a magnet attracting people to live, work and play there. In his view, the Framework Plan does not begin with an analysis of these challenges and problems, which would lead to solutions that address them. Commissioner Cole does not find that the plan meets the higher goal of transforming Rosslyn. Mr. Fusarelli noted the focus, as noted in the Plan foundations, is on challenges and opportunities for Rosslyn that staff has acknowledged. Commissioner Cole asked what the term “unique mix of people” actual means in Vision Principle 6. Ben Carlson noted that the various transit options in Rosslyn bring a wide variety of people to Rosslyn that is unique. Policy Directives Transportation Commissioner Gutshall followed up on the previous discussion of the 18th Street extension, the testimony related to the alignment and the on-going site plan for 1401 Wilson, noting they seem to be headed in two different directions. What is the process whereby the Framework Plan and a site plan under review are reconciled? Mr. Fusarelli noted that updates on Realize Rosslyn have been shared with developers of projects currently going through the SPRC process. The best possible alignment for 18th Street has been discussed. If an applicant of a site plan under review does not want to embrace these ideas, resolution of any differences is up to the SPRC, staff, and the County Board. Commissioner Cole noted that this issue was decided two years ago by the County Board as part of its annual work session with the County Manager on planning priorities. It was decided that site plans could move forward through the review process; they would not have to comply with

7

forthcoming sector plans. Commissioner Gutshall questioned plan recommendations put forward that are not going to be implemented with current site plans. Commissioner Iacomini questioned the proposed skywalk policy and whether the Policy Framework is goes too far in calling for the ultimate removal of remaining sections. She asked Commissioner Harner to talk about skywalks and what has been discussed in Process Panel meetings. Commissioner Harner focused on the Nash St./Ft. Myer Drive skywalks and whether they should be retained as advocated by the North Rosslyn Civic Association. He noted the Panel engaged in a good discussion about accessibility of skywalks and whether retaining them would be consistent with County Board policies, which call for restoring uses to the ground level. He noted that the Framework Plan calls for remaining skywalks to be removed over time as streets become more viable. The community is not completely convinced. Since 1999, the community has expressed a desire to keep these skywalks to facilitate access westbound up the hill. Commissioner Harner suggested that what we are doing now – locating skywalks in parking garages, is undesirable. The vision for skywalks and implementation has been terrible. A simple vision should be able to be implemented. This is a key to how the 18th Street corridor is planned and how specifics of the plan assist with implementation. Commissioner Iacomini stated that the Planning Commission should not come to a conclusion at this point on the issue of the skywalks. She would prefer proposed language that would require re-evaluating skywalks when a new 18th Street is in place that could accommodate similar travel patterns. She urged the Commission to think about what would happen if 18th Street corridor is not implemented. If there is a better way to ensure access, then there is reason for the skywalks to go away. However, neighborhood preservation and travel patterns are important and should play a role in any future decision about the skywalks. Commissioner Harner noted the crux of the issue is making this choice. He asked at what point we focus on the streets. Skywalks have costs. To what extent would keeping the skywalks drain resources away from other streetscape improvements. If we are going to have a skywalk link, make it great, accessible and improve them – which will cost money to implement appropriately. Commissioner Iacomini does agree that keeping skywalks can be a way to deaden the street. However, if neighbors choose a skywalk route, it is not taking resources away from the street. It all comes down to balancing priorities for residents who live in the area. Commissioner Cole asked about use mix and density in terms of transportation. Staff has assumed that no change in density proposed means that the previous multi-modal analysis does not change. Commissioner Cole questioned if there is possibility of additional density above the 10 FAR given Transfer Development Rights (TDRs). Is the 10.0 FAR an absolute cap and in staff‘s view does transportation demand vary by use mix? Mr. Fusarelli indicated that staff has not plans to revisit FAR, but staff will be looking at TDRs, It is difficult, he said, to say if this would result in more density beyond 10.0 FAR. Mr. Fusarelli said that during the projects, the application of TDRs will be examined. Richard Viola, DES Transportation, noted that land use mix does matter in terms of transportation demand. Office/commercial uses create more trips in early am and late afternoon.

8

More residential would result in fewer trips and lower transit use. A more balanced use mix increases the opportunity for people working in Rosslyn to live in Rosslyn. Public Parks and Open Space Commissioner Kumm stated that the plan should be clear on what private open space is being counted toward the total amount of open space being achieved in the plan. Commissioner Kumm Morris asked about how the different types of parks, for example, pocket parks and plazas, contribute to the overall plan. Commissioner Cole inquired whether the Esplanade would include a road and, if so, whether this road is included in the calculation of open space? Mr. Carlson indicated that it does include a section of Arlington Ridge Road. Commissioner Cole also suggested consideration be given to establishing a bus transit center as part of a new development in Rosslyn with easy access to Metro He said that such a transit center would accommodate buses that now stop to pick up passengers and park for periods on Rosslyn’s streets, which could end bus domination of much of Rosslyn. Commissioner Sockwell questioned the Plan’s claim of an 80 percent increase in parks. Ben Carlson indicated that this reflects this includes the extension of Freedom Park and creation of the Esplanade. Urban Design and Land Use Commissioner Kumm Morris noted the need for a tree canopy goal and indicated she would propose adding language similar to the Crystal City Sector Plan, which has a goal of increasing the tree canopy by 17 percent. She said that the Rosslyn Framework Plan should have similar language that would help enhance the public realm. Building height and Land Use Commissioner Kumm Morris raised concern about removing the tapering and the tent pole approach to building heights. She believed that peaks and valleys suggested greater heights moving from east to west going up Wilson Blvd. She asked whether peaks and valleys are intended to be applied throughout the district. Ben Carlson noted that the intent of the plan is for peaks and valleys to be located in a number of places. He said that this does not imply a single peak or valley in Rosslyn nor does it suggest that that tapering would be abandoned. The final Sector Plan Update would include more definitive thresholds. Commissioner Kumm Morris suggested building step-downs on the edges of Rosslyn be added. Commissioner Malis questioned Map B2, Priority Observation Deck View Corridors, and asked whether actual building height limits would be set by the map. Mr. Carlson noted that protecting views from the observation deck is one of the foundations for setting height limits; others include topography and edges. Context, he said, can also play a role. Commissioner Malis asked what commitment is made from this map regarding height. Does this map suggest that views from the observation deck should not be obstructed by future buildings? Mr. Fusarelli noted that the map helps bring a greater sense of clarity related to previous County Board resolutions on building height and notes priority views should be protect and enhanced. Commissioner Malis noted that other

9

sector plans include a heights map and that the final Rosslyn plan should include one as well.. Mr. Fusarelli noted previous analysis on height and said that more work/analysis is needed, as well as discussions with the Process Panel before moving forward on a heights plan. Commissioner Malis noted that the peaks and valley scheme suggests that where heights are constrained full allowable density may not be achieved. Mr. Carlson agreed that there many sites where developments may not reach full density. Commissioner Cole noted that it had been implied in staff responses to questions that there is an opportunity to for new developments to exceed the current 300-foot height cap in place in most of the RCRD. With TDRs, he suggests that greater density and possibly heights could be achieved. Commissioner Cole noted that from a policy perspective the tools for implementating policies can be as critical as the policies themselves. He asked whether the Rosslyn Sector Plan Update would rely on a form based approach or an FAR/height approach. Also, he asked whether allowable heights and densities would be delineated block-by-block. He suggested that it would benefit the County Board to know the tools staff plans to use to implement the plan at this time rather than at the end of next phase when the draft plan is completed. Anthony Fusarelli noted staff would present a full picture of how implementation would occur in conjunction with the process panel as part of the Sector Plan update. Actual codification could follow with Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Claude Williamson stated that no options would be foreclosed. There would be a public process including check-ins. Mr. Fusarelli responded staff will be working with the project team to explore options and looking at advantages/disadvantages. Commissioner Malis asked about public facilities and whether there would be any needed schools, libraries, or community centers. Mr. Fusarelli noted that staff is guided by the scope of work adopted by the County Board, which did not include a public facilities plan. Commissioner Cole asked about the study of air rights given its relationship with land use. He inquired as to whether staff expects to bring the study to the Long Range Planning Committee and the Planning Commission before taking it to the County Board. Staff will look into a schedule for bringing items back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gutshall asked whether staff would respond point-by-point to the letters submitted by land owners/developers. Commissioner Cole asked Bob Duffy to respond. Mr. Duffy noted that staff has met with and will respond to those who have concerns. Planning Commission Motion Commissioner Malis moved that the Planning Commission recommends the County Board authorize advertisement of public hearings at its April 12, 2014 County Board meeting and associated Planning Commission meetings to consider the adoption of the Rosslyn Plan Framework. Commissioner Ciotti seconded the motion. Additional recommendations include:

Elaborate on how the term "diverse community" found in the Vision Statement translates to goals for office versus residential uses, unit types, unit sizes, and levels of affordability.

10

Define use mix targets necessary to support the vibrant 18/7 street life outlined in the plan vision.

Include parking policies regarding parking ratios, location of garage entrances, and permissiveness of above grade parking structures.

Provide information on any new public facilities that are required or proposed or described how they will be addressed in the plan that follows.

Provide examples of how the “peaks and valley” concept could constrain heights at various locations, in order to provide additional clarification [of the concept].

Include the Long Range Planning Committee report as an attachment to the Planning Commission recommendation letter to the County Board.

Commissioner Kumm Morris sought unanimous consent to add new principle to the Urban Design, Land use and Sustainability policy directive to: Achieve a substantial increase in the tree canopy throughout the urban district to reduce urban heat, to improve air quality, to provide human scale and to bring nature into the city environment. There was no objection to adding this amendment to the main motion. Commissioner Kumm Morris moved that the Planning Commission add a new principle, Principle 7, to provide a vision that achieves a desirable urban form to the Rosslyn Plan Framework. Commissioner Gutshall seconded the motion.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to accept the amendment to the main motion. The Planning Commission 9-0 to approve the main motion. Commissioners Ciotti, Cole, Forinash, Gutshall, Harner, Iacomini, Kumm Morris, Malis and Sockwell voted in support of the main motion.

Respectfully Submitted, Arlington County Planning Commission

Steve R. Cole Planning Commission Chair

11