Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are going to get started. Welcome to the June 23rd, 2026 Long Range Planning Committee LRPC meeting on the 1401 Langston Boulevard Special GLEP Study. We will be holding a hybrid public meeting which enables remote participation as legally authorized by the Code of Virginia per the Planning Commission's electronic meeting policy adopted on July 7th, 2022. We have members here tonight who are participating both virtually and in person. This meeting is being recorded for our public records and will be posted on the Arlington County Commission's meeting YouTube page. Avoid sharing any personal information that you would not like to be made public. At this time, I'd like to orient everyone to our hybrid environment and cover a few specifics about how tonight's meeting will run. Members of the public may attend the meeting here in person or electronically by using the Microsoft Teams link provided on the LRPC web pages, the county's events calendar, and the email notification sent to LRPC email subscribers. Additionally, there is a dial-in phone option for those who wish to use it. For our planning commissioners or roster members joining virtually, if anyone loses internet connectivity during tonight's meeting, please reconnect with us by phone. Please keep your phones and devices muted until you're called upon. Turn off sound to any other devices around you to minimize interference. For our virtual attendees using Microsoft Teams, please turn off your video feed. I will address when it is appropriate to turn it on in a moment. The Microsoft Teams meeting chat is active to serve two purposes, to assist participants who need technical support and for participants to pose brief clarifying questions to the larger audience. While the clarifying questions will be monitored, they will not be formally acknowledged. Staff may address these comments as appropriate. The team's chat should not be used for discussion or inappropriate statements. Those who are planning to provide public comment may do so at the end of the meeting as the chat may not be used for that purpose. All public comments must be shared verbally for the record during the assigned public testimony period. We do have a sign up here if you are interested in signing up for public comment. I would like to remind everyone in the room to speak up. slowly and clearly and use the microphones in front of you so we can allow our virtual participants to hear you if commissioners or roster attendees participating virtually wish to be recognized to speak on an item during the course of the meeting please turn on your video feed and raise your virtual hand in teams staff will monitor the video feeds and do we have any commissioners who are joining us by phone today without the video option no we do not okay Unlike Planning Commission's regular meetings, the LRPC agenda items are not public hearings. Therefore, public comment is at the chair's discretion. But as I mentioned earlier, we will have a public comment section at the end. So I will call for speakers at the end of the meeting after the committee discussion has concluded. Members of the public attending virtually will speak first, followed by our in-person attendees. The speaking time allotted will depend on the number of speakers we have this evening. In-person attendees, I mentioned, please put your name on this list. Virtual attendees, please indicate in the chat that you'd like to provide a comment and your name will be added to our list of speakers. We will acknowledge your request in the Teams chat. When virtual attendees are called upon to speak, you must unmute yourself by clicking on the microphone icon that is located on your meeting command bar. The moderator does not have the ability to unmute you. You'll be muted when your time has concluded. As an alternative, public comment may also be provided on the public comment form posted on the LRPC webpage. Lastly, this is a public forum. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and posted to the county website. All information associated with today's meeting, whether written or spoken, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act requirements. So now that we have that taken care of, let's go around the room and do introductions. We'll hear introductions from our in-person attendees first, and then we'll go to our virtual attendees. I will start. I'm Tenley Peterson. I am a member of the Planning Commission, and I am chair of this project as the LRPC chair.

All right. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tony Streiner. I'm here with the Planning Commission.

Margaret Rhodes, CPHD.

Evelina Knodel, CPHD.

Jay Lass, the Palisades Park.

Dave Early with the Park and Rec Commission.

Eric Montpelle, Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

Sohail Hussain, Transit Advisory Committee.

My name is Steve Offit. I am representing the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Jason Schwartz, Housing Commission.

Joe Ventron, North Roslyn Civic Association.

Samuel Giacento, Georgetown Vista Unit Owners Association.

Nia Bagley, Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Chris Gladstone, President of Quadrangle Development Corporation. representing the applicant.

Jerry Laporte, representing the Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Okay. Can we get a seat for our roster members? We're good.

Carolyn Haynes, Forestry and Natural Resource Commission.

Hi. Aaron Roberts, North Highlands. Thank you.

Okay. And that's Oh, we've got another chair over here. Caroline, do you want to get that one next to Nia? And then we'll get one more for you. Okay, I just want to make sure we have all of our volunteers who give up all their hours and their time to make Arlington a better place gets properly represented at the table. Okay, so let's go to our virtual attendees. If you are a roster member, please... Come off mute and introduce yourself.

Hi, most of what I do, I'm just a backup PRC, so I will cede the floor to Dave Early, who is in person there. Thank you.

Thank you, Melissa.

Hi, Evan Pritchard with the Economic Development Commission.

Thank you.

Evening, everybody. This is Malcolm Gregory. I'm representing the Climate Change and Energy and Environment, aka C2E2 Commission.

Thank you. OK, so that looks like there's three joining us virtually. OK, great. Well, thank you very much, everyone, for the conversation or for the introductions. Let's start with our first speaker. and only agenda item for 1401 Langston Boulevard Special Glup Study. We are going to be talking about three kind of big picture items tonight, building height, potential access to views, and frontage treatments. First, we will hear a recap from our first tier one LRPC meeting, and then we'll go into our discussion points and questions after each item.

Margaret? Thank you. My name is Margaret Rhodes and I'm with CPHD. And tonight we're going to be talking about the 1401 Langston Blvd project. And here we're going to start with a special GLOP study process overview, a brief recap of what we discussed at Tier 1. We'll move on to very briefly site conditions and context, planning guidance, and then we're really going to focus in on these three key study considerations. And then we'll conclude with some next steps. So a special GLOP study is based on a policy for the consideration of unanticipated general land use plan or GLOP amendments that was adopted back in 2008. And it calls for a community review process in those instances where either there is no adopted plan for the subject site or where the requested designation is inconsistent with the guidance of the relevant adopted plan. And these studies are high level land use studies and they serve to evaluate the appropriateness of the requested general land use plan change and or other GLOP categories as may be appropriate. And we instituted a two tiered review approach with a tier one and then a tier two review back in 2019. And here we can see an overview of the sequence of public reviews. So we completed our tier one review already. that's you know focusing on a high level land use questions and here we are tonight starting our tier 2 review and we're going to be focusing in on what's the appropriate planning guidance for this site we're going to be looking at land use density zoning etc etc and then in terms of the outcome At the conclusion of a tier two study, we would have a request to advertise or not to advertise a general land use plan amendment, and we would produce a study document memorializing the findings of the study. And then there is a follow on process, the site plan review, and that would look in more detail at a specific application. So tonight we need to remember that we're not looking at a specific application. We're focusing in on the high level land use. And here are the study topics. And you can see that during the Tier 1 review meeting, we discussed the history of the GLOP and zoning designations, relevant plans and policies, and the proposed GLOP amendment request. And at the conclusion of the Tier 1 meeting, the LRPC chair identified a list of a number of different topics for study. So key topics from this list related to urban design considerations will be discussed tonight, three we mentioned. And the input we receive will help to inform the three-dimensional computer modeling that we will share with you at our fall LRPC meeting. And the remaining topics from the chair's list will be addressed through the scenarios that we model and through the associated transportation and student generation analyses that we will present at that next meeting. And here you can see that we have a very broad and inclusive list of 16 different LRPC stakeholder groups that have been invited to participate at the table tonight. Very briefly, we can recap from tier one. So the subject site is located here just south of the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Key Bridge and just north of Gateway Park in the core of Roslyn. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with one 10-story hotel and five 26 to 29-story residential buildings and approximately 2 million square feet of development, which translates to approximately 8.5 floor area ratio or FAR. In more detail, the site is bounded by the National Park Service lands to the north by Langston Boulevard to the south. by North Fort Myer Drive to the east and by the Colonial Branch Resource Protection Area, or RPA, to the west. The site is located just to the north of the Roslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District, or RCRD, but is within the Roslyn Metro Station area and is located only 0.3 miles to the station entrance. As discussed at the Tier 1 LRPC meeting, amending the General Land Use Plan to include this site in the RCRD or Roslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District could allow for the guidance of the Roslyn Sector Plan to be extended to this site. This would allow for the application of existing guidance, obviating the need to create all new guidance, and would allow for redevelopment via a potential future rezoning to the CO Roslyn District. Additional site-specific guidance would, however, be needed for this site in the form of height guidance, access guidance, et cetera. Here we have an excerpt from the general land use plan map. You can see the site, which is outlined in yellow, is designated high-medium residential, which is associated with up to 3.24 floor area ratio for residential development. and here we have an excerpt from the zoning map the site is currently zoned co 2.5 and this district allows for approximately 12 stories and 2.5 far for commercial development and approximately 16 stories and approximately 3.0 far for residential or hotel development and the county board can approve additional height the proposed co roslyn zoning allows for commercial development up to 153 feet and 3.8 FAR, and residential hotel development up to 180 feet and 4.8 FAR. And the County Board can approve additional height up to the maximums stipulated in the Roslyn Sector Plan's height map if consistent with the plan, and that's approximately 220 to 390 feet. And here we can see the Gallup and zoning history of this site and the variations in uses and levels of densities both up and down over time. And now we will move into our key study considerations. And as a reminder, the site is not included in the RCRD covered by the resident sector plan, but we will be evaluating some of the guidance from that sector plan as we move through these key topic areas.

And these three elements. Can I make a quick point? Sure. So Margaret did mention that this is the LRPC, so we are focusing on big picture. We get into the details when we start talking about the SPRC. We do have a model here that the applicant has brought with them. So you can take a look at that at any point in the meeting or as you were coming in or at the end of the meeting. It does get into the details that are usually part of the SPRC process, but it does give you an idea of as we're talking tonight about building height and views, this is what potentially we could see or maybe not see depending on how the discussion goes over the coming weeks and months. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Yes, and so discussion of these three elements is really important. They'll help to inform the study scenarios that we develop for the fall, and we will leverage your input on these key elements. The first is building height. So as we previously saw, CO Roslyn has heights up to 153 or 180 feet, and the county board can approve some additional height. And there are a number of recommendations in the Roslyn Sector Plan, and one of them speaks to the importance of an attractive and memorable skyline and the importance of views. Peaks and valleys is another recommendation in the Sector Plan to create a dynamic skyline, and it also calls for a variety of heights among towers, building towers. In this cross-section prepared by the applicants, we get a better sense of the relationship in building heights among several different developments already built in the RCRD and the heights the applicant currently envisions for the subject site. The heights here are shown above mean sea level with 400 feet for the applicant site, and then range from 470 to 477 feet for some of the buildings that you see here. And the red dashed line that you can see on the subject site represents the maximum height for residential development under the subject site's current zoning, which again is CO2.5, and that's 16 stories. This illustrates the peaks and valleys idea of the Roslyn skyline. You can see here a variation in the skyline. And now we'll move on to guidance related to some building height from the FAA, EMWA, and Arlington County. The site is located approximately 3.1 nautical miles north-northwest of National Airport. And first, as standard practice, the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, conducts site and building specific aeronautical studies to ensure the safety of our airspace. Furthermore, for any approved plan, Arlington requires the developer to produce a letter from the FAA with a determination of no hazard for the proposed building before the county will issue a building permit for construction. Secondly, EMWA, or the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, handles planning, development, and airport operations. Over the years, the county and EMWA have engaged on these topics, as well as on the topic of one engine inoperative, OEI, to ensure preparedness for scenarios where one of an aircraft engine fails upon takeoff. And lastly, the county board is the body that sets the maximum building heights via zoning and site plan authority. The pink dot here represents the subject site, which is located at an important turning point for the flight paths as they track along the Potomac River. While the FAA is the agency with final regulatory authority over airspace matters, EMWA and its airlines have strong interest in ensuring certain navigable airspace corridors are kept free from hazards to ensure safe and sustainable operations of the airports. Over a decade ago, EMWA began engaging with county staff on the matter of one engine inoperative. OEI is important because it is a requirement for all airlines to have filed and approved by FAA an OEI corridor they would follow in the event that one of the engine fails upon takeoff. And given the significant constraints on the national capital region airspace, for instance, we can't fly over DC, EMWA has coordinated with all its airlines to establish a common OEI corridor and surface that all airlines would agree to use. In this slide, we see a plan view of how the OEI surface relates to the subject site and the surrounding area. In a scenario where a plane is taking off from DCA and one engine fails, it will need additional time to climb to an elevation to rise above structures in its flight path. The subject site is located beneath the consolidated OEI surface that EMWA has been working to protect for its airlines. While this OEI surface is something that airlines and the airport need to take into consideration, it is not something that the FAA takes into consideration when making its determination of no hazard as part of its obstruction evaluation and airport airspace analysis. If the OEI surface is impacted, the airlines may need to drop weight in the form of cargo, fuel or passengers or change their flight path or move to a different airport. The applicant has recently received a determination of no hazard from the FAA for one proposed building, which again does not account for OEI considerations. And ultimately, in its authority to determine appropriate building height limits for the site, the county board is the body that will need to consider all pertinent information on the related potential trade-offs. And here we can see This is a way to visualize the OEI surface in relation to the applicant's proposal, and there's approximately a 60-plus differential between the two with the applicant's proposed building height at 400 feet above mean sea level and the maximum building height recommended by EMWA at approximately 337 feet above mean sea level. And here is another way to look at the same information with measurements above grade. with the applicant's proposed height at 328 feet above grade and the maximum building height recommended by EMWA at approximately 265 feet above grade or around 26 stories. And now we will turn it over to the applicant for a brief presentation on height.

Thank you. Good evening. First image, please, Matt, if you could put that on the slide. There you go. This site presents complex planning challenges that we have been evaluating for many years in order to arrive at the site plan that you see here. First, the site needs sufficient FAR to be economically viable. In other words, to support ever-increasing construction costs, to deliver the project significant economic and public benefits, including the large bonus density payments required with additional FAR, and to allow us to meet the Roslyn Sector Plan's applicable planning principles and goals. Second, this FAR needs to be in buildings that are sufficiently tall to achieve the necessary development program for economic viability and sufficiently separated from each other to provide great views for project residents, as well as view sheds for the greater Arlington community. Our 8.5 FAR plan successfully resolves these challenges with six slender buildings appropriate for residential uses, up to 328 feet tall, as Margaret mentioned, sufficiently separated and arrayed in a fan configuration across the long arc of the property line, rather than clustered towards the center of the site or concentrated along the shorter Langston Boulevard frontage, which the prior failed plan did. That has concentrated them along that southern frontage. Second image, please, Matt. This slide shows building heights and Margaret ran through this in the rest of Roslyn compared with our tallest building. As Margaret noted, the tallest buildings on our site are 70 feet lower than the Roslyn Towers across Langston Boulevard and previously approved by the county, contributing to the interesting and varied skyline that the sector plan advocates. This is an important point. While there's some variation in the building heights and certainly variation in the building forms we envision, there's dramatic variation in building heights for Roslyn as a whole composition, consistent with the sector plan's emphasis on creating a attractive and memorable skyline from Roslyn as a district. While there are a number of taller buildings in Roslyn, we understand that any building needs to satisfy any aviation concerns, which is why we submitted an application to the Federal Aviation Administration, which is the ultimate and final arbiter of aviation safety. for approval of our tallest proposed building nearest the river. On June 8, the FAA issued its, quote, determination of no hazard to air navigation, unquote, for our proposed 400-foot height above sea level. I'd like to address the EMWA points specifically. This is not the first time EMWA has challenged building heights on our site. In 2017, the FAA also issued a determination of no hazard for buildings that were actually 70 feet taller on the site than what we're proposing. EMWA and two airlines then petitioned the FAA to reverse its decision because of how those buildings could affect operations under the one engine inoperable scenario. After review, the FAA confirmed its finding that the proposed buildings, remember those were 70 feet taller than the tallest buildings we were proposing, did not constitute an air safety hazard, including under OEI conditions. In closing, the FAA has concluded that OEI is an economic issue for the airlines and the airport and not a safety issue. We're here tonight to support Arlington's economic development, just as the county previously did in approving Rosling buildings that are 70 feet taller than the ones we're proposing.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.

So we have a few questions to discuss as a group this evening. The first one, I'll just go through them really quickly so you can kind of think about the questions that we're talking about tonight. Then we'll do some clarifying questions and then we'll do a round robin of what your feedback is. So the first question moving forward, should the 3D computer modeling account for the one engine inoperative input? Question two, are there aspects of the Roslin skyline that you find particularly important or memorable? And question three, the Roslin sector plan recommends varying building heights within a site. Should the 3D computer modeling account for this? So those are our questions. I just want to remind everybody, you are welcome to come and take a look at the model that we have here to kind of see what the skyline could theoretically look like if that was the project that gets approved maybe someday down the road. So let's start off. Does anybody have clarifying questions related to building heights? Yes, Mr. Roberts.

Forgive me, I may have missed this. Do we have a sense of where airlines would redirect transit if you were to build to these specifications?

We might be able to ask the MWA representative. Yeah, so we do have an MWA representative on virtually, and they can take questions Any questions related to the single engine, one engine and operative?

Hi there. My name is Jennifer Kandel. I'm an airport planner with EMWA. Thank you very much for having me here. Do you mind repeating your question again?

Of course. Do we have a sense of where airlines would redirect flight traffic were this building to be built to the current specifications proposed?

Okay. And I'm going to ask a question of your question just to clarify. So when you say redirect traffic, you don't mean redirect to another airport. You mean redirect the flight path?

The latter.

Okay. So the If you think about this in context, the corridor is very constrained as it is. To the right of the corridor is a no-fly zone and to the left is Arlington and everything in the middle is where the majority of the flight traffic goes. So there's very limited options here. And you also have to take into consideration, depending on the weather, which runway you can use and the direction of the runway changes based on your use. So when you start to encroach into that corridor, you start to sort of erode at the infrastructure. And I think you can think of flight paths as sort of like infrastructure in the sky. completely recognizing that economic development is very important. I think it's also important to understand that the airport is a regional and national asset that should also be protected and does provide economic value. So the answer, I guess the answer is there's very limited options. What would happen if the options were taken away is Airlines would essentially raise prices to account for weight penalties. Or if the weight penalties are so great, they would not fly that particular leg from the airport.

Mr. Schwartz.

yeah just a follow-up to that question um if this building were beat proposed can you provide as much of a quantitative impact to what flights would be effective you know are we talking about a summer flight uh beyond the perimeter to la or seattle that may need to perhaps shift a little bit or um you know take take in less cargo or is this you know is this gonna affect flights below the perimeter rule trying to get it get a sense of you know because as a regional perspective i'm just trying to think like you know this was designed The airport was not designed for these flights anyway.

Yeah, so I don't have that information. And honestly, I don't know without asking each airline to sort of give us their own analysis. And it would be just a snapshot in time anyway. I think what EMMA is trying to do is to look at the long-term bigger picture in terms of protecting this asset that is finite. and ensuring that buildings do not encroach our airspace. So we're looking at the long-term here. Sometimes airlines are looking at the immediate market and immediately where they would fly. So I think we're both trying to do the same thing, but we're looking at it from different perspectives.

Okay. Commissioner Bagley.

Just to clarify, my memory needs a little refreshing. For the previously approved site plan, what I heard was that the potential proposal would be higher than that, correct? And that the FAA is okay with that? But this group, did this group not approve the last one when we approved it? that previous site plan at a lower level, I guess is my question.

This group being?

This one. EMWA.

EMWA? Yeah. I was not involved in that. I'm not sure. Anthony might be able to.

I can't remember. I was, I ended up chairing that and Anthony would remember.

No, thank you. Is this working? Yeah. Thank you, Nia. Yeah. for that question. I do not remember specifically. I just, I would, in response to your question, which I appreciate, I want to make a clarifying question or a clarifying comment, which is that, as Margaret had indicated, the airport's authority does not have, like, a decision-making or regulatory role in the process to determine whether a proposed building or structure is deemed as a hazard to flight navigation. That's FAA's call. But they do have a voice in terms of communicating any concerns or interests that they do have. They have proven experience in communicating that voice to FAA in certain circumstances. And then also through ongoing engagement with the county, including the county board members, senior leadership, et cetera. So not being able to speak to the specifics of what they may or may not have opined on In that earlier proposal, and I think I also want to clarify to increase might be able to confirm that. I think the concept or proposal that fa had looked at a taller height that was my recollection was that was part of a conceptual pros proposal that was never. that never made it to the site plan application stage. And so that was a predecessor to the site plan that was ultimately approved by the county board, which recently expired.

That's correct. But nevertheless, the FAA did approve that tolerate on the site.

Commissioner Streiner.

Okay, so this was also before my time on the commission, so I'm just trying to get the timeline straight here. So in 2017, we put forward a taller height on this site, and that was approved by the FAA?

So I'd like to very, very briefly clarify what happened 10 years ago. Mr. Fusarelli is correct. There was a conceptual plan for essentially a 10 FAR project on this site. that was advanced through early discussions with the county, with other folks, and there was work done to make sure that the FAA would sign off on a 10 FAR plan there. That project was more ambitious than what we are presenting here today. It was bigger. Ultimately that landed poorly with multiple stakeholders. And so the decision was made to pivot instead to the project that could be approved under the existing zoning. That was the 16 story project. That's the one that we talk about having failed for obvious reason. Yeah, FAA approval, we had the certification for that taller project. I'm sure EMWA weighed in the way that Mr. Gladstone explained. And the FAA made its conclusion, as it always does, as the ultimate arbiter of safety.

If I may, I'm Elise Rabicoff, and I'm also with Quadrangle, but I'd also like to point out that the FAA, when it weighed in and rejected EMWA's concerns, it specifically said, this is an economic issue. It's up to EMWA to figure out how to handle development on this site. This is not an airline hazard issue.

follow-up from Commissioner Streiner.

Okay, so that was 10 years ago, and flash forward to today. This may have been brought up, but I'm just kind of getting my bearings. How far along in the process are we with the FAA this time? We obviously have a sense that EMWA is a little concerned, but how far along is FAA on board with this 400-foot proposal? Are they concerned? Where are we at right now as we sit in the

And we submitted very specific elevation points for the tallest building. There's the letter. There's the FAA determination letter. That may help. Look at that.

Determination of no hazard to air navigation.

Exactly. For the tallest building, we're proposing nearest the river. Those are the points that we gave the FAA. And their ruling is, just as you read, no hazard to aviation. That determination is out there. It can be appealed by petition to... FAA, as EMWA did 10 years ago, and I assume EMWA will do again, and FAA will take that into consideration. Again, previously for buildings that were 70 feet higher, they took the OAI issue into consideration that EMWA raised and decided that it was not a sufficient reason to change its determination of no air safety hazard. So the facts here are substantially the same. Although our buildings are lower, we wouldn't expect a different outcome. And these are for all the, I'm sorry, these are for all the buildings on the site? Because I see four. This is the tallest building that we, nearest the river. There is variation in the height, but we submitted the tallest building nearest the river.

Okay. But it's not all of them.

True. But we felt that that was the one that would be most appreciative.

Sure. Okay. That's helpful. I can pass this around if you want to see it too. Thank you.

We have extra copies for anybody who'd like them.

Mr. Roberts.

I'd love to invite EMWA to speak on this as well, but it sounds as though a determination has been offered on this topic already. Was the study somehow inadequate, or did it expire, or has airline technology changed in the intervening period? I'm just trying to understand.

So are you referring to the proposal from 2017 or are you referring? Just wanna make sure I'm clear.

Yeah, so I I part of this is trying to understand FAA governance, but if this is a controversy now and I'd love to understand what what facts have changed between 2017 and today.

Right, so although I'm representing EMWA, I did previously work for the FAA, so I have some insight into. what goes on there. FAA does not approve heights. That's the first sort of misconception. They make determinations of hazard or no hazard. So when you get a letter, they're essentially telling you if your proposal has an impact to aviation safety. However, airspace management is sort of a collective problem. So there's lots of players involved, including the airport, localities, FAA, airlines. We sort of have to work together to protect this thing. There sometimes can be no hazard, but there might be impacts. And sometimes those impacts are under the jurisdiction of the FAA, and sometimes they're not. FAA will only look at the things that they have jurisdiction over. So there could be an impact to a project that is going to give you OEI impacts, which impacts the airlines and the airport, but the FAA will not make a comment on it. FAA is looking at the big system. They're looking at protecting the overall throughput of the aircraft aircraft going through many airports, it's up to the airports under their grant assurances and the other part 139, part 79 regulations to essentially say, we wanna protect our airspace. We wanna protect the long-term viability of our corridors. So that's why we come in with that really strong messaging is, you know, this is infrastructure, infrastructure in the sky, we want to protect it. As each building goes up, you are sort of eroding away at these corridors, and in the long term, we want to protect them. So that's, I think, why maybe you're getting... different, I don't want to say different answers, but, you know, an FAA could say there's no hazard, but we're saying, hey, we want to make sure that this stays protected.

I'm going to ask a follow-up question, Ms. Kendall, because you mentioned impacts, but I think the only specific example of an impact that you've given is that the airlines might have to pay for being overweight. And so that would impact the price of tickets. Can you give other examples of what impacts would be for this specific site?

I don't know this. I don't have the information from me. I don't have the FAA stuff, but I will give you general examples. So there could be impacts to an existing procedure. So if aircraft are flying in instrument flight conditions and they need to use a certain procedure to land, if that procedure is impacted, they may raise the minimums. That means you can land, you are not as likely to land in bad weather. So there's things that are small, but they start to add up. And not only do they impact the airlines, but they impact the airport and keeping the aircraft moving through the airport. And that looks like flight delays and things like that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Offit.

Yeah, I think for me, just to clarify this in my head, what essentially you're saying is that Planes that are particularly heavy won't be able to take off to the north anymore, right? But everything else is unchanged. If I have a plane that's flying to New York or someplace that's not so far away, doesn't have a lot of fuel, it's not going to be impacted at all. So given that DCA already is already right at its limit of how many flights it can even accommodate, I don't really see an economic impact if some planes that used to go to Seattle are replaced.

So we're going to focus on clarifying questions right now, but you will have a moment to give your opinion.

My question is, do I have that straight that what it means is that particular planes that are heavy may no longer be able to fly particular land or take off from national, but most flights will be unaffected.

I cannot make a comment to that effect. I do know that max takeoff weight of an aircraft is affected by a lot of things. It's not just how far you're going. It also can be affected by temperature and weather. So having available runway and available approaches is not just because you went from Seattle.

So I guess the question you can't answer would be good to know is, what percentage of the flights that are currently flying in and out of National Airport would be affected by these buildings?

That would be, FAA would have that information.

Okay, so I do want to move to our actual opinions on this question because we're a little bit over time, but I think this is one of the more important topics as evidenced by the fact that all of the clarifying questions have been about that. So if we can do one more clarifying question, Mr. Ventrone, and then we'll go to our round robin.

Yeah, question to the EMWA. When Congress added five flights against the desire of our political representatives here in Arlington, did EMWA support the opening of those five flights?

They don't have the history on that. I apologize.

Well, the point I'm making, I live on the flight path. And look at it this way. If we approve this project, we won't get Congress that doesn't have a backbone. We'll add more flights. So that's just something to keep in the back of your head.

Thank you. Okay, so let's do our round robin. We'll start over with Mr. Hussain. So, yes, please feel free to give a few comments on your response to the question moving forward. Should the 3D computer modeling account for the one engine inoperative input?

Oh, okay. The problem of going first is you're setting the stage for either being very smart or very not smart. So I'll just answer with a question, I think, and that is I'd just be curious to know if there are other examples like this set up. And we don't have to answer this question now. I welcome a kind of delayed response later if that's fine. But I think it would just be useful just to get a sense of like, has this happened before? Are there places, other places in the United States that have had this problem, not problem, this scenario of building thing put up along a flight path? And then, you know, what was the outcome? What happened to that? I think that would be helpful because I just, I don't know enough. I've never really come across something like this. So I don't really know enough to provide an opinion. I feel like maybe it's a, you know, it's almost like we're kind of constraining our heights for a potential scenario. So I don't know if that makes a lot of sense for us to follow it, but I would be curious to know if this has happened before.

And it's fine for the answer to be, I don't think I have enough information to answer this question right now. That's acceptable.

Oh, good. Very welcome.

Yeah. Okay. And can you also please just remind the virtual listeners which commission or group you're representing when you give your feedback?

Sure. Eric Montpelier, Pedestrian Advisory Committee. No comment on this one.

Dave Early with the Park and Recs Commission. I would answer that question. Yes, it should be accounted for, presuming that it can also It's an option, but within the model, if you have it within the model, you can test it and look at it and talk about it some more. If it's not in the model, you can't do that.

Jay last with Palisades Park Property Owners Association. I would agree with Dave. As I said, we'd have the same comment.

Aaron Roberts, North Highlands. Absolutely, it should be included.

Yeah, Tony Strider with the Planning Commission. I agree with the last three gentlemen that spoke only for the reason that this site has very limited benefits. It's going to benefit the property owner. It's going to benefit Arlington County with the tax revenue. But the costs potentially are going to have a lot of externalities that expand well beyond the borders of Arlington County. And I think it's worth considering it as an option. I'm sympathetic to what Emma was suggesting here. I just, I don't really know enough about flight paths and this and the other. So I think it's definitely worth studying because I would like to have more information on this as we move ahead.

Okay. And so my notes so far are saying it should be included in the modeling, but we're not limited to it. That's kind of what we're saying so far. Okay, great. Thank you.

Jerry Laporte, Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board. I think from a historic preservation perspective, the building height should be included in the modeling.

the single engine inoperative, should that be included in the modeling?

I don't have a comment on that. Okay. Commissioner Bagley?

Yes, and I would also ask that somewhere down the road, for those of us who do have some memory of things that were proposed and approved in the past, Because my recollection, there were just two towers. Now, they might have been wider or bigger or whatever, but there were two, not this many. And this is also somewhat forward to the river than the regular Roslyn skyline. So not being an aviation person, but a safety lover who flies that route, I would be very curious to hear those things. Thank you.

Carolyn Haynes, Forestry and Natural Resources Commission. My perspective on this is somewhat colored by the fact that we were very concerned about the species of trees for Long Bridge Aquatic Center when they were doing the landscaping because the heights mattered so much. So my answer is yes, it should.

Sorry, it should be considered as an option or the modeling should limit? As limited to.

Okay. Hi, this is Samuel Giacinto for Georgetown Vista UOA. I'm not qualified to make a determination on the specific issue, but I will say it's being spoken of as it's a bookended concept as if we can't. The flight path has been modified several times. Given, you know, Georgetown isn't exactly a bookend to what happens in Roslyn. It has been changed before. So I think it's being maybe talked about in absolute terms when there are options. And this seems somewhat reasonable to me.

Based on the new Hilton Hotel and the CoStar building and my own complex, the Waterview Deloitte context, I would say no.

Hi, Jason Schwartz, Housing Commission. I do not believe it should be modeled at all. If you look at regionalism and what we should be doing, DCA, the flights that would potentially be affected by this should be going out of Dulles. We had the perimeter rule for a reason. And every year it gets worse and worse. We keep adding more flights to the busiest commercial runway in the U.S. This is not a safety issue. This is an operational issue. And you're leaving on that can easily be mitigated by. They're saying that having a flight going to LA or Seattle, going out of Dulles, that's a good thing. That's the whole point of what Dulles is there for with billions of dollars of room and space and massive capacity. Keeping adding more flights out of DCA is a perpetual problem that gets worse and worse. The larger A321s, large 737s, those take up a lot of space and capacity to the airport that puts a strain So, if you're looking at regionalism, the best regionalism is actually keeping within the shorter flights at DCA and moving these flights to Dulles. And second, you are torpedoing potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of development. And then additionally, you're putting, you're risking the entire project of billions of dollars from not happening just because of some potential minor operating issue or one or a handful of flights in the summer or whatever that has not been clarified, not been stated. When you go down the road of doing this modeling to answer the question that Zahil brought up, San Jose had these restrictions for their downtown and Dyradon Station, which is a huge hub that's going to be the center of California high speed rail, in addition to multiple Caltrain heavy rail and other services. They raised the limit above the OEI. Of course, the airplanes He said, we're not happy with that, but they went forward it because that is the right thing to do. You also look at Phoenix and San Diego or other areas where you have downtowns that penetrate the OEI barrier. So what Arlington would be doing here would be not out of the norm by not doing this. It would be a best practice and actually be beneficial to a region because we got to get the long haul flights to Dulles and other airports that would benefit a region. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Mr. Offen.

Yeah. I don't like the word account for. I wouldn't mind hearing from EMWA like very specifically, you know, unbiased economic impacts that they think might occur because of this. And then the county, we can take those into account. But it may turn out that the value of what we're doing, as Jason just suggested, is much greater than whatever impacts they might have on EMWA. So I wouldn't say account, but it wouldn't hurt us to know other than the arm waving, we're hearing like, you know, it's going to mess us up hearing exactly what ways it will.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. And we have our virtual attendees. Um, if you please raise your hand, um, or come off of, uh, there you go. Um, yeah, you can go ahead. EP.

Hi, Evan Pritchard. Um, I agree with Mr. Schwartz. Uh, The number of hoops that a developer has to jump through to finance and actually build a building is infinitesimal. So the notion that we're saying, well, maybe we, you know, in our infinite wisdom should model this and model that so that, you know, these airlines that are coming in and out of Reagan, you know, don't have to pay, you know, more in this scenario. This group is considering whether this would be a good thing. This project would be a good thing. for Roslyn. And I think that having, I think almost everybody on this call would agree that they're not aviation experts and are not qualified to answer this type of question. I'm surprised this is a question on this slide for us as a group. So I'm a big fat no. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see, who else do we have virtual? Okay, so then I think if there's nobody else virtual that's a roster member who wants to speak to this question, it sounds like the consensus is that we are interested in seeing modeling that does take the one engine inoperative into account, and we're also fine seeing modeling that does not take it into consideration that includes potential higher heights. And there's also interest in getting more information about the um, historical nature of the site and what projects may or may not have been approved previously and what the MY and FAA assessment was for those. Okay. So then we will move on to the second question. Are there aspects of the Roslyn skyline that you find particularly important or memorable? Why don't we start over here with Mr. Offit?

Um, well, I, I like the idea of having a cool skyline. So, um, I think the variation we see in some of the tops of the buildings, particularly the, I guess it's the Nestle building, right? It has a pyramid. And, you know, those are the sorts of things that people's eyes are drawn to in aesthetics, different materials and how it all fits together. You know, that's what architects do. And if they're good at it, then it creates an aesthetic value. And I think there's been some of that. And I think there's an opportunity here for, you know, strong architectural statement to be made that works for the area.

Yeah, real quick. Um, the Roslyn skyline is important because it signifies its roles. Arlington's premier high density core and iconic bold and tall skyline symbolizes vibrant urban living and commitment to transit oriented housing. The priority should be building an architectural landscape that maximizes housing units rather than preserving static low density view shots.

Yeah, it's president of the North Roslyn civic association of which this is in our jurisdiction. Um, Our skyline is our identity. It's Arlington County's identity. I worked in DC and from my office building, I could see the Nestle building, the CoStar building or whatever. I think this development will enhance what we're already building with the RCA and the Hilton project, et cetera. It would compliment it. And it's unique because this is like a bend Unlike Crystal City in their skyline, ours is so concentrated. It really puts Virginia, Northern Virginia, and the gateway to Virginia on the map. Thank you.

I have to concur with Joe. I like the variety that's proposed by this project and that you can see the Roslyn skyline from tens of miles away. It does serve as that gateway to Virginia and kind of aspirational, well, welcome to Virginia.

um so really just echoing what joe said about that thank you miss haynes um yeah i think it would be a really amazing addition to the skyline um and i'm just going to put a note on the fact that it is all glass which i think is very transparent all of that creates all sorts of issues with birds so between migratory birds and waterfowl and all of that that you know Bertrand the glass would be an important aspect of that.

I just clarified we haven't done any architecture. We're in favor of world class architecture. Let me assure you and. We will have birdproof glass of course.

Um, having watched the skyline grow here over the years and I do know that I believe Roslyn has the greatest concentration of Fortune 500s in one little area in the entire country. It's pretty impressive looking. So I think as we can add to that safely, I think it's great.

I think it's very important that this project take into consideration the current skyline of Roslyn. This essentially has, as Joe mentioned, this has become Arlington's identity throughout the country. I think it's very, it's been helpful for us economically, for economic development to have this vision of Arlington across from Washington, D.C. I also, if I were, I don't know who put together these questions, but Roslyn Circle has been very important to the history of Arlington, and this is right on Roslyn Circle. So I'd like to see something. I don't know if it's historic markers or something in this. I mean, I'm getting a little ahead of it. I know that's really not part of what we're doing here, but I just think that it's important to note the historic context in which this is being built so that we continue to tell the story of the history of Arlington, how important Roslyn is to that history.

Thank you, Mr. Schreiner. Well, I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but I do think the variety of the skyline is what makes this one a very unique one. And this skyline actually is one of the reasons I decided to move here after undergrad.

I was looking at places all over Northern Virginia, the D.C. area, and I saw this one.

And within 10 seconds of pulling into Roslyn, I was like, yep, All right, that's the one. So I'm a big fan, and I think if we can add some articulation on these new buildings and do it in a way that can be accommodated into the skyline in a good, architecturally satisfying way, I think that'd be great.

Hi, Aaron Roberts, North Highlands. No substantive comments here other than we expect the county to hold the applicant to a standard of superlative and timeless design. And Commissioner Peterson, is there an opportunity in the agenda to ask any more clarifying questions or is that passed?

We passed it for building heights, but then we'll be talking about potential access to views and there'll be clarifying questions there and then the frontage treatments. Okay. And you're also welcome to just email myself and Ms. Rhodes and we can also get your questions. Thank you. Mr. Lask.

My feeling is that Depending on which direction that you're coming from, what you're looking at the buildings, I don't know if they necessarily will be identified as part of the skyline because they're going to sit off to the side. So it sort of depends on which direction you're coming from or looking from. But I guess my feeling is as long as it's good architecture, I don't think it makes any difference. I think that's the most important thing.

Dave Verley, Parks Commission. One of the memorable parts of Roslyn have been the access points for the public at high levels. Even the restaurant in the former Marriott site was a place one would go to enjoy the skyline from that perspective. And there have been other sites within Roslyn as well over the decades. So thank you.

Eric Malpelli concur with the comments on the importance of maintaining the aesthetic quality. the skyline and the height variation.

So, LSA and Transit Advisory, and I have nothing to add.

Thank you.

Okay, and our virtual folks, please feel free to come off of mute, turn on your camera, and you're welcome to give comments on are there aspects of the Rossin skyline that you feel are particularly important or memorable?

Hi, Evan Pritchard again. I just agree with the comment that was made about Good architecture, high quality architecture is really what matters here for a site kind of on the periphery of Roslyn. And so as long as we ask the applicant to provide the world class architecture we expect in Arlington, I think we'll be in good shape. Thanks.

Thank you. And anyone else virtual would like to make a comment. Okay, so it sounds like our skyline is very important to us and the proposed project, which we don't really have a proposed project, but some of the concepts that we're talking about in this LRPC wouldn't necessarily contradict the important skyline that we have and the architecture and making sure we have nice building sculpting and variability would kind of give us the skyline that we would like to see. Okay, so then moving on to the next question. The Roslyn Sector Plan recommends varying building heights within a site. Should the 3D computer modeling account for this? Why don't we start back over here?

Um, yeah, so hell again with the transit advisory committee. Um, I, I'm not sure. I think, um, I guess I have a bit of a clarifying question or question in general to respond to to this, which is, is this 30 foot building height variation? Is that a recommendation from the county? Or is that a requirement that these buildings have to. vary in there because I think it's I guess the other question is like if we this is a question of the modeling so it's not the actual project but what impact would it have if we did have these like these requirements to have varying building heights of let's say 30 or so feet does that have an impact on the amount of units constructed so I would be curious to see in the modeling if that variation was there does it have an impact on the amount of units constructed? And then compare it to if you didn't have the building height variation and what the units constructed there is. Because then I think that difference will really be telling of, is this building height variation more of an aesthetic thing that, OK, it's fine? Or if there's a substantial difference between the amount of units constructed, then it's a question of, are we sacrificing people's access to housing for aesthetics. And I think that's a very valuable question.

Okay.

So, Ms. Rhodes, in the computer modeling that we would do, would we be able to have different options? And we talk about the cost and benefits of the different options.

helpful for Anthony to speak to the reason why these tower separations was something that was put in the Roslyn Sector Plan. And so we're not saying necessarily that all the guidance from the Roslyn Sector Plan would apply, but we need to evaluate that. But maybe Anthony could speak briefly to the purpose for that.

Yeah, no, just very briefly to be clear, that's a recommendation in the Sector Plan and not necessarily a requirement. But as was noted in the earlier presentation, The sector plan was optimizing for a variety of benefits in terms of maximizing views from upper floors of many buildings across central Roslyn to provide that dynamic and interest to the skyline overall that I think we've heard many speak to tonight. And so it was part of a balancing act in terms of achieving and striving for many of the goals that were discussed in the development of the sector plan.

Eric Mapelli, yes, seems useful.

We really didn't discuss the variety issue. I know you've proposed they're all the same height, so we didn't discuss it. I don't have an opinion on it.

I would say it's worthwhile to look at it with the variation height because of some interest. I think the last thing you want is just five monotonous buildings. It still all gets down to the architecture, I think, at the end of the day.

architecture and you know gets over a lot of things hi aaron roberts north islands um i i just want to make sure that i'm interpreting these questions correctly because i'm hearing a lot of different potential interpretations are we asking with these questions should the public have more or less information as this process progresses or are we asking should they be limited by these requirements, the OEI requirement, the sector plan requirements?

I think we're trying to get more specific in our future meetings. So if we, you know, if we're looking at a topic and it's really broad and we could have modeling on tons of different things, that adds a lot more time and cost and expense. And so if we actually are fine with something, then we can really get specific and focus on other issues. So we kind of want to figure out what as a group we really care about, and then we can get better information.

Okay. Well, maybe this is a quaint opinion, but I think more information is better than less. But I wouldn't want that to be interpreted as binding future discussions. Thank you.

Yeah, I think looking at the difference heights would be worthwhile because I mean, you know, I wouldn't want a Stonehenge type situation if it could be avoided. But I mean, again, it's all going to kind of shake out in how the architecture develops over the course of the project. So I think it's worth looking at. And maybe a Stonehenge would be cool. I mean, who's to say? But yeah, I think it's definitely worth keeping the optionality open at this stage.

So the option to see the varying heights and modeling to show the same height across. Thank you.

Jerry Laporte, HALRB. I think it would be interesting to use this in modeling, although I don't think that, I think this site is different enough from the rest of Rosalind, so I don't think it would, that concept of, you know, the 30 difference in building heights that applies throughout Roslyn, it should be different for this site. And I think there's less argument for having different building sites, building heights on this particular site than the rest of Roslyn.

Commissioner Bagley? Yeah, Nia Bagley, Planning Commission. Yeah, I am in favor of varying heights. I think it adds to visual interest, and I believe that is what they did for the approved but not yet built Amazon plan. I believe they did that for the same reason. Commissioner Haynes.

Carolyn Haynes with Forestry Commission. I don't have an opinion on this one.

Samuel Giocinto, Georgetown Vista, UOA. I'd say sure, as long as it doesn't place undue burden on the applicant. So tentative yes, not much further.

What's the cost of all this modeling? Can anyone answer me that? Staff or applicant, please.

We have in-house experts who are doing our modeling, so it's just

So it's just, it's just general operating of our government. Correct. Okay.

The way I look at this, if I can make the point though, I mean, in tight budget years, our CPHG staff gets smaller and smaller and active.

And for the record, our taxes go up and up. So all I'm saying is I've been on enough of these, um, planning commissions or whatever, and you guys have a terrible job, believe me. Um, All of these things that we have in our heart that would be good cost money, and these people can't build. All right? The Congress just passed an affordable housing bill that the president's going to sign tomorrow. First bill in 25 years. And technically, the bill is much ado about nothing. The significance of it is that the Congress finally got together and did a bill. The way I look at this, and I'm an expert of 10 years in Roslyn, living in Roslyn. I walked Georgetown Water Park. Um, I, I take pictures of the Roslyn skyline. The Roslyn skyline is great. In fact, we even had it on our car stickers when we had, uh, stickers and stuff like that. I agree with Jerry. This is, this is a different, I look at the, I look at the Marriott is six buildings, all one level, which basically I guess it is. And it will be like a entrance gate to, to, to the thing. So I don't think the variation, if we're going to lose units, uh, And housing, I would say no. I mean, the design and the new design that they just posted today, I think looks very good. Thank you.

Yeah, I also agree with Joe and Jerry. I think there's no reason to just artificially look at differencing of heights because this is already, if you look at the model, it's already a different height. The main visual interest is the fact that we have skinny skyscrapers of this nature, which is itself a huge visual interest. So, you know, when you have different trade-offs, you have to make, you know, that Um, in terms of, um, you know, we're talking about later about community benefits, but everything that we do to, to lower Heights for just, you know, the vibes of, oh, I wish it 1 building was shorter. Like, that, that, that takes away all the awesome community benefits that we could be getting that. That means someone has less a hip. That means we have less parks, less for transportation for safety improvements, all that sort of thing. So I think there's enough visual interest and resources. We don't need to expand on looking at a varying height within the site.

Yeah, Steve Offit, Bicycle Advisory Committee. Yeah, I would agree. Just don't make it ugly. 30 feet seems arbitrary. Why not 25 or 40? You know, I mean, make good buildings that look great. Who cares if they're the same height or not?

Okay, and let's see our virtual folks. Please turn your camera on if you would like to make a comment. And please remind us and the folks in the room which organization you represent.

Evan Pritchard, Economic Development Commission. Ditto, exactly what the last guy just said.

Okay, awesome. So it sounds like we don't quite have consensus on this issue yet. We have about half the folks are interested in seeing modeling showing both varying heights and potentially not varying heights while there's a lot of strong feelings about making sure we're not impacting housing and making sure that we continue to be an attractive place for people to come and build more housing in Arlington and making the process more straightforward and easy and not adding extra burden will help to do that. Okay, so let's move on to our next section. which is potential access to views. We'll have a staff presentation and an applicant presentation before we have our discussion. I'll just prime you guys on the two questions that we will be discussing so you can think about that as you see the presentation. So the first question will be, given that the height of the tree canopy on the adjacent NPS property will generally block views of the Potomac Georgetown at ground level, is public access to views a priority? And how important would you consider taking into account the guidance of the NCPC, which recommends limiting any views of new development from George Washington Memorial Parkway? So I'll turn it over to Ms. Rhodes for the presentation. Oh, sorry. It's okay.

It's Ms. Knodel. Hi, everyone. This is Evelina. So we wanted to talk about views, and we're looking at this from two different perspectives. The first would be views of the site from the outside in, this being a very prominent site, as I think we can all agree. The second would be views outward from the site. Again, this being a very unique site at pretty much the only waterfront that Rosalind would have, right? Um, so, 1st, looking at some of the guidance provided by the Roslyn sector plan, um, firstly, that, um, Roslyn would be a global destination with a dynamic skyline. We were just talking about this unique vistas and exceptional value. Um, and another, an urban pattern of buildings, streets and open spaces that produces an attractive and memorable skyline and provides breathtaking views of the nation's capital. Okay. So keeping that in mind as we move forward. So firstly, we're looking outside in at the site. The National Capital Planning Commission, or the NCPC, provides some guidance given the fact that this site is adjacent to the George Washington Memorial Parkway as well as Key Bridge. There are views of this site as you are driving along the parkway. So looking at some of the guidance that they provide, they're looking for us to Maintain parkways as scenic landscape corridors and protect their historic character. Secondly, to encourage local jurisdictions to minimize, through planning, regulation, and thoughtful design, the impact of development visible from the parkway. So looking at some of the images provided on the screen, the top one, this is driving down Washington Memorial Parkway. And this is when the key bridge, the memorial, the Marriott, excuse me, was still standing. And you can sort of see it peeking through the tops of the trees there. So we know that we have we essentially have the parkway and then a hill of like a green buffer. And then we have this site. And so we're looking at what the visual impact, quote unquote, would be from this asset. Moving forward, we're also looking at potential views from the site outward towards the river and towards D. C. and these are some site sites. photos that were taken pretty recently. And you can see that the trees are pretty tall. And so we previously were thinking that, you know, we might be able to get views outward from the site, but that's not really, that's not possible from the ground level. So we did do an analysis shown on the next slide, looking at LIDAR data of the actual heights of the trees along that hill leading down to the parkway. And the trees are tall enough that essentially you would need to be about 60 feet up above the grade of the site to be able to clear the tops of those trees. That's significantly higher than we had originally thought. Of course, seasonality has to be taken into account. It's a lot easier to see through those trees in the winter. But for three seasons of the year, your views are generally blocked. And then I also want to note that that doesn't mean that views are impossible. I think that this is an incredible opportunity to try and get those views. So infrastructure could be provided. That might mean a promenade, which would have to be about 65 feet up. That might mean from a building, right? So that might mean like a rooftop bar, a rooftop restaurant, for example, that wouldn't be fully public, but would be semi-public. So those are a few ideas to consider when it comes to how could the public potentially access views beyond those who might be living on this site? How important is that to folks at the table? All right, turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you. Matt, could you put the next image up? There you go. core planning concept in our application is to provide arlington neighbors and the general public with access to many view many unique views through on and from the site this slide shows the view from gateway park at the at the bottom there of the slide across langston boulevard through our developed site over the potomac river to georgetown as this image shows the proposed buildings are intentionally and carefully placed on the site slender in form and sufficiently separated from each other to provide this visual transparency and light and air through the project. In our site plan, we've considered the variety of views available both on the site itself at grade level, as well as of the Potomac River and beyond through the deciduous tree canopy on the National Park Service land. And I would just point out that the photos that you saw just a couple of minutes ago in the staff presentation were taken pretty far back in the site, not at the edge. And these are deciduous trees that leaves fall off, and so the views differ depending on the season and we'll come back to depicting that in just a second. So the result of this plan is both visual transparency through the site from beyond the project. And at ground level, a series of interesting and varied landscaped publicly accessible green spaces and views. including access and views from Gateway Park over a significantly enhanced in-place pedestrian bridge. You can see that on the right. We're planning to talk to a bunch of artists about how to make that other than the brutalist form that it is today. Excited about that. And a one-acre public park at the project's main landscape boulevard entry that complements Gateway Park as shown in this image. Next image, please, Matt. Thank you. This slide shows this natural border. Oh, sorry. This image shows a view of one of the paths winding through the buildings with landscaping and seating areas and tree canopy, which is so important for Roslyn, leading to the project's natural green border along the National Park Service land. Next image, please. So we're now actually at the edge of the site, not where the photo that you saw before was taken. This slide shows this natural border at the forested edge of the site during the summer along the National Park Service land. offering a walking and biking promenade parallel to the Potomac River, bordered by the tree canopy in the summer, and offering seasonal views, which you'll see on the next slide, to the Potomac River, Georgetown, and the National Mall when the deciduous trees shed their leaves. Next image, please. There you go. This slide shows the same view after the leaves had fallen during the fall, winter, and early spring when the deciduous tree canopy has shed its leaves. We think that adds interest and variety to the experience on the site, that there are seasons And the views change. We appreciate that the National Capital Planning Commission, or NCPC, has submitted a concern that the project will be visible from national parkland. We recognize this concern. And as you saw on slide 35 that the staff presented, we also recognize that the significant difference in our site's elevation above the parkway, as well as the extensive distance from the parkway of our site, and the intervening tree canopy and forestation, very thick, between our site and the parkway does soften and mitigate the impact of these buildings on the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is exactly what NCPC asked the county to consider. I would also point out that there are other buildings that are cheap by jowl as you go down the parkway with the George Washington Memorial Parkway. This will have much less of a visual impact, I think, than some of those buildings that already exist. And you see Roslyn as you drive anyway with the 472-foot tall buildings that are already in place. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we will start off with clarifying questions. If you have clarifying questions about potential access to views.

Yeah. I'm still confused. What is the highest height of the building? Or are they all the same size? Can you go?

So we don't have a highest height of the building yet because we're earlier in the process. So I think the applicant may have some ideas about what they would like. but we are right now kind of still conceptualizing what is the maximum that we would want? Do we want the varying? Do we want, so there.

But what he proposed, what they proposed is I thought it was 300 feet or something. Is that roughly 360, 360 roughly.

We're kind of trying to decide is, is that acceptable? Is it acceptable for them to all be about that height? And then, but right now we're talking about the, the views.

Well, Just to make a comment, I mean.

Well, we're going to do comments in a bit. If we can focus on clarifying questions now, please.

Sorry, I should have said 328. I apologize. 328.

Okay, so no clarifying questions about the views. So we'll start with the first question and we'll start over here. So Mr. Ventrone, you'll be able to give your, well, we'll start with you. So the question is, given that the height of the tree canopy on the adjacent NPS property will generally block views of the Potomac Georgetown at ground level, is public access to views a priority?

Yeah. I mean, living at the Waterview, we have a rooftop terrace. I would urge on your condo or whatever, even your rental buildings, to have a rooftop terrace. The Jay Revell building that is going to be opening soon, they have a pool and a rooftop terrace. So I would definitely recommend that. I think the way the buildings are designed, if you have the skirt at the bottom, that would be where the views are. And then the actual units would actually see the views. And I thought the way the buildings were built, were being proposed with the skirt, whatever, and what staff showed on the footage there of the trees, that would do fine. I mean, it was public access to views, though. Public access to views. I'm a little confused about that. People that will walk through there, they will see the view in the fall. I mean, are we going to raise the walkway so they have a view of the river? I don't think so. But I think, having walked that area many years, I think what they're proposing is very nice. I would have liked us to really enhance the river, but we can't do that because that's National Park Service. And then we have a proposed boathouse, which we haven't even discussed, which is another issue in itself. But I think – I don't think it's – I think what they're proposing is fine.

Okay. Yes, it should still be a priority in my opinion. And I think the applicant has done the best they can with the park services cooperation for the site.

Okay.

And so just to clarify, if it is a priority and there's not ground level views, if that's what we think, then there could be a viewing platform as staff had proposed. proposed like we used to have in Roslyn and then that community benefit was traded for something else. So the ways to get the public views are maybe we don't need to do any accommodations because in certain times of year maybe we can see the river or maybe we need to propose like a rooftop deck that we all have access to or that there's a restaurant up there so people could be You know, visit the restaurant. So is that gotcha?

Okay. No, I would put the priority more on public pass through over public access to views as far as, you know, multimodal transportation accessibility over having an absolute like, oh, I need a viewing platform like the view or whatnot. Yeah.

Since we lost that other view, I would love to see it in this, but I also support the conceptual drawings of the gardens and access and trees and all of that. So I think that's a high priority.

Going back to the previously approved plan, I remember a tremendous amount of discussion since you have put in here condition of the tree canopy, which a lot of those trees have vines. very invasive vines. I guess at the end of the day, I would, and again, we were unsuccessful, if I recall properly, we were unsuccessful in any sort of attempt to try to figure out the invasive vines. But I would want to preserve the tree canopy as much as possible there. And if you have to put some other structure or something, that's fine. But when I see something about condition of tree canopy, my little feelers go up about, oh, you know, protect the trees. And I know about the vines back there, which are only getting worse. So I'm in favor of making sure that the tree canopy stays. If that bothers the view, then so goes the view.

I think to the extent that We can provide public access to the views. That would be great. I was confused by the sketch that was put up there. They had a bike path and pedestrians, and I wasn't sure exactly where that was. I did think the bike, if you're going to have pedestrians and bikes traveling through there, it should be wider than it looked, because I bicycle pass there a lot, and we have the big bike path in front of that site right now and wherever this new site is going to be that they expect bicyclists to go if you're going to expect people to take in the views you need to make it a little bit wider i think than the number shown in the concept um uh anyway so that's those are my feelings thank you commissioner strainer yeah i mean i think

Depending on the time of year, views or no views, I think what's proposed here is good. And I think that public access is important as you have this green sort of oasis in the middle of a very urban Roslyn. I think this is I think that's good.

Public access to views is important. Yep.

Thank you.

Public access to views, I think, is uncontroversially important. but it's hard to answer this in the abstract without knowing what the trade-offs are. So that's my comment.

And my feeling is I don't think it's necessarily all that critical, only because right now, you know, without any buildings there, you really can't see, you know, much from, I go to Gateway Park just about every morning to take my dog, and you really don't see from that perspective. And my understanding is that there's, gateway park is the redesign of it one of the objectives was sort of to block the views as to the block the traffic views from that side of the park so i don't know how much that's you know how much of the view you're really going to get from gateway park anyway so i don't know if it's necessary the whole thing's that important of a priority it's nice to have but i just don't think it's i don't see how you do it

Dave Early with the Parks Commission. I like the path and the ability to have that view when the leaves are down. I do not, would not support a standalone platform. I do not think that's necessary with, you know, magnification. I don't think that's necessary at all. So pro-view, but not necessarily pro-65-foot platform.

Eric Montpelli, agree. Public access should be a priority and designed to allow a safe interaction of pedestrians and bicyclists in any shared space.

Related to views or just in general, you'd rather have really good public access to the site, but not necessarily views?

Yeah, the safe public access.

Okay.

Yeah, I think I want to associate myself with most of the comments on this side. I think the public access to views is important. But I guess I have a clarifying question for just the questions in general. We can respond to these at a later point, correct? Yeah, could we send our responses via email to you guys?

Yes, you are always welcome to send additional comments or feedback if you think of something after tonight's meeting. If you do some more research and have additional thoughts, you're welcome to send them to us. And all of these questions are kind of informing how we funnel or how we focus our conversation for the next few meetings. So we're still very big picture. Future meetings will still be very big picture. Once this goes through the LRPC process, if it is determined that this is an appropriate project or a project would be appropriate at the site, then we get to SPRC where we actually start talking about should that sidewalk go be 6 feet or 10 feet or 12 feet and things like that.

And then just a question of procedure, when would you want these responses? When's the latest that we could respond to these questions?

I mean, through the whole LRPC process, you can always send feedback, but earlier Related to tonight's topics, the sooner the better, because staff will actually start doing actionable things.

Okay. Steve Offit, Bicycle Advisory Committee. For me, I think just having a space that people want to go to and they feel comfortable in and it's accessible. Is and then they have access to the view this. I mean, the trees are there. You're not going to take the trees down. The vines are there. Couldn't take those down either. So the views that exist, I think we're talking about views. People are saying the river in Georgetown, but I like views of trees too. So the views that exist. Yeah, they should be accessible, but I think that's the same as just access to the site. And I think that the applicant, you know, if a view from a top of a building is a highly valuable thing to offer. then maybe that's something they consider. And I think it could be. That's an idea. But I would say I wouldn't build some special platform. I wouldn't call it a priority per se. I would say the priority is just making it a place people want to go and be.

Considering that the views would be blocked in the summer and that in the wintertime the view is going to be Partially blocked, but worse than just walking on across the key bridge already, which is actual jetliner view. So I don't see why if someone would walk across key bridge or be like, oh, it's cold, I'm gonna. stroll to see what is arguably a worse view because it's going to be semi-blocked. So my suggestion would be to take all that money that's being put into potentially that backside that in the summer will be blocked, in the wintertime will be cold to visit, is put it where there's the pedestrian walkway across and have the view of Arlington. We just talked about everyone loves the Arlington view. That's the actual premier view. So I think that would be a place that people would be drawn in versus a narrow path that already exists on Key Bridge that people can take pics and do all that. So-

okay and how about our folks online economic development comments about this question yes hi uh i agree with the folks who said it shouldn't be a priority i mean everybody loves views but um i'd hate to see a repeat of like the the view of dc the the viewing center that was quite the effort of the Roslyn Sector Plan that only stuck around for a year or two. And also there's a publicly accessible space at the La Meridienne with the elevator that I think has been broken for years that is a space that I think the developer put some money into providing like a publicly accessible observation area to Georgetown and I think very people know about it and even fewer people use it. So I agree with the comment, like focus on the project's assets and don't try to strain to put a publicly accessible view area in that might not be successful. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, and if we can just pull up the questions again, we have a bonus question. So I'm not going to do a round robin with it, but if anybody has a comment about this, it's very similar to our first question. Is achieving views from future buildings, whether they are publicly accessible or not, a priority? So if you have an opinion about this, please wave a hand. Commissioner Steiner.

I'll just say yes. It is a priority.

It is a priority to have views from future buildings, whether it's publicly accessible or not.

Correct.

Commissioner, Mr. Schwartz.

Strong no. Yeah, I do that up to the applicant, so not a priority.

Madam Chair, I would say no. I really don't understand the question, but It's, and I hate the word limiting. When I see limiting, that means more money.

No opinion for me.

Yeah. Okay. All right. So it sounds like we've either got no opinion, a few strong no's, it's not a priority to have views from the building, and somebody who does think so. So let's go to the next question. How important would you consider taking into account the guidance of the National Capital Planning Commission. Did I get that acronym right? Okay. Which is to minimize the impact of development visible from the George Washington Memorial Parkway. So should our building considerations, should we consider the view shed from George Washington Memorial Parkway when we consider projects in Arlington or at this particular site? And do you want to start over here, Transportation Commission?

Sure. Sure. I think it's an, that's an actual, it's an interesting question and I think I'll probably have a more solid answer at some other point, but I think just, just my initial thoughts is like the principle that the, I think the principle that like the planning, the national planning, the NCPC, I'm sorry, I'm terrible with acronyms. Like, I think it's valuable that they have that guidance that, okay, we have these historic parkways and park spaces and we want to preserve that and not have too much like development around it. And I, I think that's fine. But I guess it's a, in this specific context on the parkway, like, for example, I'm driving on the parkway. I don't think anyone's driving less than 30 miles an hour. So I don't really think people are paying attention to views while they're driving on the parkway. At least I'm not. So I don't know how much importance it is that like, that we need to consider, okay, people are driving on the parkway and we need to have like less development around it. But that being said, I think the question is important for us to think about because then our responses will set precedents for other developments and then goes beyond just parkways, but then it goes into like actual park spaces and development. And I think that's a separate discussion, but also worth having. that was not a solid yes or no answer. And I apologize for that, which is unfortunate, but I will, but I appreciate the question. I think it's really important. Thank you.

Eric Montelli, uh, not important.

David early price commission. I low importance.

I think it's only, um, It's only important, I guess, maybe from back further along the parkway as you get closer to the project and really all of DC opens up and you see the views of all the development. I think it's less important at that point. But you hate, I mean, it kind of is what it is, but you hate to see some buildings just sticking out where all you see are trees on all sides.

Aaron Roberts, North Highlands. I'd like to reframe the question. It's important, but how do we mitigate the loss of something important? So an example would be partnering with the National Park Services to make adjacent property more beautiful, more accessible. And I'll go on record and say that I fundamentally refuse to believe that reaching agreement But the National Park Service on removing invasive species is something that the owner of a $1 billion capital project cannot figure out how to pull off. Thank you.

Yeah, I think it's probably less important. I mean, you're driving past, this is our downtown corridor and it's visible from other stretches of the GW Parkway as is. And there are other stretches of the parkway that are much more you feel much more encapsulated by the trees. And I just don't feel like having that here is something that should be prioritized at the expense of our downtown.

Jerry Laporte, HALRB. I agree with the gentleman who just spoke. I think that this is important for most of the parkway, but here, you know, there was the... Larry Paxton, Keybridge Marriott was there for years, and so people were used to it when they put the Virginia tech building down in potomac yards I was kind of aghast that. I think it's kind of ruined the parkway at that point, but it's nice architecture, so it's nice to look at, but the parkway just isn't what it was. But we're not talking about a site like that here. This has been developed before, and it's across from Georgetown. I just don't think it's as important at this stretch of the parkway as it is on other parts of the parkway. Thank you.

The Abagley Planning Commission. Driving on the parkway is a pleasant experience compared to the Beltway or other places because the visualness, the greenness, other things that are already there. This is just guidance. And again, it becomes relevant only in the past you've had the Marriott building kind of overlooking it. I would say it has to be still held into some account. All of a sudden you've got 52 buildings over it, so it becomes relevant on what you're proposing and how that looks. I would just ask that as you go further into the process that you do some sort of renderings or something to show how the view there might be affected. Thank you.

Carolyn Haynes, Forestry and Natural Resource Commission. Not surprisingly, I think the highest priority is making sure that we preserve the forested area there and the green buffer. And yeah, I think that given some of the other comments that the building certainly is not going to impact that, but really the buffer is key to make sure we get that done.

Okay. So as long as the trees are protected, the height doesn't matter. The views don't matter. Perfect. Yes. Thank you.

Samuel Giacinto, Georgetown, Vista UOA. I would consider just as much as they're good stewards of what they're responsible for, which is minimal to none. It's a national embarrassment how they maintain the national park along GW Parkway. And I appreciate their input, but, you know, vines don't grow overnight. They're on federal property. So if this is a priority, they should have taken care of it.

Joe Ventura, North Roslyn, not important whatsoever.

agree not important whatsoever the parkway does not function as a parkway it is a congested traffic nightmare um there's so many crashes there that just they happen over and over and over again and there's minimal efforts to reduce that from uh mps uh already the roslyn skyline is already visible there including all the older buildings which look as as bland as whatever so completely um this is ridiculous thank you not important

Okay, and our economic development commissioner.

Yeah, I would say not important, but just to add a little bit. I agree with commissioner Bagley that I find driving on the parkway largely to be pleasant. Luckily, I'm. Driving reverse commute most of the time when I'm on it, but I just also agree with whoever said, you can see a lot of Roslyn already from the parkway. I kind of feel like one of the charms of the parkway is it has so many interesting varied parts of it. You've got the very bucolic, very green parts of it to the north of Roslyn. You have going towards Mount Vernon, some other parts like that with great views of the water. Here in Roslyn, I think Roslyn's skyline is part of its charm here on one side, and I think this project will add to that. And it will not take away from the fact that the real money shot on the parkway as you go through Ross and I think is looking out towards the key bridge and looking over towards Georgetown and the river. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. So it sounds like our consensus is. that we appreciate the guidance from NCPC, but we don't necessarily feel like this project needs to be limited by it, but we'll take it into consideration as we're moving forward. Okay, so we have our last kind of item to discuss. It's going to be frontage treatments. We'll have our staff presentation, applicant presentation, and I think there is just one question for us. We are at 845, so we will make sure to give this our full attention. But if we can be concise, that will help us all get home. So let's go to our presentation from staff.

Yes, thank you so much. And yeah, go through this as quickly and efficiently as possible. I just wanted to make a few notes as we jump into this section, namely that as the county, we are looking to I know that everyone is very familiar with what the applicant has provided and is largely, it sounds like, fans of what they've provided. But we are going into this section looking at frontage treatments from a blank slate, meaning we are trying to just provide guidance on what's best for this site. um, regardless of anything that has already been seen. Um, so I just want you to try and keep that in mind. Um, and we're going to be looking at, um, guidance from the Roslyn sector plan as well as urban design, um, principles, um, generally for urban environments as we move forward. And I'm going to just summarize this slide by saying that a lot of the Roslyn sector plan guidance is really emphasizing the streetscape and providing a vibrant streetscape that respects the human scale experience as you're moving down it. So, next slide. Okay, so we're going to be looking at when we say frontage treatments, we're essentially talking about the edges of the site. And what we're trying to think about is like, what are the best principles in terms of how we are placing the footprints of the buildings, regardless of the density, which, you know, we're going to continue to talk about. We're just looking at, you know, is the is there an urban edge? Is there not? Is there open space? Where is the open space? You know, assuming no, assuming the density. And the amount of open space on the site is equal regardless. Okay. So, looking at the southern edge, this is the edge that borders Langston Boulevard. We also have the Custis Trail that goes along there, as we know, adjacent to Gateway Park and also facing Roslyn. So, 1 thing to consider here is integration with the rest of Roslyn, right? This is sort of the face that is. connecting to Roslyn. So we thought that it might be also important to remind everyone of the new Gateway Park master plan that is about to be built and some of what's already being offered in terms of open space there. So in the next slide, you'll see some of what we're so excited to see come to Gateway Park, right? So there's going to be some bike repair, there are two different sized dog walking areas there's pollinator walks social gathering spaces there is an event space and pavilion there's a large lawn there are rain gardens so a lot of great public space is coming right adjacent to our site which is really exciting so we're thinking about the relationship to these amenities and how can the adjacent site complement those amenities but not necessarily be redundant to them right so moving forward And these are not massing diagrams whatsoever. These are merely diagrams to illustrate the concept of an urban edge. So an urban edge along Langston would look more like the left where the buildings are pushed up to that edge and bordering Gateway. And then the other would be, you know, they're pushed back, providing open space along the Gateway Park and Langston Boulevard side. And then moving forward, just looking at some guidance from urban design principles. One of the things that we look at in urban parks, especially large ones like Gateway Park, in urban settings, they are typically bordered by at least 50% buildings and or very active public streets. The way that Gateway Park is positioned, obviously, being along the highway, two of the edges are bordered by streets. They have to be. And then we have the Roslyn Edge, which is buildings. And then we have the Roslyn Circle. So only about 25% of it is currently bordered by buildings. And one of the reasons that this is of concern is simply because of safety. And so having those urban edges also helps to provide eyes on the park. And so there's just more visibility into and out of the park, which provides a greater sense of safety. Moving on to the next slide, this also impacts street activation. And so in urban settings, you'll typically see buildings bordering the park because it provides a sense of activation through the activities that are going on within the building. Even if it is in a commercial space, it might be just activities of the residents going into and out of the building. The green on green alternative on the bottom is more typical of suburban or rural settings. Next. And the final point that we would just make here is that oftentimes urban plazas that are created through just the buildings being set back from the street are sometimes hard to activate and to keep vibrant in a meaningful way requires additional programming. So that is one concern. All right. Looking at the other edges, Roslyn Circle, which has already been mentioned, very critical SITE, POTENTIALLY A SITE FOR A FUTURE MONUMENT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT MIGHT GO. ALSO NOTING JUST THE TRAIL THAT EXTENDS FROM KEY BRIDGE MOVING THROUGH TOWARDS GATEWAY PARK. AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT PATCH OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND BUFFERING BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE SITE AND NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE WHICH NARROWS AS YOU GET TOWARDS. Langston Boulevard, all planted as well, sort of like we were talking about with George Washington Memorial Parkway. And the next, the western frontage is where the RPA is, and so very green as well. It's helpful to sort of see this in sections, so if you move to the next slide, you get a sense of the transition between the North Highlands neighborhood The significant grade change as you move into the creek, which is the Colonial Village branch, which is the RPA zone, and then moving into a very dense green buffer there as well, and then you move into the site. So you see on the top the view closer to Langston and on the bottom the view closer to the river. And finally, we've talked a lot about it, This edge, but the edge that borders the George Washington Memorial Parkway with again, the National Park Service significant amount of green edge there. So. I think we'll turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you. I'd like to go through our vision of these site edges and then comment, if I could, on a couple of points that the staff has raised. First of all, this site has four distinct frontages, each of which is enhanced by our proposed configuration and placement of buildings across the site. We've done that very deliberately. Our vision for each of these frontages is as distinct as the property surrounding context, as these slides will show. You're looking at the site along Langston Boulevard, the busy Langston Boulevard, and planning a large wide sidewalk and a separate cycling lane wide enough to your point for safety with clear lines of sight at each of the project's entry points representing a significant enhancement of pedestrian and cyclist safety along this key segment of the Custis Trail. A large publicly accessible park populated with seating areas, a lawn and tree canopy, which again is so important to add to Roslyn. is embraced by the planned buildings in a semicircular configuration, as you can see, that follows the shape of the site, avoiding a looming presence over Gateway Park and providing an open, welcoming public entry to the project as it transitions from Gateway Park towards the Potomac River. Next image, please, Matt. This slide shows the longest curve frontage of the property, and this geometry is important in thinking about where to place these buildings. abutting the National Park Service land, connecting at the western end with the Custis Trail and on the east end with the sidewalk and bike path leading across Key Bridge. This frontage also faces a resource protection area, as shown in the foreground, that provides a large green buffer for the North Highlands neighborhood. I'd also point out that the thin edge of this building that you see in the foreground is deliberately oriented towards the surrounding community so that its presence is minimized. Next image, please, Matt. This slide shows the view from Key Bridge and the frontage along the National Park Service land, heavily forested, as you can see, which we've envisioned with a forested promenade, as you saw, parallel to the Potomac River, providing pedestrians and cyclists with a verdant escape from the traffic along Langston Boulevard, as well as the seasonal views to deciduous trees that we talked about earlier. Next image, please. The site shortage frontage. is shown on this slide along the busy North Fort Myer Drive and Roslyn Circle at the head of Key Bridge. This frontage is envisioned as a major identifier and access point for the project with two curved building fronts at street level embracing a landscape circular drive entry that echoes Roslyn Circle. So I heard the discussion by the staff about whether the edges of the property might be treated how they might be treated, if the same amount of density in open space could be achieved with different frontage scenarios, which presumably would involve relocating these buildings. Based on our extensive study of the site over the years, including various different building locations, and we've looked at them all, we don't think that's a good idea. Given the shape of the site, with its longest available frontage along the National Park Service land, our proposed layout is the optimal placement for the buildings to provide sufficient separation of light and air, to offer appropriate views and deliver view sheds for the greater Arlington community. The only alternative is to cluster the buildings more closely together as this image on 42 shows, which actually is the failed site project that preceded this, that would crowd the buildings along Langston Boulevard. And frankly, we would not be able, we know this, we would not be able to achieve the density that's necessary to make this project economically viable. So think of this project like your hand. So this is Langston Boulevard at my wrist. This is the fan shape of the buildings. You can see the separation that results from this configuration and all of the benefits that that provides. If you pull these buildings in towards Langston Boulevard, you get this. You get density, you get clustering, you get rid of the views through the site. It's just completely contrary to what we think is the best planning vision for this site. I would, just a couple of other comments. I'm surprised to hear a question about additional parkland. I must say that really does surprise me. Roslyn needs more parks, period, end of story. And again, we're providing that as a compliment to Gateway Park for people to enjoy and again, to welcome them onto the site. I'd also like to comment on public safety. and that concern about having to put buildings along edges of streets. There are 4,000 people who are going to live on this site 24-7. What makes areas safe is people, period, end of story. There will be plenty of people, plenty of observation, and plenty of safety and feeling of safety on this site night and day. Each of these buildings will have 24-7 desks, will have security. It's just not an issue. Thank you.

Thank you, so we will now go to our discussion and we'll start off with clarifying questions and then we will go to our single question any clarifying questions about building frontages. Okay well, then why don't we start with our discussion, so the question is if the same amount of density and open space can be achieved. with different frontage scenarios, what is your input on the southern edge, the eastern edge, the western edge, the northern edge? So if you want, you can speak to all four of the edges, but if there's one or two edges that are more important to you, you can just focus on those, or you can also pass if you don't have a strong comment on this topic. So we'll start over here. Transportation Commission, please.

Yeah, sure. I would just kind of provide a high-level comment, which is just to encourage the applicant and the county staff to be ambitious and bold in your frontage treatment because this is a fantastic opportunity to really focus on pedestrian and bike infrastructure and what is generally pretty car dominated space. And I think there's an opportunity here to be very deliberate about making this space primarily for people and not for cars, which I know is a difficult, it's a challenge given how much traffic goes in from the district into Virginia. But I think this is a great opportunity for us to be not just preserving the kinds of infrastructure that we have and the kinds of transportation that we have, but being ambitious and saying, okay, we have an opportunity To really value pedestrian safety and bike safety and that feeling of OK, I want to like actually walk in Roslyn because there are moments where I do not want to walk in Roslyn, right? And so I just that's kind of the high level just as you continue the process to kind of keep that in mind so that when we get to the site plan review committee. We're just setting the bar super high when we're going into that. So I'll just stop there. Thank you, Mr. Hussein.

Eric Montpelier, I'll focus on the southern edge facing Langston Boulevard and on the eastern edge. I think the separation of pedestrians and bicyclists looked really good. Only thing I would add to that then is consideration to the interactions with the cars that will be entering and exiting the space because it's 4,000 people. That's a lot of

cars too with hopefully a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists so focusing on those interactions will be important can i just make one clarifying point one of the things that's contributing to the cost of this site and then the need for for the density we're proposing all the parking's underground there's a road that comes around the the site at the back not on langston ball or not on north fort myer drive all of the garages and loading will be accessed and underground away from Langston Boulevard. So the conflicts between traffic and trucks and pedestrians and bikes will really be minimized at a high cost to be sure, but it's an important clarification to your point.

Dave Early with the Parks Commission. My focus would be on the interface with Gateway Park and the new open space is definitely welcome from our perspective. The trail safety and so forth is also important. Uh, and the bridge is a fantastic idea as well. You know, improving that bridge so that those would be, you know, a key priority for our for our group.

So with as far as I'm with Jay last with the Palisades Park Homeowners Association, one thing I kind of liked is the building that's closest to Langston Boulevard. As you know, going West along the sidewalk there and it's it's it's a long building. But I think I saw in the pictures where it looked like he had it broken by maybe like an entrance, maybe like halfway. I think that's that would be really desirable because it sort of breaks up the monotony of the building, I think.

Hi, Aaron Roberts, North Islands. So on the north northern edge, the applicant's proposal of a promenade is I know we're not supposed to talk about this conceptual sketch, but I will anyway. It's it's really quite nice, so kudos for that. On the southern edge, and maybe this is also the eastern edge, it bears repeating. Someone recently died at the Fort Myer and I guess it's westbound Langston. Any proposal for anything at this site that leaves it as dangerous as it is today, so net neutral or worse, is a complete and total abject failure. We need to avoid that. And then on the western edge, just bears repeating, that area has so much potential. And right now it's overrun with invasive species. And it's honestly an area that I don't think anybody would want to step foot in. That can change with minimal investment. We just need to figure out how to partner and collaborate with the federal government. Thanks so much.

All right. So I think the southern edge, obviously, I'm going to include the pedestrian and transportation safety elements. But I also think to the extent you can, any commercial activation of that space, I know it's going to be tricky with Langston and the park, but I think that's an option. And then I think with the other three sides, to the extent that you can incorporate as many of the green elements as possible, I think that adds a nice transition into a lot of the green forests and spaces that exist immediately adjacent to the site.

Jerry Laporte, HALRB. Over the years, when I first moved to this area in the 1970s, I was a student at Georgetown and nobody ever walked across the Key Bridge. And there's a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is because Roslyn was designed to be car-oriented and we've made so much progress over the years. Now there's a lot of people who are walking across Key Bridge and people are taking the Metro to Roslyn and walking to Georgetown and this. Site has so much potential to improve the pedestrian friendliness of Roslyn in general and the whole area. I just hope I'm not saying any. I'm not making any criticism. What's been said, but what's been. but I think we really have to make sure that we keep going in re-pedestrianizing Rosalind, if that's a word. And I don't know how we do that. But one thing that I agree with Aaron Roberts that I don't know if we can talk to the park service or what, but it seems to me that's somebody who should be at this table who's not at this table. i don't know if they're willing to talk about it but i think if the park service were here we may make to be able to make make they may be able to improve the design i don't know exactly how that would be done but uh we're just saying uh it looks to me like we just said we can't talk to the park service um we just have to go on without them and i think that um I would like to see if we could talk to the Park Service and get them involved more in this project.

Chair Bagley?

Yeah, I'm okay with the southern edge, the eastern edge, the western edge. I would want to keep green as much as possible, as well as the northern edge. Thank you.

I would second that, and I don't think you can have too many. Parks, especially when you're adding that much population, I think to augment what's going on at Gateway Park would be awesome. There's going to be a huge number of people that are going to be using those parks and a lot of dogs, so it better include some dog parks.

Just echoing previous comments, I mean, the separation of vehicles and people with grade strongly support that is to the extent possible. And I think also just an opportunity for the frontage to have destination retail, perhaps a grocery store. I think that would do very well in the area, given the amount of people that will live on site, but also in Roslyn in general, and even the traffic along Langston and the bike trail.

Yeah. I like this development, and the Planning Commission would appreciate this. We do not have a PUDO issue here. All right, Roslyn, as I've indicated to the Planning Commission, has an extreme pickup and drop-off, which is bad for safety, et cetera. So this, this design is perfect. My North Star to the developer would keep open space as much as possible where you have pedestrian right-of-way and stuff like that. The building, the massive building along Langston, with all due respect, I wouldn't put the entrance there because the entrance on Langston, that's where you're going to have your PUDO problem. Amazon will stop their things and go into the lobby. So if you were talking about putting the lobby entrance there, they could maybe dress up the building. Yeah, they could. I think it looks massive. It looks like the Berlin Wall or something. So you may want to pretty it up or something. But thank you.

So it was actually just in Chicago last weekend, right by the Aon Center and Maggie Daly Park. And Maggie Daly Park, super crowded, slam of people. There is a large frontage. So I'm not worried that it's going to be not activated. You can activate with non-buildings in this case. This is a view property. And if you look at any world-class view property, looking at a Brickell Bay drive, for example, the development as, as proposal is it's, you want to put things in the outside. It's like a heat sink. The value of this property is in the view. So you crowd all the buildings to the front. It's going to shrink the park. This is like, you know, as, as I was in Maggie, the parking grant park, this is going to elevate the park. Grant park has multiple, uh, wide roads going through it. But the fact that it does provide that openness really helps mitigate that. So having the in this case, you know, you don't want to push pedestrians up against a lot of busy road. Give give that space to breathe. Let's do world class treatments like in Miami and other places around the world, especially water views where you are separating the buildings, pushing them out and letting the area breathe. So I'm not concerned about safety or anything else. Arlington super safe. Yeah.

Steve Offit with the Bicycle Advisory Committee. I appreciate the fact that you mentioned that there's all this underground parking, but I don't know how the vehicles are going to reach that without crossing the Custis Trail. They have to cross somewhere. And the Custis Trail has never been safer than it has been since the Marriott closed in that little section. Not to say I think a flat lot of rubble is what we should have, but... Um, but that's a really big concern that that 1 of the busiest commuter trails, you know, around, um, is gonna, you know, not become a problem as it always has been, um, given the amount of traffic that's gonna have to cross that trail 1 way or another.

Okay, thank you. And let's go to our economic development, uh, member. talking about frontages, comments on what the frontages should be, north, south, east, west. Okay, no comment. So we are coming to the end of our meeting. I just wanted to give us, if there was any additional considerations about any one of the topics that you feel is important but was not brought up, that's height, views, and frontages, this is your chance to talk now. We will not do a round robin. We'll just, if you have something, feel free to raise your hand and then we will, and it is 910. The meeting was officially supposed to end at nine, but you know, we've talked about important stuff tonight, so we'll spend as much time as we need, but please do try to be concise. So yes, Mr. Roberts.

I thought I would make myself very popular by asking a late night question. We began the discussion asking an important question about whether this site should be in included within the Roslyn sector plan is among many options. I don't know if we need to discuss it now, but I think it's very important for the public to know, does that have implications for the community benefits package? Because I think Roslyn sector plan has a max density of 10.0 FAR. This is at 8.5. It's currently zoned for something around three. Does anything important around community benefits hang on that choice? That seems very important.

Ms. Rhodes, do you want to address that?

The site was included in the

Yes, if the site was included within the Roslyn Coordinated Redevelopment District, then it would be eligible for rezoning to CO Roslyn. And so that has a greater FAR and greater heights. You know, the heights are guided by the building heights map. But the potential for greater heights than under the current general and use plan designation and the current zoning. In terms of how it's related to the amount of density, yes.

Because more density would naturally get us more community benefits, and the plan would give us guidance on what the benefits might be, the priorities would be.

There would be guidance on the recommendations that are in sector plan in terms of general recommendations. But because this site is not in there, we would also need to develop some site-specific guidance. For instance, there is a building heights map in the sector plan. But what would the appropriate height be for this site should it be included?

Yeah. Okay.

Aaron's question was very specific to community benefits. And I think, I mean, Anthony, you can dive in if you want to correct me, but the site is currently zoned CO2.5. So we need to earn every square foot in community benefits roughly above that 2.5 FAR. It's actually units per acre, but that translates fine. The difference between going to COR versus just straight bonus density from CO2.5 is that you earn the difference between CO2.5 and the new base density and COR with a contribution to the Affordable Housing Investment Fund. That's set in a zoning ordinance. The exact contribution is negotiable, but the county typically asks for 10 to 20% of the density that you're getting or the equivalent value of it above the new base density of 4.8 FAR and COR We would earn every square foot, the same as a Roslyn project does. I think at this point, we're fairly settled that we're going in the direction of COR. It makes a ton of sense as far as an anchor to the planning principles here to tie us into the sector plan. But that's the difference. The math is complicated to tell you what is more or less. I actually don't know that off the top of my head. But either way, we're earning everything above the current zoning designation with these changes.

I just want to go over to Mr. Fusarelli because I think he has a comment about this.

Yeah, no, thank you. I appreciate the question. It's an important one. I think that where we are in the process tonight, we are a bit premature in terms of getting to the level of detail that Mr. Cummings just spoke to. But I would say it is generally true that if... If this process leads to a conclusion that additional development potential is appropriate and can be supported for this site, there is a strong relationship in terms of what could be realized through additional community benefit, the details and specifics to that, which would be hopefully further informed later on in this process, and then ultimately details that are determined through a site plan review.

Thank you very much. Other final considerations for height views or frontages, Mr. Schwartz.

Just real quick. So in this stage, anything that we do to impact building feasibility or other things will impact the total number of community benefits that we get. So I know we all here have our own commissions and everything that wants to maximize, in my case, housing commission, housing contribution. Are you a local other condo owner? You want retail or whatever. Everything we do to limit that is going to just cause more competition amongst the different housing dollars versus park space. So I just want everyone to consider that. Think of your own thing. If we're going to impact the feasibility of certain things? Are you willing for your own interest to perhaps lower the amount of park space, lower the amount of, insert whatever things you want? So just keep that in mind. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I think that's it. Nobody online has raised their hands. So we will now do our public speakers. I think we only have two people signed up. Is that right? Nobody else has signed up. We've got nobody who has signed up online. So, Mr. Peter Russo. Here, let me give you my.

Thank you very much. I'm Peter Russo on behalf of Arlingtonians for our sustainable future ASF. Our written comments are posted on the site's LRPC project page. Our recommendations for LRPC tonight are as follows. We believe you should rely on economic planning tools to quantify the community benefits and the value to the developer from bonus density. No surprise. The LRPC should urge the county to hire independent experts to compute the value of the bonus density sought by the applicant and the value and appropriateness of the community benefits that the applicant says it will provide. We should focus community benefits on low income households. Community benefits should focus on affordable housing for those with incomes below 30% of AMI, open space parkland, trees, and other environmental mitigation. We should quantify the transportation impacts. As the applicant indicated tonight, the proposal before the LRPC will add 4,000 new residents to the site. The site now has zero residents. It'll also add hotel stays. How will those thousands of new people at this critically important location on a federal evacuation route get to and from the site specifically and in detail? What impacts will their movements have to and from the site? This is a $1 billion project. We should invest in qualified external professionals to conduct the independent financial and transportation analyses, and the county should set aside a minimum of $1.5 million to pay the independent experts to perform the bonus density and community benefits calculations, the analyses of the transportation and environmental issues, and the aviation issues.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm Stuart Stein, an Arlington resident living in Radnor Heights and a former resident of Roslyn. I greatly appreciate the site coverage and setbacks, which helps with the views. And so does that the proposal comes in at 8.5 FAR rather than absolutely maximizing density. I think the project certainly fits in well with Realize Roslyn and the offline discussions that I remember when some of us talked about this site. I love the old hotel and would love to see a rooftop restaurant in the new one. One thing I think I mentioned in the previous meeting was safety and the FAA. I wish Planning Commissioner Jim Pebley was here. to explain OEI and the specifics of all the takeoffs and impacts of heights in Roslyn. He flew them and was very concerned about safety and about the impact of OEI. I participated in the FAA proposal, I think it was about 2014, to incorporate OEI in, I think it was part 77. There was, in the comments, there was a huge, blowback because of economic development impact, and so it was never incorporated. I knew where I live in Radnor Heights that my safety was directly impacted by OEI and flight path diversion in an emergency. I am not sure of its impact at this point in the flight path But OEI is definitely not just an economic impact. It definitely needs to be clarified, understood, and considered when thinking of setting maximum heights. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much to our public speakers. So now we can move on to the next steps for this LRPC. We can pull up that slide. And I can just get us started on the next steps. Okay, here we go. Ms. Rhodes, thank you.

Thank you. I have a slide here. Yes, so tonight we've heard your input on these three key urban design considerations, and they will help us to kind of create the for the modeling that we'll be doing in the fall. So we talked about building height, so that's kind of creating the top of the box, and then we talked about the frontages, so that's kind of creating the sides of the box. And so we're going to go back. We're going to synthesize what we've heard tonight. We're going to conduct additional analysis. We heard a few key points that we need to do additional research on. And then we're going to reconvene sometime in the fall. And we're going to focus on the topics that you see here. And that will be done through the models. We'll be able to touch upon a number of these different issues. And so those are the next steps. And thank you for your input. Okay.

Thank you, everyone. It is 922. We're a little bit late, but I appreciate everybody's time this evening. I appreciate your review of the project and all of the very helpful feedback you've given us so we can make sure that whatever gets built at this site is going to be a great contribution to the neighborhood and to the county. Thank you very much. Have a good night.