Rosslyn Plan Framework - Arlingtonva
Item 3.
Rosslyn Plan Framework
Planning Commission Meeting March 31, 2014
1
Realize Rosslyn Study Area •
Rosslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District (RCRD)
•
Rosslyn Metro Station area for systems and context
North Rosslyn and Radnor/Fort Myer Heights civic associations encompass the RCRD 2
Project Scope Transportation
Public Parks and Open Space
Building Heights and Form
Urban Design
3
Project Schedule
4
Community Engagement • • • • • • • • • •
Rosslyn Process Panel Planning Commission Other Advisory Commissions Residents Rosslyn BID Property owners Business tenants Regional partners / agencies Design professionals Others
5
Draft Rosslyn Plan Framework
•
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
6
Challenges and Opportunities
7
Recent Community Engagement
Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12): County Board
(3/18):
Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19): Transportation Commission (3/27): Long Range Planning Committee (3/27): Planning Commission (3/31):
8
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 KEY ISSUES
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
Land Use Mix KEY ISSUES
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
Approach to Parks and Open Space KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Park Elements KEY ISSUES
Dark Star Park: Consider a policy directive specific to this park
Concur; will add new directive
Freedom Park: Use of term “highline” should be omitted
Concur; will remove term
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.
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 15
Building Heights KEY ISSUES
General comment: Intro includes reference to these goals; 1 ] In section intro, more clearly specify Map B2 can be revised to clarify qualitative goals for view corridors, purpose of 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
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
16
Building Form KEY ISSUES
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)
Image courtesy JBG Companies
17
Bus Transit Center KEY ISSUES
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
Moore Street KEY ISSUES
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
Illustrative Sketches KEY ISSUES
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
Sector Plan Elements KEY ISSUES
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
Flexibility vs. Specificity KEY ISSUES
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
Recent Community Engagement Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12): County Board (RTA) (3/18): Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19): Park and Recreation Commission (2/25):
(Submitted letter to County Board)
Transportation Commission (3/27): (Recommended adoption, 9-0)
Long Range Planning Committee (3/27): Planning Commission (3/31): 23
Proposed C.M. Recommendation That the County Board: Adopt the Rosslyn Plan Framework.
24
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
25
Rosslyn Plan Framework
Planning Commission Meeting March 31, 2014
1
Realize Rosslyn Study Area •
Rosslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District (RCRD)
•
Rosslyn Metro Station area for systems and context
North Rosslyn and Radnor/Fort Myer Heights civic associations encompass the RCRD 2
Project Scope Transportation
Public Parks and Open Space
Building Heights and Form
Urban Design
3
Project Schedule
4
Community Engagement • • • • • • • • • •
Rosslyn Process Panel Planning Commission Other Advisory Commissions Residents Rosslyn BID Property owners Business tenants Regional partners / agencies Design professionals Others
5
Draft Rosslyn Plan Framework
•
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
6
Challenges and Opportunities
7
Recent Community Engagement
Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12): County Board
(3/18):
Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19): Transportation Commission (3/27): Long Range Planning Committee (3/27): Planning Commission (3/31):
8
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 KEY ISSUES
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
Land Use Mix KEY ISSUES
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
Approach to Parks and Open Space KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Rosslyn Plaza park KEY ISSUES
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
Proposed Park Elements KEY ISSUES
Dark Star Park: Consider a policy directive specific to this park
Concur; will add new directive
Freedom Park: Use of term “highline” should be omitted
Concur; will remove term
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.
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 15
Building Heights KEY ISSUES
General comment: Intro includes reference to these goals; 1 ] In section intro, more clearly specify Map B2 can be revised to clarify qualitative goals for view corridors, purpose of 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
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
16
Building Form KEY ISSUES
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)
Image courtesy JBG Companies
17
Bus Transit Center KEY ISSUES
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
Moore Street KEY ISSUES
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
Illustrative Sketches KEY ISSUES
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
Sector Plan Elements KEY ISSUES
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
Flexibility vs. Specificity KEY ISSUES
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
Recent Community Engagement Community Open Houses (3/11, 3/12): County Board (RTA) (3/18): Rosslyn Process Panel (3/19): Park and Recreation Commission (2/25):
(Submitted letter to County Board)
Transportation Commission (3/27): (Recommended adoption, 9-0)
Long Range Planning Committee (3/27): Planning Commission (3/31): 23
Proposed C.M. Recommendation That the County Board: Adopt the Rosslyn Plan Framework.
24
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
25
