DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING, HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT Planning Division/Site Plan Review Committee

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING, HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT Planning Division/Site Plan Review Committee 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA TEL FAX SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY SP #13 Crystal Houses III SPRC Meeting #3, September 11, 2017 Planning Commissioners in Attendance: James Lantelme (Chair), Nancy Iacomini, James Schroll, Jane Siegel. MEETING AGENDA This was the third Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) meeting for a proposed site plan amendment at the Crystal Houses at 1900 South Eads Street. The meeting was preceded by a walking tour of the site, led by the development team. The tour walked around and through the Crystal Houses block. The following was the agenda for the meeting: The meeting began with introductions and a refresher on SPRC ground rules and procedure. The applicant presented architectural changes that had been made in response to comments since the last SPRC meeting. SPRC DISCUSSION Architectural Revisions/ Applicant Answers to previous questions The developer revised the ground floor to create a bike entrance closer to elevators and a more direct access from the ground floor to the bike room in G1. The developer also added building recesses along the Eads Street façade. Added doors to the garage Added 8 electric vehicle charging stations. The grade to the garage entrance is 5%. Moved transformer interior of site. Nancy Iacomini asked how pedestrian access could be changed from 18 th street? o Applicant responded that pedestrians could access the rear drive and walk along it. Would there be a conflict between cars coming out of Crystal Houses II & II at the same time, would they be able to see each other o Applicant responded that there would be stop bars. Traffic consultant thought only 30 cars per hour would leave there.

2 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Page 2 Question about lighting of the internal drives. Consider that pedestrians might be using the space as well. o Developer answered that it would be probably the same ground based lighting fixtures as currently. They admit they haven t thoroughly looked at site lighting. Open Space The applicant then made a presentation on open space, including the saving of three additional existing trees in the park. How large is the great lawn space? o About 60 x 100 feet. Are dogs allowed? o They will, but must be on leash. There will be accommodation for waste on site. There are private dog accommodations on the property for residents only. Statements from several community members that large lawn area would encourage dog owners, so if they are not discouraged they may dominate use of the park. Jane Siegel noted staff encouragement to reduce surface parking to save mature trees, and that staff can support a lower parking ratio here. Is the applicant s proposal final, or can they find room to reduce? Also, to staff, what is the status of the Residential Parking Study? Also, encouraged for the Planning Commission presentation on the tree preservation efforts. o Staff responded that the Residential Parking Study is tentatively scheduled for October Request to Advertise. Nancy Iacomini also would like to see tree replacement/removal details for the PC meeting. Also, feels surface parking can be reduced to preserve trees. Also, a shame to remove trees in an area that will be a park. Natasha Atkins requested a percentage of existing and proposed tree canopy on the site. The proposed park seems formal and prescriptive. James Schroll also suggested that the central lawn be enlarged by moving he walkways. Chris Slatt of the Transportation Commission stated that the new proposed parking spaces negatively impact the internal circulation. Judy Freshman also stated that if the park was more informal, could trees be saved? Also, since existing surface parking will be taken over for construction, will temporary surface parking spaces be created? The representative of the Pedestrian Advisory Commission requested a 7 foot minimum sidewalk along 18 th Street South. Also suggested remove the plantings at the 18 th Street entrance and expand the sidewalk. ARCA asked if there was handicapped parking in front of the lobby?

3 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Page 3 o The applicant stated that they didn t want stopping right at the entrance and block the internal drive. Handicapped parking would be behind the building with a back entrance to the lobby. ARCA responded that it seemed it would be inconvenient. Jim Lantelme stated that the internal sidewalks had missing curb ramps. This area would be the access to the park from the community west of Fern Street. The PRC chair asked if the park would be open 24 hours, and if there would be signage. Also, suggested that they think about doing public art in the park. Also, would the applicant be constructing the other park recommended by the Sector Plan (at the northeast corner of Eads and 22 nd Street)? o The applicant stated that the park would be open at least the usual park hours (sunrise to sunset). Had not thought about signs on the property, but would be willing to work with DPR on signs. The applicant also stated that they would not be building the other park with this development. It would be with any potential future development on that end of the property. Will do enhanced landscaping in this area. Natasha Atkins stated that there was a need in this area for dog exercise areas. ARCA representative stated that the internal driveways should be lighted for pedestrians. Can planting or artwork make the drive behind the building more attractive? Chairman stated that striping would help guide pedestrians through the area. James Schroll asked if the outdoor space was 31,000 or 33,000 square feet. o Applicant stated roughly that, based on rough measurements. The plat of dedication would have an exact square footage. Arthur Fox asked how circulation from other buildings to the Metro lobby of this building would work. o Applicant stated that there is a door in the northeast corner of Crystal House North, then a short walk to the rear door into the Metro lobby, then out the front entrance. Arthur Fox suggested that applicant look at a way that existing tenants can access an east west sidewalk without walking on the driveway. Community Benefits Chairman stated that no bonus density was being requested. Applicant has choice after approval to contribute to public art fund or commission on site public art. Parks and Rec representative suggested that art be placed at the entrance. Construction Issues

4 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Page 4 With regard to temporary parking, the applicant stated that they would try to accommodate all displaced parking on site or on the lot across 22 nd street. Perhaps temporary parking on the existing site on gravel surfaces. Many members of SPRC stated that temporary on site parking should not negatively impact open space or trees to be saved. Question if school bus stop will be moved? o APS sets own school bus stop locations, separate from a site plan process. Will 18 th And 20 th Street entrances and access remain open? o Applicant stated existing entrances will remain open during construction except for short periods of utility work. Group recommended that no sidewalks be closed during construction and that covered pedestrian passageways be built if necessary. James Schroll asked if material laydown would be on site, or would the bike lane be affected? o Applicants replied they had no detailed plans yet about the locations of materials, but any impact to the bike lane would be temporary. Staff was asked if the County s 18 th Street project would commence either before or during this site plan s construction. o Staff responded that the County project would be after this. Would materials be placed on existing parking spaces? o The applicant stated they had not thought it through yet, but possibly. Wrap Up James Schroll asked for less surface parking. Thanks for improved bike access. Jane Siegel also requested less surface parking, save trees. Encourage redesign park to save trees. Would like tree preservation plan to be explained at Planning Commission. Parks and Recreation Commission representative agreed with statements on saving trees. Pedestrian Advisory representative asked for Wider sidewalks on 18 th Street. ARCA representative stated that applicant should think about how pedestrians circulate internally. Transportation Commission representative stated that it looks as if the internal pedestrian sidewalks along the internal drives as proposed seems to make a pedestrian switch sides a couple times, which is inconvenient. Also, requested staff and applicant to consider requesting the applicant upgrade the existing Eads Street bike lane instead of upgrading traffic signal. Judy Freshman of Crystal City Civic Association stated that was disappointed in the size of the proposed building and preferred the original two building plan. Also, that the proposed park could accommodate dogs, but set clear rules and enforce them. Chairman Lantelme then gave a wrap up of the past three SPRC issues, identifying areas for follow up, especially concerns about the length of the building; the garage access might be an issue but the applicant s presentation tonight showed improvement; there were concerns about delivery vehicle and passenger pickup/drop off locations and the practicality of the

5 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Page 5 applicant s proposed solutions; perhaps improve the bike lanes; reduce the amount of surface parking to save trees; open space may be too prescriptive; widen the 18 th Street sidewalk, hoped for pedestrian access easement through the site.