►
From YouTube: Arlington County Planning Commission - February 12, 2018
Description
To view this meeting with the agenda, go to https://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=44
A
It
is
action
on
site
plan
number
four
for
seven,
that's
11th
and
Vermont.
Just
to
remind
you,
the
Arlington,
County
Planning
Commission
was
established
in
1956
at
a
city
as
a
citizen
advisory
board
authorized
by
the
Virginia
State
code.
It
promotes
the
orderly
development
of
Arlington
County
and
its
environs
by
advising
the
county
board
on
development
and
use
of
land
facilities
and
zoning.
As
always,
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
an
item
this
evening
must
fill
out
a
speaker
slip
before
the
item
is
called.
Please
turn
your
slip
in
to
our
clerk.
A
A
B
Item
for
this
evening
is
item
number
one
11th
in
Vermont's
I
plan
number
four,
four
seven.
It
has
three
parts
this
evening:
one
a
GP,
three,
four
one
1
7
one
is
the
glove
1b
zoning
Z
2
6,
0,
0,
1,
7
1
and
1
C,
the
site
plan
number
four,
four
seven.
We
have
met
Pfeifer
our
planning
staff
to
present
this
item
this
evening,
good.
C
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Matt
fight
for
the
Planning
Division
I
have
with
me
tonight,
Jane
Kim
from
des
and
Justin
flank,
oh
also
from
planning.
The
item
we'll
be
discussing
is
the
clerk
mentioned,
is
site
plan
number
four,
forty
seven
eleventh
in
Vermont,
which
is
what
it's
known
by
this,
includes
a
glove
amendment
rezoning
and
cite
plain
sight,
is
located
on
both
sides
of
11th
Street
North,
but
both
the
north
and
south
side
of
11th
Street
north
on
the
blocks
bound
by
Utah,
Street
and
Vermont
Street.
C
It
consists
of
a
north
block
and
a
South
block,
which
is
how
we'll
refer
to
these
two
sites.
Throughout
the
presentation
the
address
is
1031
north
Vermont
Street.
Currently
at
the
site
there
is
a
church
and
a
Montessori
School.
Both
the
church,
the
church
owns
both
the
surface
parking
lot
and
tot
lot,
which
are
located
on
the
north
block.
C
Currently,
the
general
land
use
plan
designated
designation
for
the
site
is
low,
medium
residential,
and
that
includes
both
the
north
and
south
blocks.
The
proposed
general
land
use
plan
designation
for
the
site
would
be
low,
medium
residential
for
the
north
block
and
a
portion
of
the
South
block
and
high
medium
residential
mixed
use
for
the
southern
third
of
the
South
block.
C
So
a
quick
rundown
of
the
development
proposal,
I'm
going
to
do
this
fairly
quickly
in
the
applicant
will
give
a
much
more
in-depth
detailing
of
their
proposal.
But,
as
I
mentioned,
there
reclassifying
the
Glo
up
on
the
South
block
from
low
medium
residential
to
low
medium,
residential
and
low
medium
residential
to
high
medium
residential
mixed
use
as
I'll
get
to
later
in
slides.
C
This
is
part
of
a
larger
amendment
to
the
glup,
which
includes
new
note,
25
they're,
proposing
to
rezone
the
South
block
from
r5
to
RC
and
a
final
site
plan
to
redevelop
the
two
blocks
with
residential
uses.
The
north
block
is
proposed
to
have
12
townhouse
units
in
the
South
block
72
multifamily
units
consisting
of
58
units
in
a
multi-family
building
and
14
townhouse
style
units
fronting
11th,
Street,
north
solo
to
a
policy
guidance.
The
Ballston
sector
plan
identifies
the
site
on
the
concept
plan
map
as
residential
infill.
C
C
As
you
can
see,
between
Fairfax
Drive
and
11th,
there
is
mid-rise
residential
or
office
proposed
recommended
tapering
down
to
about
two
to
three
stories:
fronting
11th
Street,
north
north
of
11th
Street
north
between
11th
Street
and
Washington
Boulevard,
townhouse
style
development
has
anticipated
and,
as
you
can
see
on
this
slide
in
the
lower
right
hand
corner
the
glup
was
left
intentionally
flexible
here.
The
line
between
low
medium
residential
and
high
medium
residential
mixed-use
was
established
about
one
third
of
the
way
into
the
blocks.
C
However,
the
Boston
sector
plan
did
contemplate
that
RC
development
could
be
appropriate
on
all
of
these
blocks
and,
as
you'll
see
the
prevailing
zoning
pattern.
That's
existing
has
RC
zoning
for
almost
the
entirety
of
these
several
blocks.
However,
that
line
was
left
intentionally
vague
and
it
was
intended
to
sort
of
anticipate
that
there
would
be
a
transition
to
low
medium
style
residential.
C
So
when
the
developer
first
approached
staff
with
a
proposal
for
the
subject
site,
they
contemplated
rezoning
the
site
from
r5
to
RC
and
the
South
block.
We
determined
that
the
site
was
not
eligible
for
rezoning
to
RC,
due
to
a
2013
amendment
to
our
C
district
preamble,
which
required
that
rezoning
to
RC
correspond
in
some
part
to
high
name
high
medium
residential
mixed-use,
which
this
site
did
not.
As
I
mentioned.
Adjacent
blocks
were
zoned
RC
due
to
unique
the
unique
distribution
of
the
glove
which
was
established
by
the
sector
plan.
C
So
we
undertook
a
special
glove
study
and
that
was
meant
to
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
rezoning
the
site
to
rc.
The
study
also
looked
at
a
wider
area
beyond
just
the
site,
really
in
order
to
determine
whether
additional
changes
to
the
glup
are
warranted
and
whether
really
that
line
between
high
medium
residential,
mixed
use
and
low
medium
should
be
adjusted
in
any
manner.
C
So
I
want
to
back
up
a
little
bit
and
kind
of
talk
about
some
of
the
context
of
this
study
and
come
to
the
big
picture,
because
I
think
it's
it's
important
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
keep
in
the
back
of
their
mind
when
they're
evaluating
this
specific
site
plan.
So
this
is
actually
a
slide
that
was
taken
directly
from
the
Planning
Commission
presentation
for
the
glup
study
and
it
just
talks
about
kind
of
the
big
picture
ideas
established
in
that
that
kind
of
guided
staffs
approach
to
the
glup
study.
C
One
point
of
note
is
that
Arlington
is
a
growing
community.
We
continue
to
grow
and
the
glup
really
recommends
concentrating
growth
near
metro,
rail
stations
and
this
site
is
two
blocks
from
the
metro.
Rail
station
transit
oriented
development
has
many
benefits.
More
people
can
walk
bike
and
take
transit,
and
another
positive
attribute
is
that
transit
oriented
development
may
place
less
of
a
burden
on
public
services
than
other
types
of
development,
and
this
is
corroborated
by
a
uli
study.
C
So
with
that
in
mind,
the
app
I
have
a
couple
of
images
here
from
the
applicants
proposal.
The
image
on
the
Left
depicts
the
applicants
proposed
transition
to
11th
Street
north.
As
you
can
see,
the
building
is
proposed
to
be
seven
stories.
High
and
a
knotch
is
established
in
the
northern
part
of
the
building,
and
you
can
see
a
very
deliberate
transition
from
seven
stories
to
six
stories
down
to
four
and
three
front
and
North
11th
Street
north.
C
The
building
is
sited
81
feet
from
the
curb
line
of
11th
Street
north,
so
it
does
comply
with
the
no
25
recommended
guidance.
The
proposed
development
on
the
South
block
is
consistent
with
heights
form
and
placement
on
on
the
subject
block
and
surrounding
blocks,
and
it's
really
consistent
with
the
Ballston
sector
plan
and
the
RC
district
transit
recommended
transition
to
lower
scale
residential
development.
C
So
now
we're
going
to
get
into
an
issue
that
was
sort
of
dominated
the
discussion
during
the
site
plan
review
committee
process
for
this
site
plan,
and
that
is
the
separation
with
the
buildings
on
adjacent
sites.
So
a
little
bit
of
background
about
this,
there
is
no
larger
policy
guidance
that
talks
about
building
separation.
Generally
speaking,
building
separation
is
handled
with
zoning
regulations,
setback
requirements
and
any
type
of
larger
form
guidance
contained
in
sector
plans
or
other
policy
guidance,
and
really
specific
setbacks
and
specific
separations
as
a
process
are
determined
during
site
plan
review.
C
As
I
mentioned,
this
was
an
extensive
discussion
during
the
site
plan
review
committee
process.
It
was
also
an
extensive
discussion
during
the
special
glup
study
process
for
the
site.
The
Planning
Commission
did
recommend
during
the
glup
study
process
that
there
be
specific
separation
distances
for
inclusion
in
no
25.
C
So
here's
what's
proposed,
the
applicant
is
proposing
north
south,
a
separation
of
22
feet,
10
inches
at
its
most
narrow
point
and
about
34
feet.
10
inches,
east-west
at
its
most
narrow
point
and,
as
you
can
see
what's
being
proposed,
is
a
seven
story
building
and
it's
adjacent
to
a
nine
story.
Building
that
steps
down
to
six
stories
to
the
east
and
then
a
six
story
wing
of
the
West
View
to
the
south.
C
C
We
looked
at
the
prevailing
building
footprints
of
the
existing
and
proposed
buildings,
and
we
noticed
that
there
is
a
varied
separation
distance
due
to
the
existing
west
views
the
building
footprint-
and
this
is
due
to
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
the
units
have
son
rooms
with
bay
windows
that
kind
of
jut
out
from
the
facade.
So
you
have
sort
of
an
undulating
building
footprint.
C
The
existing
west
view
wing
to
the
south
of
the
site
is
built
about
55
feet.
Setback
from
the
north
Vermont
Street
right-of-way,
and
the
existing
West
View
buildings
are
sited
about
11
feet,
6
inches
from
the
shared
property
line
to
the
south
and
I'm
about
8
feet
from
the
property
line
closest
in
north
Vermont
Street.
C
Another
thing
we
wanted
to
look
at
were
the
development
patterns
in
the
vicinity
and
also
elsewhere
in
Arlington.
This
is
not
intended
to
be
an
exhaustive
scientific
sampling
of
building
separation
in
Arlington,
but
it's
really
intended
to
inform
the
Planning
Commission
about
what
is
the
Bilt
development
pattern
in
the
vicinity
and
also
kind
of
we
tried
to
look
at
projects
where
there
was
less
than
30
feet
of
separation
distance.
C
C
There
are
separations
less
than
30
feet,
found
an
RC
project
elsewhere
and
also
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
site
with
the
summer
walk
development,
and
we
also
found
that
the
scale
of
the
buildings
does
play
a
part
in
the
separation.
Generally
speaking,
the
greater
the
scale,
the
larger
separation
distance
provided.
C
So
a
little
bit
on
the
potential
impacts,
probably
the
major
impact
that
was
discussed
during
the
site
plan
review
process
was
shadowing
on
the
existing
buildings
and
the
access
to
sunlight
before
we
get
into
an
evaluation
of
the
proposal.
I
do
want
to
say
a
little
bit
about
shadow
studies.
I
think
there
was
an
inordinate
amount
of
focus
during
the
process
on
the
specific
shadow
studies
and
I
want
to
just
relate
to
the
Planning
Commission
that
the
county
does
not
have
a
policy
regardless.
C
Regarding
shadowing
in
the
context
of
planning
decisions,
all
buildings
cast
shadows
the
bill.
The
applicant
was
really
asked
to
prepare
shadow
studies
to
help
stat
provide
context
for
the
staff
analysis
and
the
community's
review
of
the
impacts
of
the
the
setback
in
the
building
placement
at
this
site.
So
this
this
is
one
piece
of
a
lot
of
information
that
is
helping
us
inform
this
decision
in
this
evaluation.
C
We
don't
believe
that
decision
should
be
made
regarding
specific
shadow
in
the
absence
of
a
comprehensive
policy
on
this
matter.
Really,
as
I
said,
shadow
studies
should
be
used
to
evaluate
the
contextual
impacts
of
the
proposal
and
whether
height
scale
and
praise
placement
is
appropriate,
given
all
factors
now
that
being
said,
what
can
we
learn
from
the
shadow
studies
for
that
were
prepared
for
this
project?
C
There
will
be
new
shadows
cast
south
on
to
the
existing
west
viewing
during
the
afternoons
during
summer
months,
and
there
will
be
new
kadosh
shadows
cast
east
on
to
the
existing
West
View
building
during
afternoons
during
much
of
the
year.
The
existing
West
View
buildings
will
also
cast
shadows
north
onto
the
proposed
building
during
much
of
the
year.
C
So
some
other
potential
impacts
of
building
separation
privacy.
You
know
we
heard
from
folks
that
the
new
units
will
be
facing
directly
into
the
existing
units
and
there's
a
chance
that
you
know
there
were
people.
Privacy
concerns,
one
mitigating
factor.
I.
Think
in
this
is
that
the
southern
facade
really
has
limited
fenestration,
as
you
can
see
from
the
elevation
on
the
slide,
and
that's
due
to
the
fact
that
there
is
a
building
core
and
stairwell
proposed
adjacent
to
this
facade.
And
then
the
last
thing
was
views.
C
We
generally
don't
make
base
decisions
on
private
view
sheds
there
have
been
instances
elsewhere,
like
Rosslyn,
where
we
have
contemplated
view
sheds
for
public
uses.
However,
for
private,
we
generally
do
not
factor
that
into
planning
decisions.
However,
in
this
case,
we
thought
that
the
sculpting
of
the
coroner's
would
actually
respond
well
to
the
impact
of
the
placing
a
new
seven
storey
building
at
this
site
in
this
location
and
by
sculpting
the
corners
which
the
applicant
is
proposing.
C
That
will
allow
more
light
and
air
into
the
passageway
between
the
buildings
and
it
will
also
allow
greater
views
out
from
the
bay
windows
on
either
side
of
the
west
view
wing.
So
what
what
the
applicant
is
doing
is
responding
to
the
specific
site
conditions
established
here
on
this
block,
so
some
findings
about
building
separation.
As
I
mentioned,
the
applicant
is
responding
to
a
challenging
or
urban
infill
situation.
The
site
is
small
and
they
are
providing
a
development
forum
that
is
largely
consistent
with
the
vision
of
the
Boston
sector
plan
and
the
special
glup
study.
C
C
Building
separation
varies
along
the
facade
due
to
the
undulation
of
the
building
footprint
due
to
the
bay
windows
in
the
West
best
view,
we
don't
think
changes
to
the
building.
Siting
will
really
have
a
major
impact
on
the
borough's
conditions
and
finally,
sculpting
we
feel
is
a
more
meaning
meaningful
way
to
respond
to
the
concerns
about
building
placement.
Therefore,
we
find
that
the
applicants
proposal
is
consistent
with
no
25
proposed
guidance
for
sufficient
separation
between
buildings
and
adjacent
sites.
C
Okay,
some
of
the
site
plan
benefits
an
infrastructure
that
will
be
provided
with
the
site
plan
are
LEED,
Silver
certification.
The
applicant
is
not
proposing
bonus
density,
but
they
are
proposing
to
achieve
LEED
Silver
certification.
They
have
also
agreed
to
a
condition
requiring
a
contribution
of
$75,000
towards
public
art,
they're,
proposing
streetscape
improvements
on
the
frontages
of
the
project.
C
So
the
applicant
is
also
proposing
several
modifications
of
zoning
standards
for
the
site,
they're
proposing
roughly
four
thousand
square
feet
of
density
exclusions.
These
are
four
below
grade
storage
and
below
grade
utility
rooms.
These
don't
these
spaces
don't
contribute
to
bulk
bulk,
mass
or
height
of
the
building.
They
are
also
proposing
a
modification
to
relocate
one
required
visitor
parking
space
in
the
north
block
to
the
South
Block
parking
garage,
and
they
are
also
proposing
a
modification
for
tendin
parking
on
the
North
Block.
C
Eight
of
the
twelve
units
will
have
tandem
parking
spaces
from
the
perspective
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Those
tandem
spaces
are
counted
as
one
space.
However,
they
can
fit
two
cars
and
we
believe
that
they
will
be
managed
as
such,
given
the
fact
that
they
have
that
they
are
ownership
units
rather
than
managed
by
a
separate
entity.
This
is
consistent
with
the
master
transportation
plan,
parking,
curb
space
management
element,
so
the
public
process
for
this
site
plan.
C
So
far,
we
did
have
four
site
plan
review
committee
meetings,
which
included
a
site
tour
at
the
first
meeting
and
an
open
house
at
the
last
meeting
whereby
residents
could
talk
to
the
developer
and
staff
one-on-one
and
insert
questions.
Some
of
the
topics
of
discussion
during
that
process
were
the
overall
scale
of
the
development,
open
space
site
layout
and
circulation,
building
placement
and
shadowing
architecture
and
sculpting
parking
deliveries
to
the
site,
traffic,
congestion
and
pedestrian
circulation.
C
North
Fairfax
drive-in
new
club
note
25,
recommending
approval
of
the
rezoning
of
the
South
block
site
from
r5
to
RC
and
recommending
approval
of
the
site
plan
for
12
townhouse
units
on
the
north
block
and
72
multifamily
units
in
the
South
block,
with
modification
of
zoning
standards
for
density
exclusions,
visitor
parking
in
tandem
parking,
all
other
modifications
as
necessary
to
support
the
proposed
development
and
subject
to
the
conditions
of
the
staff
report.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
D
D
So,
as
you
can
see
from
this
slide,
the
site
is
located
in
the
transitional
area
of
North
Boston.
Although
it
consists
of
parcels
north
and
south
of
11th
Street,
they
are
being
processed
as
14.1
site
plan
application.
The
site
is
currently
occupied
by
a
Baptist
Church
built
in
the
late
70s,
a
parsonage
and
a
surface
parking
lot
combined.
Both
parcels
total
about
55,000
667
square
feet
of
land.
It
is
also
very
well
situated
from
a
transit
standpoint.
D
This
slide
show
the
precedent
that
has
been
set
by
the
county
board
over
the
years
and
how
they've
interpreted
and
applied
the
policies
of
the
Boston
sector
plan.
As
you
can
see,
the
County
Board
has
established
the
zoning
line
between
the
RC
zoning
districts
to
the
south,
and
the
urban
townhouse
are
15
30
T
zoning
district
to
the
north
as
being
along
the
centerline
of
11th
Street.
D
All
the
blocks
to
the
east
of
our
site
have
been
rezone
to
the
RC
zoning
district,
which
allows
for
heights
of
up
to
95
feet,
and
the
parcels
to
the
west
of
us
are
zoned
Co
2.5,
which
allow
for
heights
of
up
to
16
stories.
As
you
can
see,
we
are
the
last
parcel
that
has
not
been
rezone
like
our
neighbors.
D
D
All
the
sites
surrounding
us
have
already
been
rezone
to
the
RC
zoning
district
and
again
to
the
co2
five
district
south
of
11th
Street,
and
built
out
current
building
heights
bobble
up
and
down
between
ten
and
seven
stories
throughout
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
randomly
before
they
all
start
to
begin
to
step
down
toward
11th
Street,
which
is
a
zoning
line
between
the
RC
zoning
district
and
a
townhouse
districts
north
of
11th.
Unlike
the
prior
neighboring
projects
surrounding
us,
we
are
actually
proposing
a
project
that
is
under
density
well
below
our
neighbors
and
maximum
permitted.
D
D
Actually,
I'll
go
back.
Additionally,
you
can
see
the
north
parcel.
The
surface
law
parcel
is
also
one
of
the
last
sites
in
the
vicinity
on
the
north
side
of
11th
Street
not
to
be
redeveloped
or
so
into
the
existing
r15
30
t
zoning
district,
like
the
South
parcel.
The
proposal
for
the
north
parcel
is
below
density
contemplated
for
the
site
entirely
consistent
with
planning
policies
adopted
for
this
part
of
Boston
and
as
well
as
the
existing
r15
30
t.
Zoning
district.
D
D
So
before
we
get
into
the
specific
specifics
of
our
current
proposal,
I
did
want
to
highlight
how
much
this
project
has
evolved
during
the
SPRC
process.
The
north
parcel
has
been
completely
reoriented
and
redesigned
from
a
site
layout
standpoint.
The
architecture
has
been
completely
redesigned
to
reflect
a
different
character
of
the
neighborhood's
north
of
11th
Street,
to
provide
generous
setbacks
from
the
sidewalk
on
11th
Street,
and
a
new
courtyard
and
open
space
on
the
north
side
of
that
parcel
was
also
created
to
provide
very
generous
setbacks
and
views
for
our
neighbors
to
the
north.
D
The
condo
flats,
building
on
the
South
parcel,
has
also
been
redesigned
and
sculpted
to
provide
tapering
both
north
and
south
through
the
through
that
parcel
and
the
building
facades
of
the
townhouse
style
units
that
front
on
the
south
side
of
eleventh
of
11th
Street
were
also
redesigned
to
provide
building,
articulation
very
nice,
high-quality
masonry
detailing
and
were
able
to
create
an
opportunity
for
more
opens,
and
we
were
also
able
to
create
an
opportunity
from
a
more
open
space
on
Utah
Street
altogether.
These
concepts
have
come
a
long
way.
D
I
believe
my
client
has
worked
very
hard
to
listen
to
all
the
different
points
of
views
and
opinions
and
then
work
with
County
staff
and
their
design
team
to
come
up
with
a
design
that
well
not
perfect,
for
everybody,
hopefully,
is
one
that
works
for
everybody
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Lee
from
our
2l
architects.
We'll
walk
you
through
the
evolution
of
the
project
and
what
we're
proposing
tonight
in
detail.
Thank
you.
E
Good
evening
my
name
is
Li
Rubenstein
of
r2l
architects
and
I'm
here
to
walk
you
through
the
specifics
of
the
project
as
it
currently
stands
to
follow
up
on
what
tad
started
to
mention.
The
project
has
gone
through
quite
a
bit
of
evolution
through
the
SPRC
process.
As
you
can
see
on
this
slide,
the
north
parcel
foot,
original
footprint
and
building
orientation
and
design
have
been
completely
changed
and
we've
worked
to
modify
the
architecture
on
the
south
side
as
well.
E
As
mentioned
in
the
introduction
to
the
projects,
we've
undertaken
shadow
studies
in
several
ways.
Looking
in
multiple
conditions
for
this
site,
we
were
asked
to
model
existing
conditions
proposed
conditions
and
as
well
as
a
30-foot
separation
condition
on
the
south
side.
This
slide
shows
the
June
21st
summer,
solstice
starting
in
the
morning
and
through
noon
and
then
later
in
the
day
through
3:00
and
6:00
p.m.
E
This
shows
the
winter
solstice
again
as
a
staff
mentioned
in
their
introduction.
The
conditions
change
completely
throughout
the
year,
and
here
you
can
see
the
longer
shadows
in
the
winter,
from
912
ending
around
3
as
the
Sun
Goes
Down
earlier,
you
can
see
the
lengths
of
the
shadows
contributed
not
just
by
the
proposed
structure,
but
also
by
the
existing
buildings
in
the
neighborhood.
E
E
This
slide
is
meant
to
introduce
and
sort
of
lead
into
how
the
building
is
placed
with
respect
to
11th
in
Vermont
streets.
There
are
a
range
of
streetscape
standards
at
play
here.
11Th
Street
is
actually
a
transition
line
and
the
project
is
fully
compliant
with
the
various
standards
both
north
and
south
of
11th
Street
in
this
page
is
meant
to
illustrate
that
north
of
11th
Street,
the
streetscape
element
widths,
are
generally
narrower
and
we
still
meet
those
moving
south
to.
E
E
During
the
s
SPRC
process,
we're
asked
to
consider
how
various
pedestrian
and
traffic
flows
go
through
the
neighborhood.
This
is
one
illustration
just
demonstrating
we're.
Neighborhood
foot
traffic
goes
primarily
along
the
sidewalks
around
the
sites
and
then
at
the
very
bottom
there's
a
yellow
area
where
we're
pulling
back
the
curb
and
that's
what
we're
proposing
to
do
lay
by
spaces
for
drop-offs
uber
pickups.
Things
of
that
nature
to
address
concerns
about
streetscape
congestion
in
that
area
is
sort
of
just
just
to
the
beyond
the
the
north
Vermont
label
in
this
slide.
E
So
this
is
the
ground
floor
plan
of
the
South
parcel
and
I
wanted
to
walk
very
quickly
through
how
it
works.
You
can
see
the
parking
Lane
and
the
lower
in
the
lower
left-hand
corner.
The
majority
of
the
service,
however,
is
accommodated
through
a
service
lane
between
the
townhouses
and
the
flats
building.
That's
where
there's
access
to
a
bike
room,
that's
we're
loading
in
trash
occurs
and
that's
where
people
who
use
the
below
grade
parking
garage
will
enter
and
leave.
E
We've
tried
to
internalize
as
many
functions
as
possible
to
get
them
off
the
street
to
minimize
nuisance.
Wear
weakened
their
dwelling
units
at
the
ground
floor
somewhat
terraces.
We
have
the
trash
room,
basic
functions
for
the
building,
the
main
pedestrian
entrance
for
the
building
is
just
north
of
the
parking
Lane.
E
E
This
is
a
what
a
typical
floor
plan
looks
like
on
the
South
parcel.
You
can
see
the
setback
areas
at
the
very
bottom
of
the
page,
starting
above
level
2.
You
can
also
see
the
townhouses
and
their
setbacks
on
the
north
side,
and
that
setback
is
around
10
feet,
excluding
the
bay
projections
on
the
north
side.
E
This
is
the
the
upper
roof
plan
of
the
the
flats
building
showing
proposed
to
equipment,
locations,
screening
elevator
over
run
and
stair
that
basically
just
goes
up
for
for
maintenance
purposes.
At
the
very
north
piece
of
this
plan,
you
can
see
where
the
building
actually
steps
down
one
level
and
that's
a
common
use,
amenity
Terrace,
just
south
of
the
service
drive.
E
E
I'd
also
like
to
note,
at
the
bottom
of
this
of
this
slide
near
the
ground
plane,
there's
the
sort
of
terraced
red
brick
structure,
that
is,
a
landscape
covering
for
the
garage
access
ramp,
that
we
are
proposing
as
a
visual
amenity
for
both
the
existing
residents
and
the
new
residents,
and
it
also
serves
to
cover
and
contain
nuisance
traffic
noise
lights.
Things
like
that.
E
This
is
the
North
elevation
of
the
South
parcel
main
building,
and
this
is
along.
The
interior
service
drive
where
we're
housing
as
many
service
functions
as
possible.
Loading
in
trash
garage
entrance
bike
access,
things
of
that
nature
and
moving
further
north.
This
is
the
North
elevation
of
the
townhouses
on
the
South
parcel,
we're
proposing
a
three-story
facade
composition,
primarily
masonry
with
bay
projections,
and
then
on
top
of
that
all
they'll
be
terraces
in
a
setback.
E
Moving
to
the
north
parcel,
this
is
the
current
landscape
plan,
but
it
also
illustrates
the
service
drive
and
the
architecture.
We
went
from
an
original
design
that
essentially
mirrored
those
townhouses
on
the
South
parcel
to
more
of
a
gable
pitched
roof
design,
that's
more
in
keeping
with
the
various
architecture
or
on
the
north
side
of
the
street.
E
E
E
And
a
little
bit
more
detail
of
what
we're
proposing
we,
we
take
a
lot
of
care
and
masonry
design
that
we
do
and
we
want
it
to
have
a
quality
that
just
indoors
and
it's
not
just
basic
flats
unadorned
brick.
So
brick
details
brick,
coercing
relief
of
the
facade,
the
use
of
Bay
projections,
all
those
things
we
think
help
to
enrich
the
facades
of
the
buildings.
E
In
prospective
view,
this
is
the
north
side
of
the
street,
again
a
very
different
character
from
the
south
side,
less
of
an
urban
edge
feel
and
then
moving
around
the
corner
going
north
along
Vermont
Street
we're
looking
to
embellish
the
facade
again
with
porches
entrances,
there's
that
there
are
gates
and
garden
walls
along
the
setback
area
and
then
more
views
in
the
the
north.
The
north
parcel.
E
There
are
a
few
amenity
for
the
new
residents,
but
we
also
realize
they'll
be
looked
down
upon
from,
and
so
we're
gonna
work
to
make
those
as
as
beautiful
as
possible,
and
this
is
the
open
space
at
the
north
end
of
Utah
Street.
It's
currently
paved
I
believe
there's
a
bike
share
location
there
we're
proposing
to
to
provide
a
landscape
open
space.
The
use
hasn't
really
been
determined.
Yet
we
want
to
work
together
with
everybody
to
figure
out
the
best
use
for
this
area
for
the
neighborhood.
F
Good
evening
my
name
is
Dana
gurke
and
I
have
been
representing
many
of
the
citizens
of
West
View
throughout
this
entire
process.
Over
a
year
ago,
I
started
a
petition
that
resulted
in
five
hundred
and
thirteen
signatures
from
neighbors
and
concerned
citizens
of
Arlington
opposed
to
any
change
to
the
existing
zoning.
Many
citizens
purchase
their
units
with
the
understanding
that
the
neighboring
property
was
zoned
for
low
to
medium
residential.
F
After
countless
meetings
with
the
long
range
planning
committee
and
careful
consideration
of
both
the
Builder
and
the
community,
the
recommendation
was
limited
to
six
storeys
step-down
three
to
four
stories:
30-foot
separation
between
built
elements
with
the
builders
current
plan
in
mind.
It
is
accurate
to
say
that
zero
of
the
three
criteria
have
been
fully
met.
While
we
recognize
an
attempt
by
the
Builder
with
the
chamfered
corners,
this
is
simply
putting
lipstick
on
a
pig
in
terms
of
the
22-foot
proposed
back,
while
all
other
similar
buildings
in
the
area
have
a
30-foot
setback.
F
I
ask
again
what
is
this
building
bringing
to
our
community
that
affords
them
the
right
to
deviate
from
what
is
the
current
standard?
It's
not
a
firehouse
where
additional
space
can
allow
for
more
trucks
to
potentially
save
lives.
It
isn't
a
school
where
more
space
is
more
room
to
benefit
children.
What
is
this
building
bringing
to
our
community?
As
stated
in
the
proposal?
The
applicant
claims
that
they
are
mirroring
Westview
in
terms
of
setback
and
sculpting
their
building.
Accordingly,
please
refer
to
figure
20
on
page
25.
F
How
is
a
six-foot
notch
in
the
proposed
building
with
another
portion
of
the
building
behind
it?
Mirroring
the
thirty
four
foot
wide
full
sculpting
of
West
View?
If
this
plan
is
approved,
as
is
the
Arlington
Way,
and
the
idea
of
community
involvement
is
nice
for
brochures
and
websites,
but,
sadly
not
truly,
something
that
is
in
practice
anymore?
We
truly
hope
that
the
Planning
Commission
will
take
into
consideration
the
hours
the
lrpc
put
into
this
process.
F
Respect
the
500
plus
residents
that
express
their
concern
through
the
petition
and
letter
writing
to
the
county
and
approve
a
plan
that
is
truly
best
for
Arlington
and
the
existing
community
as
a
whole.
The
Arlington
way
represents
a
compromise,
not
a
bulldozing.
Thank
you
all
very
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
G
G
What
is
the
compelling
reason?
The
Builder
will
not
comply
and
the
board
would
accept
this
deviation.
The
applicant
could
easily
minimize
the
urban
space
in
his
own
property
for
several
townhomes
and
use
that
30-foot
setback
as
an
urban
space
for
West
View
and
the
majority
of
his
other
residence
as
the
County
Planning
Commission
recommendation
been
forgotten
or
ignored.
We
respect
the
Arlington
way.
The
Arlington
way
is
a
process
that
depends
on
inclusive,
assessable,
respectful,
purposeful
dialogue
between
the
government
and
those
who
live
and
work
here.
G
If
the
Planning
Commission's
evaluations
and
input
are
to
be
ignored
at
each
of
these
subsequent
meetings,
then
this
is
not
the
Arlington
way.
In
this
case,
the
residents
would
be
respected
with
the
following
recommendation
with
the
amendment
of
the
Planning
Commission,
which
is
not
what
they
would
have
chosen,
but
what
they
would
find
a
livable
livable
compromise.
If
the
applicant
does
not
present
options
at
the
meetings
that
attempt
to
complain
cooperate
with
the
recommendations
of
the
Planning
Commission,
then
the
applicant
should
be
rejected
in
the
interest
of
Arlington
County
and
the
residents
Thank
You.
H
The
long
summer,
sunlight
and
sunset
are
particularly
appealing
and
provide
one
with
a
daily
battery
recharge,
so
to
speak,
just
wonderful
and
the
reason
most
buying
this
property,
the
South
high-rise
proposed,
will
be
a
terminal
below
to
the
lifestyle
and
investment
of
100
of
our
residents.
The
resale
price
and
ability
to
sell
will
be
greatly
reduced.
This
seven
really
eights
story,
high-rise
built
on
an
increasing
gradient
of
ten
foot,
will
be
a
total
building.
H
Eclipse
of
our
Westview
major
sculpting
from
neighbor
buildings,
1005
north
glebe
4401,
north
fairfax
and
the
north
neighboring
three-story
townhome
community
will
be
wiped
out
and
now
useless.
They
did
their
part
responsibly
when
they
built
current
south
wall
setback
will
be
reduced,
15
feet
from
the
37
to
22
feet
and
building
height,
increasing
from
the
current
three
storeys
to
seven.
This
move
cuts
off
complete
Sun
and
light
access
to
the
Vermont
building,
facade
running
east
to
west
the
entire
length
between
Vermont
and
Utah.
The
builders
resolution
is
a
six
foot
notch
cut
into
the
corner.
H
Contrary
to
the
draft
report,
this
will
not
alleviate
the
Eclipse.
It's
a
pitiful
solution.
The
building
height
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
no
higher
than
six
storeys
twice
the
skirt
current
school
height.
That
is
a
big
concession
for
us.
The
builders
submitted
seven
stories
with
rooftop
utilities
equaling
a
totally
total
of
eight
stories
in
fairness,
Heights
should
be
limited
to
five
stories,
plus
rooftop
utilities,
equaling
six
stories.
H
Every
foot
of
height
equates
to
a
more
lengthy
time,
loss
of
light
and
sun
exposure
to
the
west
side
of
utah
and
the
north
side
of
vermont,
so
58
potential
residents,
trump
existing
185
west
view,
long-standing
residents.
So
a
select
builder
in
profit,
I
just
have
two
sentences
connect
finish
it
up.
Townhomes
would
have
worked
perfectly
as
currently
zoned.
Finally,
if
the
board
wants
the
real
and
complete
facts,
each
should
visit
from
the
inside,
our
condo
I
will
be
available
anytime
in
any
day
to
provide
access.
H
I
Good
evening
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
I
live
in
Arlington,
Forest
and
I've
been
a
Boston
homeowner
since
2002
and
I
know,
you've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
project
and
other
projects
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
two
technical
things.
That
I
would
hope
that,
even
at
this
late
stage
in
the
process
you
can
take
into
consideration,
I
do
want
to
focus
on
that.
No
25.
As
we
know,
each
project
is
a
precedent
for
future
projects
and
precedent
and
I
know
no
25
talks
about
that.
I
In
particular,
the
development
should
complete
and
reinforce
the
overall
transition
envisioned
by
the
Ballston
sector
plan
and
it
calls
out
two
items,
the
building
height
and
secondly,
it
should
encourage
sufficient
separation
between
buildings
on
adjacent
sites.
If,
if
something
is
to
encourage
that
plan,
it
is
impossible
to
say
that
setting
a
new
minimum
is
consistent
with
an
already
existing
plant.
The
current
proposal
sets
a
new
minimum
for
building
separation,
as
was
evidenced,
the
county
staff
talked
about
30
feet
is,
is
the
standard
and
also
those
instances
were
only
for
two
and
three
storey
buildings.
I
These
numbers
plainly
indicate
that
the
proposal
would
seem
to
be
inconsistent
with
no
25,
which
says
it's
supposed
to
be
consistent
with
the
current
plan.
It
does
not
reinforce
what
is
going
on
in
the
area,
but
sets
a
new
precedent
for
cramming
in
buildings
which
will
now
be
used
by
builders
in
the
future
as
a
new
number
that
they
will
try
incorporate
further.
I
It
is
possible
that
residents
could,
if
they're,
not
pleased
with
this
institute,
some
sort
of
administrative
challenge,
I'm
sure
the
Zoning
Commission
wouldn't
wouldn't
want
to
leave
themselves
susceptible
that
and
I'd
hope
they
take
it
into
into
account.
A
simple
solution
would
be
to,
of
course,
shift
the
building
eight
feet
to
cut
off
eight
feet.
The
building
could
still
exist
exactly
how
planned
all
that
would
change
likely
was
the
footage
of
a
certain
apartments
that
the
Builder
could
offer.
I
I
would
encourage
to
get
a
clear
answer
on
this,
to
make
it
clear
in
the
the
documents
that
go
to
the
county
board
now
to
mention
that
that
these
were
recommendations
expressly
for
their
viewing
so
that
they
can
Ricci
what
went
on
and
for
transparency
that
these
were
three
recommendations.
They
are
not
incorporated
into
the
plan
if
the
county
board
feels
that
that
was
correct,
they
will
of
course
bless
it
if
they
thought
that
was
a
misinterpretation,
that
the
residents
were
right,
that
they
were
just
giving
high-level
guidance
and
they
do
like
those.
I
J
Good
evening
my
name
is
Lauren
de
soma
I
am
the
president
of
the
West
view
board
and
I
am
here
to
address
two
points
on
behalf
of
the
board
I'm,
referring
to
the
letter
submitted
by
our
attorney
Kim
O'halloran
Perez
earlier
today,
item
one
is
prior
to
drafting
this
letter.
The
board
of
directors
of
the
Association
approached
the
applicant
and
its
attorneys
for
the
purposes
of
seeking
access
onto
their
property,
to
complete
repairs
to
a
portion
of
the
association's
underground
parking
garage.
J
J
Plans
to
vacate
the
several
utility
easements
as
part
of
the
land
development
process,
as
noted
above
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Association,
retained
an
engineer
for
the
purposes
of
examining
the
association's
garage
in
the
course
of
that
evaluation.
The
board
of
directors
learned
that
there
are
comcast
lines
serving
the
Association
which
may
be
located
in
a
junction
box
within
the
existing
utility
easement
area
on
the
applicants
property.
The
Association
has
also
obtained
a
report
from
its
utility
that
appears
to
indicate
additional
utilities
underground
lines
within
the
easement
at
issue.
J
Pending
confirmation
of
these
utilities
existing
here,
if
the
applicant
still
intends
to
vacate
the
existing
utility
easements
on
their
property,
the
association
is
seeking
a
site
plan,
condition
that
obligates
the
applicant
to
relocate
the
affected
utility
lines
and
junction
box
to
an
alternative
location
on
the
applicants
property.
They
would
not
interfere
with
the
association's
access
to
any
utility
services.
That's
it
just
I.
K
Good
evening,
see
perfectly
honest:
I
was
not
gonna
waste.
My
time
speaking
tonight,
I
think
you've
already
decided
to
approve
the
applicants
proposal,
notwithstanding
unanimity
among
the
neighbors
that
the
applicants
proposal
is
an
inappropriate
project
for
our
neighborhood,
but
I
received
an
email
indicating
I
should
finish
what
I
started.
So
even
though
it
doesn't
seem
as
if
the
county
is
listening
to
the
community,
I
will
share
our
concerns
once
again.
K
K
We
would
be
fine
if
your
recommendations
followed
those
at
the
last
document
where
the
community
actually
had
input,
which
is
the
Ballston
sector
plan.
I
will
note
that
staff
has
cherry-picked
sections
of
the
Ballston
sector
plan
in
this
process.
They
have
not
followed
it
and
there's
another
misrepresentation
from
counsel
for
the
applicant
yet
again
that
they
are
fully
compliant
with
it.
According
to
the
Ballston
sector
plan,
the
county
should
encourage
neighborhood
preservation
through
neighborhood
conservation
planning.
Note
our
townhomes
are
pictured
there.
K
It's
not
like
they
came
later
and
we're
talking
about
a
different
set
of
townhomes.
They
should
be
goals
that
include
coordinated
urban
design
and
urban,
open
space
apartment
development
and
townhouse
infill,
not
a
seven-story,
multi-story,
building
and
reinforcement
of
existing
residential
development,
which
is
simply
not
being
done.
The
applicants
proposal
does
not
reinforce
existing
development,
it
does
not
taper
and
transition
and
instead
creates
ups
and
downs
with
uncomfortable
spacing
in
between
areas.
K
The
Ballston
sector
plan
was
supposed
to
preserve
the
neighborhoods
and
the
proposed
changes
in
the
street
network
we're
supposed
to
protect
the
neighborhoods
from
increased
traffic.
No
one
in
this
process
from
the
county
or
any
of
the
Commission's
has
address
the
concerns
about
the
street
network
and
the
increased
traffic
on
the
very
narrow
streets
we
have.
That
is
certain
to
result
from
the
sudden
increase
in
density
that
this
project
would
propose.
Finally,
there's
no
open
space
that
has
been
proposed
here.
K
It
takes
what
effectively
has
been
open
space
in
our
neighborhood
and
it
privatizes
it
with
no
replacement,
contrary
to
the
sector,
plans,
encouragement
to
create
small
parts
and
the
sector
plans,
warnings
against
creating
open
spaces
and
quote
unquote
secluded
areas.
Many
in
the
community
asked
in
the
SPRC
process
for
the
garden
on
the
north
parcel
to
be
located
along
11th
Street.
In
addition,
the
developer
was
asked
at
SPRC
why
they
didn't
move
the
townhouses
along
the
South
parcel
back,
so
that
the
backyards
were
located
as
front
yards
along
11th
Street.
K
These
requests
were
refused
and
some
cited
to
some
hard
to
pin
down
principle
of
planning.
That
says
you
should
frame
a
street.
We
still
haven't
been
able
to
identify
what
that
was,
but
that
too
contradicts
the
Boston
sector
plan
that
encourages
pleasing
open
space
for
community
use
and
it
contradicts
everything
we
have
asked
for
as
a
community.
K
If
you're
gonna
steamroll
over
us
at
a
minimum
we'd
ask
you
to
address
the
following
concerns.
First,
if
the
Planning
Commission
is
going
to
recommend
approval
for
the
zoning
exception
for
the
third
parking
space
to
be
located
in
the
multi-family
unit
underground
parking,
we
asked
you
to
nail
down
details
acceptable
to
the
community
for
the
parking
as
a
condition
of
that
a
final
approval.
They
can
give
fobs
to
residents
for
access.
But
how
does
this
work
for
visitor
parking?
K
How
does
a
visit
or
get
into
a
parking
garage
of
that
building
or
even
know
that
it
is
available
and
how
many
spaces
will
actually
be
available
there
too?
We
ask
that,
as
condition
for
approval,
you
recommend
the
county
amend
the
residential
parking
permit
program
to
limit
parking
for
an
extended
period
of
time
on
nights
and
weekends
to
protect
our
communities
from
the
new
neighbors.
Even
if
the
new
neighbors
are
not
allowed
to
get
parking
permits
for
daytime
hours,
all
of
the
surrounding
communities
have
expressed
concerns
with
the
parking
at
nights
and
on
weekends
3.
K
We
ask
that
there
be
a
condition
that
a
study
be
done
at
the
light
on
Glebe
in
11th
and
that
changes
to
the
timing
of
that
light
be
addressed
for
safety
purposes.
For
both
pedestrians
and
cars,
for
we
ask
that
an
additional
condition
be
placed
that
there
be
changes
made
at
the
intersection
at
Fairfax
Drive
in
Vermont
to
tech
cars
exiting
from
Vermont.
Perhaps
that
is
this
new
stoplight,
and
maybe
that's
white
stripes
with
do
not
block
signs,
but
it
needs
to
be
addressed
before
you
put
another
100
people
on
that
corner
five.
K
We
asked
a
condition
be
placed
on
the
construction
that
it
cannot
block
streets
during
the
construction
on
any
other
site
within
the
blocks
north
of
Fairfax,
Drive
and
south
of
Washington
Boulevard.
You
have
four
for
major
construction
projects
going
on
in
this
area
in
the
coming
months
at
the
same
time,
and
we
have
limited
streets
that
we
can
ingress
or
egress
there.
Finally,
we
renew
our
requests
made
at
the
SPRC
that
a
site
restriction
be
placed
on
the
garden
at
the
north
parcel
that
allows
neighborhood
residents
to
enter
during
daylight
hours.
K
The
developer
indicated
it
would
be
easy
to
include
a
sidewalk
from
the
back
to
11th
Street
and
since
you
want
to
create
a
walkable
neighborhood
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
Metro
and
there's
no
proposed
open
space
that
we
will
be
available
to
the
community
as
part
of
this
proposal,
this
would
be
a
benefit
to
us
and
a
compromise.
Thank
you.
L
I'm
Jim,
Harris
and
I
live
in
South
Arlington
I
formerly
lived
on
Utah
Street
at
Washington
Boulevard
for
seven
years
I'm
here
to
raise
several
issues
that
continually
arise
with
this
kind
of
mixed-use
redevelopment
across
the
county.
But
first
I
brought
a
copy
of
a
statement,
a
boston
corridor
resident
made
to
the
county
board
at
the
january
thirtieth
county
board,
recessed
meeting
regarding
the
significant
and
serious
deterioration
of
the
Fairfax
Drive
corridor,
which
you
have
before
you.
L
The
glove
amendment
rezoning
in
site
plan
for
a
72
unit,
condominium,
building
and
12
townhouse
townhouses
before
you
is
similar
to
other
recent
site
plans
to
provide
financial,
windfalls,
financial
windfalls
to
religious
congregations,
which
are
generally
exempt
from
real
estate
taxes
regarding
global
planning
issues.
They
are
succinctly.
First,
this
project
benefits
many
non-residents
at
the
expense
of
residents,
ranging
from
NVR
to
non-resident
County
planning
staff
who
facilitate
these
site
plans,
and
there
are
more
of
them
every
year.
L
It's
disconcerting
to
see
how
many
professional
engineering
services
firms
that
benefit
from
these
site
plans
don't
have
any
physical
presence
at
all
in
Arlington
County.
Second,
there
was
little
open
space
in
this
neighborhood
when
I
lived
there
25
years
ago,
how
many
more
people
will
be
packed
into
this
neighborhood?
L
L
What
is
badly
needed
in
this
corridor
and
elsewhere
in
the
county
is
workforce
housing
at
40%
to
50%
of
ami
transportation.
This
area
of
glebe,
Road
and
Fairfax
Drive
is
already
experiencing
a
more
car
diet,
which
the
site
plan
will
only
exacerbate
again.
This
is
another
windfall
to
another
religious
congregation
where
the
developer
owner,
consulting
firms,
applicants,
law,
firm
and
a
number
of
other
corporations
and,
of
course,
county
staff
get
the
goldmine
while
the
neighborhood
suffers,
the
consequences.
B
M
Stephen
huff
Vermont
Court
to
begin
well
throughout
this
process.
We've
heard
a
lot
from
the
applicant
to
the
extent
that
this
is
by
right
and
complies
with
all
the
zoning
guidelines.
We've
heard
from
staff
tonight
that
doesn't
appear
to
be
true.
This
project
has
proposed
require
a
glup
amendment,
a
rezoning
and
various
exceptions
and
exemptions
from
other
rules.
I
have
a
number
of
concerns
of
the
project,
as
proposed
I
hope
you
take
them
in
consideration,
either
reject
the
project
or
prove
it
only
with
modifications
as
to
the
north
parcel
parking
is
a
major
concern.
M
You
have
heard
that
the
parking
is
not
compliant
with
the
current
parking
regulations.
If
you're
the
entire
community
explained
parking
is
already
very
difficult
in
this
neighborhood
for
context.
The
most
similar
development
to
the
proposed
one
is
Vermont
Court,
an
approximately
equal
acreage.
Vermont
Court
has
eight
townhomes
each
with
true
two-car
garages
and
six
surface
spots
and
they're,
almost
always
full.
By
contrast,
the
proposed
development
would
have
12
townhomes,
that's
50%,
more
only
four
of
which
would
have
true
two-car
garages
that
only
to
surface
spaces.
M
While
we
appreciate
the
developers
flexibility
in
offering
a
space
in
the
high-rise
building
across
the
street,
that
is
not
adequate,
as
was
mentioned
by
others
that
will
not
address
visitors
and,
if
you've
ever
been
to
the
Whole
Foods
over
in
Clarendon.
You
know
how
difficult
it
is
to
get
people
to
go
to
garage
rather
than
the
surface
lot
across
the
street
that
even
sets
aside
the
FOB
issues
and
things
like
that
parking
is
a
major
concern.
M
Ii
want
to
point
out
the
streetscape.
If
you
look
at
the
pictures.
Well,
it's
slightly
better.
Compare
this
to
what
from
on
court,
looks
like
to
what
the
Brompton
of
boston
looked
like
to
other
townhomes
in
the
neighborhood
which
either
face
the
corner
or
face
size
trees
like
Vermont
Street.
These
homes,
few
really
face
11th
Street.
This
development
could
kill
street
activity
on
Vermont
Street
for
decades.
M
Ask
you
to
reconsider
that
and
ask
them
to
have
the
homes
open,
more
so
onto
Vermont
Street,
as
alluded
to
I
mentioned
a
third
that
a
large
public,
accessible
Park.
The
only
one
in
the
area
between
here
in
Quincy,
Park,
is
being
removed
and
being
replaced
by
a
private
garden.
I
would
urge
the
county
to
Commission
the
taking
consideration
the
benefits
drawn
by
this
currently
existing
park
and
the
loss
that
we
imposed.
M
Briefly
with
regard
to
the
South
parcel
I
echo,
my
neighbors
concern
about
the
massing
and
the
sculpting
of
this
building
and
its
setbacks.
It
is
a
giant
cube.
I
was
especially
submit
that,
should
we
set
further
back
and
taper
more,
as
are
the
neighboring
buildings
in
the
neighborhood
I,
had
the
same
concerns
about
the
streetscape
on
the
south
side.
M
Again,
if
you
look
at
the
picture,
you
see
how
the
door
on
the
side
there
really
does
not
create
any
sort
of
active
street
activity
or
welcome
the
sense
of
place
I,
neither
Utah
Street
or
Vermont
Street.
Finally,
when
I
expressed
a
concern
that
has
not
been
addressed
by
any
of
the
meetings
so
far
throughout
this
process,
which
is
a
proposed
loading
off
of
Vermont
Street,
most
of
the
other
buildings
in
the
area
have
loading
on
Utah
Street.
M
That's
as
it
should
be,
Utah
Street
dead
ends
in
a
cul-de-sac
where
there's
room
for
extra
cars
to
idle.
We
for
deliveries
wait
for
pickups
things
of
that
nature.
This
building
proposes
to
have
its
loading
on
Vermont
Street
we're
idling
cars
will
block
traffic.
In
addition,
the
suggestion
that
delivery
trucks
will
go
through
the
alley,
I
think
is
unrealistic
at
best.
Maybe
your
regular
delivery
guy
would
be
able
to
do
so,
but
for
your
taxicab
or
your
goober
driver
or
holiday
rush,
or
even
you
know,
the
regular
guy
calls
out.
That's
not
going
to
happen.
M
I
respectfully
submit
that
the
entrance
of
this
building
should
be
off
of
Utah
Street,
rather
than
the
Vermont
Street
for
loading
purposes
to
avoid
congesting
traffic
in
a
busy
area.
It's
only
going
to
get
busier
once
the
new
Metro
entrance
opens
with
more
pedestrian
traffic.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
N
Evening,
Council
I,
don't
have
much
to
say
I'm
from
I'm
from
the
Vermont
Court
I
am
the
treasurer
of
the
Association
in
my
colleague
mr.
Howe,
just
Steve
HOF
just
spoke
very
eloquently
regarding
our
concerns
from
the
Association.
So
I
will
not
reiterate
those.
Hopefully
you
guys
took
those
message
on.
As
he
said
it
stated.
One
of
the
biggest
concern
is
parking
right
now.
Parking
is
a
major
concern,
even
without
the
development
bringing
on
the
condo
association
and
additional
town.
Alta
will
further
impact
the
the
egress
and
travel
in
the
area.
N
B
O
A
year
ago,
a
little
over
a
year
ago,
as
I,
looked
back
through
the
official
comments
that
BBS
CA
had
made
at
the
initiation
of
this
process.
Our
very
first
comment
was
that
we
were
very
concerned
that
this
little
remnant
piece
of
land
that
hadn't
been
developed
in
our
area,
wouldn't
get
the
proper
attention
that
it
deserved
it
has
we
appreciate
that
as
by
hearing
tonight,
although
we
still
have
some
concerns,
there
have
been
a
number
of
meetings
and
we
do
feel
it
has
gotten
the
attention
it
deserved.
O
O
I
would
just
ask
this
group,
since
this
was
a
very
instrumental
group,
the
first
time
around
and
some
of
the
recommendations
that
you
made
to
the
board
if
there
could
be
a
little
bit
more
time
discussing
that,
in
addition,
b,
vs
EA
has
ongoing
traffic
safety,
pedestrian
safety
and
parking
concerns
in
the
area.
11Th
Street
is
a
cut
through
for
folks
who
want
to
avoid
Washington,
Boulevard
and
Fairfax
Drive
with
a
light
assist
at
glee.
It's
also
an
existing
school
bus
route
with
a
stop
kitty-corner
to
this
proposed
site.
O
It
also
is
a
Vermont
is
an
area
where
there's
currently
uber
drivers,
as
well
as
parents
waiting
for
children
waiting
and
we,
as
you've
heard
tonight.
We
consistently
hear
parking
issues
in
this
neighborhood
I
personally
also
walk
this
area
pretty
much
every
day.
It's
a
nice
place
to
walk,
and
then,
when
you
get
to
11th
in
Vermont,
to
have
space
and
light
in
front
of
you.
O
So
bearing
in
mind
that
the
folks
who
live
right
here
have
a
huge
change
in
store
for
them
at
the
transportation
hearing
last
week
we
did
support
the
higher
parking
ratio
of
the
site
plan
and
we
recommended
that
the
applicant
work
closely
with
Westview
to
explore
the
possibility
of
renting
any
unused
garage
parking
spaces
to
them
since
they're
not
eligible
for
the
RPP
program,
also
within
the
SPRC
process.
We
ask
that,
at
the
the
conclusion
of
this
project
will
be
about
coinciding
with
the
time
that
the
RPP
moratorium
should
be
over.
O
We
would
like
to
have
explored
the
possibility
of
looking
at
either
extending
or
enhancing
ours
there
to
help
the
neighbors
we'd
also
asked
the
applicant
mr.
Lunger
alluded
at
the
transportation
commission
that
as
developers
there
is
a
network
of
folks
who
talk
to
one
another
about
parking
spaces
in
commercial
buildings.
We
would
ask
that
they
talk
to
that
in
that
areas
to
help
facilitate
better
parking,
as
it
doesn't
exist
there.
Now
as
a
Civic
Association,
it's
really
difficult
at
times
to
balance
the
neighborhood
concern
against.
O
What's
the
common
good
for
a
very
rapidly
growing
County
as
I'm
sure
you
all
know
many
times,
we've
seen
residents
come
out
in
numbers
to
express
their
concern
regarding
changes
in
their
neighborhood
and
later
they
become
disappointed,
angry
disenchanted,
disillusioned
apathetic,
when
things
don't
go
their
way.
So,
as
all
of
us
are
trying
to
work
towards
public
engagement,
we
can't
afford
to
forget
all
the
things
which
have
been
discussed
about
this
site
up
until
now.
O
P
Good
evening
and
I,
thank
you
for
hearing
me,
I,
don't
know
what
happened
to
my
online
slip,
but
I
appreciate
the
concession,
I'm
Jana
Harper
I'm
a
second
floor
resident
of
the
West
View
at
Boston.
Condominiums
I,
submitted
written
comments
earlier
today,
addressing
the
loss
of
sunlight
that
will
result
from
this
project
and
included
photos
of
what
my
personal
loss
would
be,
as
well
as
addressing
a
side
concern
regarding
seating
on
Utah
Street
before
I.
Get
to
my
comments
for
this
evening.
P
I
do
want
to
respectfully
address
two
items
that
came
up
during
the
public
comments
this
evening,
one
being
the
discussion
of
an
expansion
of
the
residential
parking
permit
program.
This
is
a
suggestion
that
came
up
at
the
end
of
the
final
SPRC
meeting.
West
fee
residents
have
not
had
an
adequate
opportunity
to
discuss
how
that
might
detriment.
P
So
I
would
ask
that
any
change
to
our
pp
would
be
a
separate
discussion
from
this
site
plan
so
that
Western
neighbors
can
weigh
in
also
there's
been
a
repeated
comment
that
there
is
that
the
loading
for
Westview
occurs
on
Utah
Street.
That
is
inaccurate.
Our
loading
dock
is
on
Vermont
Street,
as
is
the
entrance
to
our
garage,
and
there
is
no
truck
loading
on
Utah
Street
because
it
is
a
narrow
cul-de-sac
street,
with
parking
on
both
sides.
P
Turning
to
my
mate,
the
main
portion
of
my
comments
tonight,
I
would
just
ask
the
Planning
Commission
to
adhere
to
your
prior
recommendation
that,
what's
appropriate
for
the
South
parcel,
is
a
building
of
no
more
than
six
storeys
and
that
such
building
should
have
greater
than
usual
separation
from
the
west
view,
due
to
its
nature
as
an
infill
project
on
an
exceedingly
small
parcel
of
land.
Unfortunately,
the
applicant
did
not
accept
these
recommendations
and
has
made
few
changes
to
its
design
of
the
of
the
South
parcel
building
throughout
SPRC.
P
Staffs
report
further
dismisses
these
concerns,
noting
there's
no
requirement
for
further
separation
and
making
the
unreasonable
conclusion.
That's
further
detailed
in
my
written
comments
that
a
near
total
elimination
of
afternoon
and
evening
Sun
to
Sun,
Room
and
balcony
units
is
not
a
detriment
to
those
properties
if
the
purpose
of
SPRC
were
merely
to
establish
compliance
with
baseline
zoning
requirements,
there'd
be
no
need
for
neighbor
input
and
involvement.
P
My
hope
is
that
you,
as
commissioners,
will
renew
the
opportunity
for
neighbors
to
have
a
true
voice
in
the
development
of
their
neighborhoods
and
again
support
a
request
for
further
separation
between
the
buildings
and
a
limitation
of
the
height
barring.
That
I
would
ask
that
you
recommend
the
County
Board
return,
this
project
for
further
modification
through
negotiation
with
West
V
neighbors,
rather
than
improving
it
at
this
time.
Thank
you
very
much.
Q
Ii
mean
I
apologize
as
well.
I
submitted
the
form,
but
didn't
seem
to
go
through
so
I'm,
a
lawyer
by
profession,
so
I'll
look
at
this
is
the
closing
for
all
of
our
comments.
Tonight.
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
The
staff
tonight
you
heard
described
this
is
a
challenge
quote
challenging
urban
infill
situation
it
it
is,
and
you
know
we
the
applicant
has
worked
to
to
meet
that
challenge.
Our
concern
is
that
the
what
they're
proposing
isn't
that
you've
heard
tonight,
the
the
concerns
are
mostly
too
big,
too
high
and
too
close.
Q
There
are
a
lot
of
specifics
to
that,
but
I
won't
repeat
those
there's
one
other
comment:
that's
been
raised
through
the
planning
process
about
the
design
of
the
the
loading
dock
and
the
access
to
the
garage
that
the
way
that
the
applicant
is
designed
the
garage
it
actually
goes
right
up
to
the
close
to
the
property
of
Westview
and
then
turns
right
there.
So
all
the
cars
that
visit
the
you
know
this
new
property
will
in
fact
be
driving
right
up
against
the
side
of
the
west
view,
building
I.
Q
A
A
I'll,
just
summarize
it
very
quickly
public
comment
focused
on
the
traffic
situation
in
adjacent
blocks,
delays
and
accessing
glebe
and
other
crossings,
especially
back
up
at
vermont.
Public
comment
also
included
an
updated
dia
in
response
to
concerns
raised
by
b
vs
CA
and
a
request
of
north
side
townhouses
be
required
to
have
to
guard
car
garages
without
tandem
parking.
A
Commissioners
asked
about
street
crossing
and
signaling
in
the
area.
Staff
assured
the
commission
that
it
was
being
investigated.
Commissioners
asked
about
parking
in
the
north
parcel.
The
applicant
stressed
that
the
north
parcel
could
have
been
developed
by
right,
but
the
applicant
wanted
to
ensure
a
single
homeowner
association
residents
of
the
north
parcel
will
have
access
to
the
south
parcel
garage,
including
at
least
at
least
one
visitor
parking
space
for
the
north
parcel.
A
Only
such
as
via
a
cut
in
the
Utah
parklet
commissioners
noted
that
the
high
number
of
closed
dead-end
streets
in
the
area
is
in
opposition
to
the
master
transportation
plan,
but
the
Commission
supported
the
staff
motion
unanimously.
The
chair
noted
that
the
Commission's
concerns
would
be
reflected
in
the
board
letter
which
I've
just
read
to
you.
R
A
S
S
S
The
County
Board
did
not
accept
really
any
of
our
recommendations,
and
so
we
recommended
a
30-foot
setback.
North-South
50-foot
setback,
east-west
six
stories,
not
six
or
seven,
and
so
the
County
Board
did
not
accept
any
of
those
recommendations.
So,
as
we
got
to
site
plan,
those
were
not
constraints
on
the
applicant,
because
the
County
Board
said
six
or
seven
stories,
three
or
four
stories
along
11th
Street
left
that
data
quit
building
separation,
as
when
the
gentleman
noted
I
think
mr.
Kirk
read
this.
The
glove
proposed
clock
note.
S
So
those
were
not
limitations
on
us
and
what
adequate
building
separation
was
was
to
be
determined
in
sight
plan
by
the
recommendations
of
this
committee
and
then,
ultimately
by
the
County
Board.
We
are
not
determinative.
The
County
Board
is
determinative
so
we're
we.
While
we
made
recommendations
and
I
think
some
people
up
here
feel
strongly
about
it,
we'll
get
into
that.
S
S
S
Some
some
about
traffic,
maybe
some
about
the
architecture
in
transition,
so
I
have
a
proposed
outline
forests
on
the
third
page,
which
is
kind
of
the
whether
it's
the
proposal
before
us
is
compliant
with
the
advertise
club.
No
25
discuss
whether
we
think
it's
at
a
good
building
separation.
Again,
our
recommendation
of
30
feet
and
50
feet
were
not
accepted
by
the
county
board.
But
do
we
feel
like
this
is
sufficient
here?
S
Looking
at
the
surrounding
context
as
well?
Look
at
the
additional
sculpting
that
the
applicant
has
proposed
on
the
south
side
of
the
building,
particularly
you
know
in
that
context,
the
changes
that
were
made
to
the
architecture.
How
do
we
feel
about
those
and
then
some
of
the
open
questions
that
the
county
board
left
to
us
six
or
seven
stories,
three
or
four
stories
and
then
looking
at
the
proposed
open
spaces
again,
which
were
kind
of
open
questions
for
for
SPRC
and
Planning
Commission?
So
that's
my
report,
madam
chair,
thank.
A
R
A
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'd,
like
to
have
a
discussion
about
the
parking,
including
whether
or
not
we
think
it
makes
sense
to
revisit
the
RPP
at
some
future
point.
Since
we've
heard
two
different
viewpoints
from
the
neighbors
on
this
going
forward
and
also
if
there
might
be
more
creative
ways
to
address
some
of
the
parking
problems
here.
T
A
A
Proposal
or
the
recommendation
that
we
made
to
the
board
about
the
thirty
feet,
building
separation
versus
another
way
to
cheat
to
achieve
separation
through
sculpting.
This
is
this:
was
the
staff
proposal
that
that
would
respond
to
more
adequate
separation
than
simply
establishing
one
metric
I.
Just
I
would
just
like
to
make
a
comment,
a
framing
comment
and
I.
Think
commissioners
role
covered
this,
but
just
just
to
restate
Planning
Commission
makes
recommendations
to
the
board.
The
Planning
Commission
is
also
charged
to
ensure
that
proposals
are
I
would
say
consistent
with,
rather
than
compliant
with
our
plans.
A
Plans
are
are
indicative,
somewhat
prescriptive,
but
they're
not
regulatory.
The
way
zoning
is
so
I
just
want
to
remind
everybody
of
that.
I
think
the
board
I
guess
they
they
kick
the
can
down
the
road
but
I
think
that's
what
our
procedure
is
when,
when
we
take
up
a
glut
matter,
general
Land,
Use
Plan,
the
practice
has
been
not
only
for
this
proposal,
but
for
others
too,
to.
A
T
All
right
I'd
like
to
ask
some
questions
about
the
separation
between
the
buildings,
given
that
we
made
these
recommendations
and
I
think
I
speak
generally
for
all
of
us
when
we
say
we
recognize
our
role
on
lrpc
and
then
SPRC
and
now
in
Planning.
Commission
is
to
go
a
little
bit
beyond
whether
or
not
it's
just
compliance
with
the
plans
to
reflect
what
we're
hearing
from
the
community
and
sometimes
things
in
the
plans
change.
So
we
were
pretty
specific
about
the
30-foot
separation
and
the
22
point.
T
C
If
you
would
mind,
we
can
take
the
first
one
and
I
think
the
second
one
is
probably
better
addressed
to
the
applicant,
so
the
first
one
I
think
you
know
the
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
a
specific
dimension
of
30
feet.
However,
I
think
when
we
took
a
look
at
it
we
wanted
to.
Where
does
that
30
feet
come
from?
Is
it
an
established
policy?
It's
not
is
it.
You
know
the
prevailing
development
pattern
on
the
block.
Yes,
is
it
consistent
across
the
county,
not
so
much,
so
we
really
wanted
to
see.
C
What
are
the
actual
impacts
of
the
proposal
and
what
does
30
feet
get
you
and
when
we
looked
at
it
really
the
difference
between
22
feet,
8
inches
in
term
and
30
feet
in
terms
of
access
to
light
and
air
in
terms
of
the
privacy
doesn't
get
you
much,
but
we
thought
you
know.
How
could
we?
How
could
we,
you
know,
respond
to
the
existing
conditions
through
other
changes
that
may
actually,
you
know
mitigate
some
of
the
impact
of
now
having
a
seven
story.
C
T
A
D
A
R
A
R
R
You
know
a
lot
of
people
have
participated
and
I
really
think
that
it
has
improved
over
time.
But
I,
like
some
of
our
people,
who
testified
this
evening,
still
go
back
to
the
struggle
we
had
as
an
lrpc
on
a
commission
with
the
special
globe
we
were
presented
with
and,
as
staff
charmingly
has
said,
challenging
urban
infill
situation,
and
that
is
the
case
we
could
see.
This
was
a
block
that
was
two-thirds
developed,
1/3,
not
it
fit
that
RC
pattern.
R
I
think
all
of
us
felt
that
there
was
no
reason
not
to
be
able
to
recoup
this
to
Arcia
as
the
blocks
to
the
east
were,
but
because
of
the
existing
structures,
we
felt
it
needed
some,
some
shaping
some
special
instructions.
If
you
will
now,
the
West
View
is
a
challenging
building
to
be
built
next
to
because
the
original
builders
who
built
it
as
an
apartment
building,
not
as
a
condo
building,
really
didn't
take
into
the
account
that
there
was
another
third
of
the
block
that
could
be
done.
R
I
mean
it
was
built
as
a
building
that
should
have
been
at
the
end
of
a
block.
It
could
have
stepped
down
more
so
inherently
anything
that
would
fill
up
the
last
third
of
that
block,
except
perhaps
townhouses,
but
we
don't
even
know
what
design
that
might
have
come
in
was
going
to
be
something
that
residents
of
the
West
View
we're
not
going
to
be
entirely
thrilled
about.
There
is
there's
just
no
doubt
of
that.
R
However,
through
the
lrpc
process
we
did
come
to
if
the
main
building
were
six
storeys
and
there
was
a
separation
of
at
least
30
feet,
north
and
south
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
the
East
and
West,
and
you
know
those
numbers
aren't
necessarily
magic.
Maybe
six
six
stories
are
but
thirty
feet.
You
know.
Mr.
Pfeiffer
is
very
correct
and
I
am
happy
to
have
that
slide,
that
you
did
with
looking
at
what
what
we've
done
and
as
the
county
hasn't
codified.
What
is
an
adequate
separation?
R
We
revisit
this
issue
every
time,
so
just
as
one
might
say,
well,
22
and
a
half
is
adequate.
I
think
we
are
just
as
easy
to
say:
30
is
adequate
right,
I
mean
if
we
don't
have
a
yes
or
a
No.
We
you
know
we
can
default
to
what
we
want
and
it
wasn't
so
much
what
we
wanted.
It
was
something
that
we
all
said
it
seems
like
we
can
live
with
now.
Had
the
county
board
said
30
feet
in
the
glup
note.
R
Would
we
have
some
residents
or
some
people
that
might
come
forward
and
say?
Well,
we
really
think
it
should
be
31
or
35.
Now
it
could
be
don't
know,
but
at
least
we
would
have
had
something
to
work
with
that
had
been
somewhat
agreed-upon,
at
least
by
the
Commission
and
citizens
as
a
starting
point.
The
board
and
the
staff
chose
not
to
recommend
that.
R
However,
the
applicant
certainly
heard
what
had
been
the
preference
of
Planning
Commission
and
the
community
through
a
process,
and
so
I
am
saddened
that
the
applicant,
even
though
they
were
not
bound
by
it,
didn't
take
it
into
consideration
and
didn't
do
30
feet
in
their
drawings
and
didn't
do
six
storeys.
So
that's
that's.
R
My
little
screed
I'll
have
a
couple
of
amendments
towards
the
end
and
we'll
see
what
happens,
but
just
to
finish
this
off,
while
we're
still
on
the
subject,
I'd
like
to
just
say
to
my
fellow
commissioners
that
we
should
keep
this
all
in
mind
when
we
approach
other
special
Gluck
studies
and
wear
it
when
we're
doing
that.
While
we've
had
success
in
the
past
of
sort
of
doing
okay,
a
change
in
the
glup
might
be
entertained
if
we
need
to
think
really
hard
about
the.
R
If,
because
clearly,
sometimes
what
we
recommend
that
may
have
been
worked
with
the
community
and
other
people
about
parameters
to
put
around
things
can
be
negated
by
the
county
board.
It's
their
prerogative,
that's
fine,
but
we
need
to
think
about
that
when
we
make
our
recommendations
and
when
we
evaluate
a
site
again.
So
enough
said
moving
on.
A
A
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
architecture
we
have
Commissioner
stroll
just
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
think
finished
that
item
that
you
parsed
out
for
us
really.
The
issue
is:
is
the
sculpting
of
multifamily
building
adequate,
provide
adequate
building
separation?
They
think
we
have
two
positions
here:
one
no
from
the
community
and
the
other
yes
from
staff.
A
That
agrees
with
the
developer,
that
the
building
sculpting
is
as
as
effective
as
a
blanket
30-foot
separation
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
would
be
developed
the
because
the
building
does
undulate
and
there
would
be
more
complication
that
way.
I'll
give
you
a
chance
to
respond.
I!
Think
to
that.
If
you'd
like
to
right.
D
We
could
move
the
building
back
if
we
didn't
have
to
have
fire
truck
access
into
the
site,
but
I
think
with
the
shadow
studies
show
starkly.
That's
just
data.
That's
just
somebody
plotting
the
Sun
that
goes
over
the
site
is
moving
the
building
as
opposed
to
Fanning.
The
sides
does
not
create
additional
air
and
light
on
the
South
parcel
on
the
east.
On
the
south
boundary
line
on
the
East
West
boundary
line
were
averaging,
I
think
a
37
foot
setback
right
and
so
the
toughest
place
to
get
light
in
the
site.
D
I
think
we've
addressed
and
with
the
sculpting,
which
was
something
that
there
was
a
staff
solution.
They
said,
can
you
figure
it
this
works?
Can
you
do
this
and
so
I
think
the
net
effect
where
were
short
on
one
side
worth
almost
30
percent
higher
on
two
sides
and
the
building
separations
inner
internally
actually
create
the
additional
light
and
air
I
honestly
think
we've
looked
at
this
as
a
solid
I
mean
we've
heard
people
call
this
a
cube.
It's
not
it's
broken
up.
D
It's
one
structure
separated
into
two
structures
with
30%,
more
separations
on
two
sides
of
the
property
line
and
narrower
on
one
side
with
the
building
Fanning.
We
think
it
works
great.
The
data
which
is
just
objective
data.
It
accomplishes
everything
we
thought
it
should
and
I
think
staff
is
on
the
same
page
and
it's
just
objective.
Okay,.
A
S
S
And
mr.
Crider
were
in
pretty
involved
in
this
process
and
there
have
been
a
number
of
changes
to
the
architecture
and
I
think
for
the
benefit
of
planning
commissioners
who
did
not
get
to
attend
all
the
SPRC
meetings.
It
would
be
helpful,
I
think,
probably
to
walk
those
folks
through
and
then
just
your
reactions
to
where
we
are
now
based
on
those
changes.
Sure.
U
Well,
to
start
with,
I
guess
we'll
start
on
the
North
Block.
So
one
of
the
more
substantial
changes
that
the
applicant
is
made
based
on
feedback
from
staff
has
been
the
arrangement
of
the
townhouses
on
the
North
Block,
so
basically
reorienting
two
sticks
of
those
townhouses
joining
them
together
and
rotating
them
90
degrees
to
create
that
space.
That's
on
the
north
side
of
the
site.
U
So
in
terms
of
that
particular
site
arrangement,
we
do
see
that
as
a
large
improvement
over
what
was
originally
proposed
in
terms
of
the
architecture,
the
again
I'll
start
with
the
North
Block
they've
done
some
added.
Some
elements
to
the
buildings
that
have
certainly
respond
from
an
urban
design.
Standpoint
have
responded
to
the
site,
have
allowed
the
townhouses
to
to
not
only
face
11th
Street,
but
also
to
to
have
some
kind
of
interaction
with
Vermont.
U
So
basically,
the
wraparound
porch
that
you
see
on
on
the
two
townhouses
that
face
onto
Vermont,
Street
I
think
that
that
also
has
been
a
good
addition.
I
think
there
are
some
small
things,
probably
on
the
architecture
on
the
North
Block
that
probably
could
still
be
adjusted
to
make
it
slightly
better,
but
from
an
urban
design,
standpoint
I
think
things
are
working
pretty
well
there
on
the
South
block,
there
have
been
no
substantial
changes
to
the
townhouses
on
the
South
Block.
U
In
terms
of
the
separation
that's
been
discussed,
you
know,
our
thought
was
that
the
the
chamfer
actually
does
it
does
help
it
allows
the
the
one
place
that
the
Sun
would
sort
of
be
able
to
kind
of
get
into
that
middle
courtyard
at
certain
times
of
the
the
year,
especially
when
it's
about
to
set.
You
know,
by
doing
that,
chamfer
it
actually
sort
of
allows
a
little
bit
more
light
to
get
in
there.
It's
not
a
substantial
dude.
U
You
know
sensual
amount
of
light,
but
it's
something
our
feeling
was
that
pushing
the
the
building
back
six
feet.
Eight
inches
additionally,
would
have
a
very
minimal
effect
in
terms
of
additional
light,
and
air
certainly
would
not
affect
privacy
at
all.
You
know,
if
you
have
a
window,
that's
directly
across
from
another
window.
You
know
additional
six
feet.
8
inches
isn't
gonna,
be
a
substantial
difference
there
and,
as
mr.
Pfeiffer
has
already
noted,
there
are
actually
very
few
windows
on
the
the
newly
proposed
site.
That
would
be
opposite.
The
the
West
View
building.
U
You
know
in
terms
of
the
30-foot
separation.
You
know
we
could
go
back
50
feet.
We
could
go
back
80
feet,
you
know
if
at
some
point
you
know
if
the
the
building
is
going
to
cast
a
shadow
at
it
just
to
a
certain
extent,
and
so
it's
really
just
kind
of
finding
that
right
balance
where
it
allows
the
the
the
the
question
parcel
here
to
to
redevelop
in
an
irrational
way
and
still
allow
enough
separation
from
the
existing
buildings
to
to
get
way
in
there
in
there.
Thank.
S
U
Think
are
our
streets.
You
know,
people
tend
to
think
of
public
spaces
is
just
being
parks,
but
really
our
streets
are
probably
our
largest
public
spaces
that
we
have
in
Arlington,
County
and
and
in
most
cities
and
towns
across
the
country
and
around
the
world,
defining
that
the
street
space
is
really
crucial
in
terms
of
safety.
It's
crucial
in
terms
of
actually
creating
an
outdoor
room.
If
you
will
that
the
the
building's
frame-
it's
you
know
it
having
the
Front's
of
buildings,
face,
the
Front's
of
buildings
is
crucial.
U
It's
a
more
social
way
of
building,
rather
than
sort
of
turning
your
backs
to
each
other,
or
you
know,
facing
the
sides
of
buildings.
So
you
know
it's
it's
important
from
a
lot
of
stand
points
and
you
know
again
having
that
having
those
buildings
face
each
other
across
that
street
really
helps
to
create
that
that
that
definition
and
from
a
security
standpoint
it
sort
of
gives
eyes
and
an
activity
to
that
street
at
most,
especially
in
this
location,
would
probably
be
most
times
a
day.
All.
V
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
your
last
point,
mr.
Flegg,
oh,
and
that
you
know
I
think
there
is
some
concern
from
several
of
us
that
here
the
loss
of
the
park
and
the
green
space
on
that
on
that
north
block
and
the
framing
and
the
importance
of
the
framing
on
the
street.
Is
that
greatly
minimized
by
say
creating
more
of
a
setback
on
11th
Street
for
those
townhouses
on
the
north
block,
so
that
there
would
be
more
green
space,
maybe
not
that
that
would
be
public.
U
Necessarily
there
are
buildings
on
the
west
side
of
Vermont,
that's
weird!
So
if
you
were
to
push
those
that
row
of
townhouses
on
the
North
Block
back,
you
know,
let's
say
pushed
about
20
feet
to
create
some
kind
of
long
linear
space
in
front
of
them.
There
there
are
buildings,
you
know
the.
Obviously,
the
buildings
on
the
south
side
are
still
kind
of
right
behind
the
sidewalk,
so
those
are
helping
to
frame
that
space.
There
are
townhouses
just
immediately
to
the
west,
which
which
also
helped
to
do
that.
I.
U
Guess
it
kind
of
falls
apart
a
little
bit
on
the
east
side
since
there's
just
a
parking
lot
there,
but
no
I
mean
pushing
it
back,
would
still
accomplish
some
of
the
same
things,
especially
since
you're,
not
talking
about
a
very
great
distance.
If
we're
talking
about
you
know
they
were
pushed
back
100
feet,
then
maybe
that
would
be
a
different
story.
T
Have
a
similar
question
about
the
number
of
storeys
as
I
had
about
the
spacing
between
the
buildings?
Again,
this
was
a
very
long
process
and
we
all
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
come
up
with
something
we
felt
represented.
What
the
community
felt
was
appropriate.
What
was
the
right
info
for
the
site
and
what
would
still
be
viable
to
fill
in
this,
this
particular
block
and
we
were
pretty
clear
about
six
storeys.
So
how
did
we
get
to
what's
essentially
8
storeys?
Why
do
we
feel,
like
that's
appropriate.
C
Commissioner
I
would
I
would
disagree
with
the
assertion
that
it's
eight
sorts
of
seven
stories
in
the
main
roof.
There
is
a
penthouse
proposed
that
is
within
the
RC
district
penthouse
required
height.
So
it's
a
seven
story
building
by
any
metric
of
how
we
calculate
building
stories.
As
far
as
how
we
got
there,
the
board
did
advertising
they
didn't
advertise,
but
they
affirmed
during
the
discussion
that
a
six
or
seven
storey
building
would
be
appropriate
this
site.
C
When
staff
looked
at
the
at
this
issue,
we
wanted
to
look
at
what
the
surrounding
context
was
again
going
back
to
all
of
these
different
factors.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
directly
to
the
east.
You
have
a
nine
story:
West
View,
building
that
tapers
down
to
six
storeys,
and
we
thought
that
you
know
given
the
context
given
the
fact
that
they
are
providing
that
transition
from
seven
to
six
down
to
four
to
three
stories.
In
keeping
with
the
glup
note
that
the
height
was
appropriate.
A
Anything
else
all
right:
let's
move
on
to
items
the
county
board
deferred
to
the
SPRC
in
Planning,
Commission,
I,
think
building
separation
was
one
of
them,
but
we've
covered
that
continuing
with
a
number
of
stories.
That
issue
was
left
open
at
the
glup
stage,
which
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
is
is
perfectly
appropriate
that
that's
the
way
our
planning
procedures
work,
but
now
the
Robert's
meeting
the
road
with
site
plan
and
where
we're
now
debating
six
to
seven
stories.
We've
just
had
one
question
about
that.
Any
other
questions
or
comments.
A
A
R
It
has
been
a
a
privately
owned
tot
lot
for
a
long
time
the
church
has
had
and
it
does
did
have
public
access.
However,
in
the
sector
plan
and
like
we've
progressed,
if
you
will
in
site
plan
in
Sector
plans
the
update
to
Virginia
square
Rosslyn,
Crystal
City,
we
had
begun
to
really
make
marks
where
we
thought
public
open
space
would
be
desirable
on
blocks.
That
was
not
done
with
such
specificity
in
the
Boston
sector
plan,
sadly,
which
is
30
years
ago
and
not
been
updated.
R
Excuse
me
a
large
office
building
which
actually
sits
on
a
fair
piece
of
land
that
has
a
lot
of
green
space
that
we
think
about.
At
that
point,
designating
part
of
that
or
when
that
site
plan
comes
in
urging
the
applicant
to
think
about,
they
want
additional
density
and
a
larger
footprint
still
how
we
could
recapture
that
one
corner
that
is
very
close
to
this
site
as
a
sort
of
public,
open
space
and
I.
Think
you
know,
staff
I
think
its
heard.
That,
and
probably
will
has
a
little
note
about
it.
R
It's
not
something
we
can
do
now,
but
it
truly
is
a
site
that
lends
itself
to
helping
out
the
neighborhood
in
that
area
in
the
future.
As
far
as
the
open
space
at
Utah
I
traverse
that
closure
lots
of
times
during
the
week,
because
I
regularly
walk
from
my
house
at
18th
and
Utah
straight
down
Utah
in
order
to
get
to
Boston
metro
and
it
landscape
would
be
fine.
It's
a
it's
a
good,
hard
scape
now
so
just
for
commissioners
as
a
comment
back
to
Transportation
Commission.
R
Actually
it
is
open
to
bicycles
because
it's
open
to
pedestrians
and
it's
open
to
bicycles.
Both
the
closure
at
Taylor
and
at
Utah,
Taylor
and
Utah
are
a
one-way
pair
north
of
11th
Street.
So
that's
another
thing
that
helps
with
traffic
circulation.
I
appreciate
the
residents
who
are
there
all
the
time
saying
that
the
traffic
is
is
terrible,
but
I
will
say
just
for
me
sometimes
during
rush
hour,
sometimes
not
I
encounter
very
little
traffic
on
11th
and
it
at
this
point,
but
I
can
see
in
the
mornings
that
people
do
use.
R
W
Me
rotation,
Commission's,
talk
about
having
the
bicycle
cut
through
Commissioner
Yamini
is
correct
that
it
decided
what
their
bicycles
do
go
through.
All
do
and
Cannon
do
go
through
on
that,
but
we
did
get
one
letter
just
today
from
a
resident
of
the
area
who
has
handicapped
and
was
commenting
on
bicycles
using
the
sidewalk
and
how
that
really
is
a
problem
for
those
who
have
mobility
issues.
It's
a
bit
intimidating.
It's
and
bicycles
really
shouldn't
be
on
the
sidewalks
in
the
dense
area.
It
might
be.
W
It
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
when
looking
at
this
park
to
have
at
least
one
err,
one
dedicated
bicycle
lane
cutting
through
that
is
really
for
the
bikes
as
opposed
to
pedestrians.
So
you
don't
have
des
trains
and
bicycles,
trying
to
compete
for
the
same
space.
I
think
that's
where
the
Transportation
Commission
is
coming
from
in
their
comments.
W
A
A
However,
looking
at
just
the
discussion
at
the
Transportation
Commission
and
the
discussion
here
if
the
circulation
is
as
bad
as
some
think
and
Thank
You,
commissioner
yeah
kamini
for
an
additional
perspective
that
does
help
people
who
don't
walk
the
site
every
day,
it's
extremely
helpful.
Why
was
why
and
I
think
there
was
a
comment
in
that
in
the
Transportation
Commission
notes
that
the
that
the
lack
of
a
complete
Street
grid
was
not
consistent
with
the
master
transportation
plan.
H
A
X
Jane
Kim
des
Transportation
there
has
been
vocal
opposition
to
cutting
through
any
of
the
existing
dead
ends
that
were
implemented
as
traffic
calming
measures
in
the
70s.
Today
we
would
not
do
such
things,
but
you
know
40
years
ago
that
was
acceptable,
and
so
we,
you
know,
live
with
those
existing
conditions.
Today.
Thank.
R
To
follow
up
on
that
miss
Kim,
just
just
as
a
slight
nuance:
it
wasn't
a
traffic
calming
project,
it
was
in
the
Ballston
sector
plan.
So
this
is
unlike
Lian
village
that
came
in
with
a
whole
big
thing.
No,
this
was
in
the
sector
plan
and
I
will
say
that
in
the
90s
I
was
a
resident
and
working
in
a
site
plan
and
I
might
have
been
nature.
Conservancy
and
I.
R
We
actually
staff
and
I
discussed
opening
up
the
one
way,
pear
that
ending
the
cul-de-sac
at
Taylor
and
one
at
Utah
and
opening
the
streets
up.
I
don't
know
if
we
propose
to
keep
them
a
one-way
pair,
but
there
was
huge
opposition
to
doing
that
then,
and
there
continues
to
be
because
the
neighborhood
has
grown
up
with
this.
You
know
when
the
Boston
sector
plan
was
adopted.
Most
of
the
land
north
of
11th
Street
were
single-family
houses.
They
were
bungalows,
it
was
that
was
the
blue-collar
part
of
Boston.
That's
where
the
railroad
workers
lived.
R
That's
where
the
people
who
worked
on
the
streetcar
were
the
haulers
and
the
freighters
and
and
people
lived
so
as
townhouse
development
came
along,
it
displaced
the
single-family
neighborhood
that
was
anticipated.
That's
why
the
sector
plan,
as
as
one
of
the
townhouse
representatives,
said
it
you're
supposed
to
preserve
a
neighborhood,
but
the
vision
wasn't
all
townhouses
are
all
single-family.
It
was
a
mix.
R
I
will
say
today
there's
a
very
few
single-family
houses
left,
but
the
townhouses
are
themselves
infill
and
we
have
seen
the
infill
happen
over
the
last
30
years,
so
it
is
to
be
expected
and
having
those
streets
designed
as
they
were
as
part
of
that
and
I
think
to
change
it
now
would
would
be
a
little
difficult,
also
giving
the
how
the
streets
have
been
constructed
in
they're,
not
very
wide
in
that
area.
Perry.
A
Good
I
appreciate
that
background.
I
think
that
really
is
extremely
helpful
to
understand
really
a
30-year
perspective
on
this
particular
very
challenging
area.
If
there
are
no
other
comments
or
questions
on
Commissioner
yakety,
no
okay,
then
we
can
move.
We
can
move
to
motions
and
no
yet
did
I
miss.
Oh
I'm!
Sorry!
Sorry,
sorry,
yes
he's
the
easements
the
issue
of
the
easements.
R
C
Thank
You
Commissioner
gal
Kamini,
so
to
address
the
first
part
of
that
question,
which
was
about
really
allowing
access
to
the
garage
from
the
other
property.
The
county
does
not
get
involved
in
private
easements
between
property
owners,
so
we
would
not
support
a
site
plan
condition
at
this
time
allowing
access.
C
As
to
the
second
question,
which
was
about
the
existing
utilities
within
the
easement
through
the
South
block
to
be
vacated,
there
is
a
condition
of
the
vacation
that
will
require
the
applicant
to
relocate
those
utilities
prior
to
them
being
able
to
record
the
deed
of
vacation.
So
that's
that's
a
requirement.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Would
just
like
to
make
a
comment
here:
I
want
to
for
us
to
recall
Ms
Bagley's
suggestion
about
continued
work,
while
staff
does
not
get
involved
in
neighbor-to-neighbor
or
private
individual
private
group
to
private
group
I'm
hoping
that
and
might
make
a
motion
to
the
effect
that
staff
could
organize
a
process.
Let's
say
through
which
continued
discussion
between
the
neighbors
and
the
new
neighbor
could
occur
too.
A
In
my
view,
but
well
certainly
to
facilitate
to
continue
a
conversation
that
might
I
think
clear
up
some
misunderstandings
that
exists
I
realize
there
are
hardened
positions
on
some
of
these
issues
very
hard
in
positions
and
I,
respect
that
and
I
understand
where
both
sides
are
coming
from,
but
I
do
think,
there's
room
for,
for
example,
parking.
We
have
heard
about
three
thousand
I
think
spaces
that
are
just
unused
throughout
the
entire
county
in
commercial
buildings.
W
Also
seem
to
recall,
during
the
SBR
at
least
one
of
the
SBR
sees
that
the
applicant
was
made
a
number
of
statements
about
being
a
good
neighbor
and
trying
to
work
with
the
Westfield
on
some
issues
that
had
come
up.
West
of
is
our
west
view,
with
some
issues
that
had
come
up.
I
would
expect
that
the
applicant
will
continue
with
that
going
forward
and
work
with
with
the
west
view
to
get
these
things
ironed
out
it
really.
As
commissioner,
you
mean
you
said
it
really
would
be
in
everybody's
interest
to
do
that.
W
A
R
R
We
always
hear
concerns
from
neighbors
established
neighbors
in
neighborhoods,
where
there
is
continuing
infill
activity,
whether
it's
sometimes
it's
single-family
houses
a
lot
of
times
it's
townhouses,
sometimes
it's
multi-story
buildings
about
what
the
the
current
supply
of
on-street
parking
is
and
how
that's
managed
and
and
what
happens
when
more
people
come.
So
if
you
could
just
speak
a
little
bit
about
that
and
sort
of
where
we
are
with
the
moratorium,
that
would
be
helpful.
Sure.
X
The
moratorium
was
brought
up
at
the
August
2017
county
board
meeting,
and
it
is
currently
in
the
data
gathering
phase
for
a
complete
review
of
the
program
which
hasn't
been
done
since
the
early
2000s.
The
completion
of
the
study
is
slated
to
occur
at
mid
2019
and
after
this
initial
data
gathering
phase
so
I'm,
assuming
during
this
calendar
year
of
2018,
there
will
be
opportunities
for
civic
engagement
from
residents
who
live
in
both.
You
know
the
areas
that
currently
have
RPP
and
areas
that
may
not
have
our
BP
and
to
discuss
the
program.
X
As
from
a
larger-scale
perspective,
we
don't
know
what
the
results
of
this
study
will
find
in
terms
of
RPP
and
what
it
looks
like
today
and
what
it
will
maybe
look
like
in
the
future,
but
at
the
very
least
when
the
moratorium
is
over
in
2019,
any
residential
neighborhood
that
would
like
to
modify
add
change.
There
are
p
p
status
can
do
so
and
needs
to
it's
done
through
a
citizen
initiated
process
where
they
obtain
60%
of
their
block
or
area
signatures,
and
then
work
through
with
staff
on
potentially
expanding
hours.
X
For
instance,
in
these
neighborhoods
or
not
I,
mean
I.
Think
there's
a
variety
of
opinions
that
that
go
for
or
against
expansion
of
ours,
depending
on
kind
of
what
side
of
11th
Street
you
may
live
on,
and
so
all
of
that
will
be
looked
through
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
and
it
again
it's
a
citizen,
initiated
effort,
and
so
any
neighborhood
that
would
like
to
change
their
RPP
can
do
so
and
are
able
to
do
so.
So.
R
R
I
suspect
that
the
study
will
perhaps
inventory
all
the
different
ones
that
we
have
and
what
their
hours
are,
and
perhaps
what
the
history
of
that
of
each
of
them
was
particularly
where
the
anomalies
occur,
such
as
in
lyon,
village
and
a
couple
other
places
along
the
RB
corridor
to
help
inform
us
of
what
might
be
possible
and
desirable
or
how
we
might
change
that
right.
I
mean
that's,
probably
the
purpose
of
the
study.
R
X
Yes,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
RPE
expansions
and
even
some
of
the
zones
were
created
kind
of
one
at
a
time
in
an
ad
hoc
fashion.
I
think
this
overview
kind
of
will
look
at
the
patterns.
Look
at
what's
appropriate,
I,
think,
proximity
to
metro,
proximity
to
retail
and
single
family
or
other
residential
neighborhoods
is
also
a
factor,
and
so
the
program
again
is
collecting
all
that
data,
and
will
it
analyze
it
to
kind
of
determine
the
future
of
the
program
and
just.
R
As
a
little
plug,
I'm
hopeful
that
they'll
also
be
looking
at
the
size
of
the
RPP
zones,
because
some
of
them
are
large
enough
that
people
actually
have
a
sticker
for
his
own
and
will
drive
from
their
house
to
a
closer
place
and
park.
So
that
would
be
something
that
I
think
really
occurs
in
Boston
and
might
be
helping
to
exacerbate
some
of
the
situation
in
this
area.
A
S
Kim
the
county
is
in
the
process
of
getting
access
or
control,
I
should
say
over
a
Fairfax
Drive.
We
had
a
number
of
kind
of
comments
about
the
intersection
of
Vermont
and
Fairfax
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
the
kind
of
timeline
of
the
county,
getting
control
over
Fairfax
and
then
the
kind
of
what
the
next
few
months
or
year
looked
like
in
terms
of
potential
projects
or.
S
C
We
we
have
several
construction
rated
related
site,
planned
conditions,
I
think
the
one
you
may
be
referring
to
Commissioner
is
the
maintenance
of
transportation
plan,
so
the
applicant
will
be
required
post
approval
to
develop
a
maintenance
of
transportation
plan
that
will
identify
street
closures,
a
schedule
of
street
closures.
How
thoroughfares
are
maintained,
you
know,
so
if
they
have
to
close
down
a
street
or
a
sidewalk,
how
will
pedestrians
or
vehicles
get
through
the
site
and
it
also
identifies
construction
vehicle
routes
into
the
site,
so
they'll
have
to
do
that
post
approval.
C
Beyond
that
I
heard
I
heard
somebody
mentioned
that
there
should
be
some
additional
concern
for
ongoing
communication
between
the
applicant
and
surrounding
neighbors.
We
do
have
built
into
the
site
plan
condition
requirements
for
a
pre-construction
meeting
with
the
neighbors,
and
you
know
that's
ostensibly
to
talk
about
the
MOT
and
that
plan
will
be
shared
with
the
neighbors.
C
But
I
think
you
know
a
lot
of
times
that
that
meeting
has
been
used
to
kind
of
talk
about
how
the
general
construction
process
will
work,
and
you
know
what
the
timing
is
like
and
and
really
how
it's
gonna
affect
the
neighboring
property.
Another
thing
the
applicant
is
agreed
to
and
the
condition
I
know
there.
There
was
some
talk
about
the
design
of
the
little
part,
not
a
parklet,
but
the
little
landscaped
area
at
the
terminus
of
north
Utah
Street.
S
A
Troll
commissioners
role,
I
think
we
were
still
on
the
easement
and
the
parking
you
brought
it
to
transportation,
which
is
fine,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
we
cover
the
because
I
do
have
a
parking
question.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
further
questions
clarifications
on
either
the
easement
or
the
parking
for
now?
Let
me
just
ask
my
my
parking
issue.
A
X
The
applicant
can
add
direction
signage
on
their
site,
alert
the
residents
and
visitors
that
are
visiting
their
site
to
where
they
can
park.
We
don't
put
up
those
types
of
centers
generally
in
the
right-of-way
as
a
public
sign,
because
it's
kind
of
a
private
parking
scenario
here
this
isn't
having
to
do
with
the
public,
for
instance
on
street
parking,
and
so
that
would
be
up
to
the
applicant
and
how
they
decide
to
address
that
and.
D
Preaching
to
the
choir
here,
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
drives
me.
Crazy
is
the
fact
that
we
do
have
so
much
unused
inventory
in
the
parking
realm
I
mean
just
the
spaces.
Now
I
won't
get
off
on
a
tangent,
so
I'll
keep
it
brief.
Just
the
spaces
that
are
publicly
owned
and
invested
in
at
the
town
center
in
Columbia
Pike,
they
sit
empty
day-in,
day-out
people
don't
know
they're
there,
there's
no
signage,
even
that
if
the
county
just
developed
an
app.
That
said,
you
know
this
is
where
the
public
parking
availability
is
it?
D
A
Appreciate
that
and
I
I
do
think
we
follow
very
broad
principles
of
transit,
oriented
development,
which
requires
some
creative
thinking
about
where
to
put
the
cars
that
remain
once
people
start
getting
used
to
other
modes
of
transportation,
transit
bike
or
walking.
So
I
appreciate
that
okay,
a
commissioners
role,
additional
questions
on
transportation
well,.
S
Y
Y
Y
So
so
to
start
the
North
parcel
will
be
secured,
that'll
be
a
small
lay
down
area.
We
might
have
a
trailer
there
once
we
complete
the
garage,
the
beautiful
thing
about
the
site
is
we
have
this
large
store
equipment
for
workers
to
park?
That's
where
the
bulk
of
the
staging
will
be
it'll
even
be
on
deck
for
the
for
the
South
building
to
be
built
as
we
work
from
the
south
to
the
north,
okay.
Y
A
V
C
Trying
to
think
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
this
this
maybe
the
fourth,
because
we
we
have
the
recently
approved
Ballston
station,
which
is
a
few
blocks
away.
There's
the
715
north
glebe
on
the
other
side
of
glebe
and
then,
of
course,
the
ongoing
construction
of
Boston
Quarter.
So
there
is
a
lot
going
on
in
the
neighborhood
and.
V
I
was
just
curious.
There
was
also
mention
of
a
bus.
Stop
that's
kitty-corner
from
from
this
a
school
bus.
Stop,
so
is
it
the
responsibility
of
the
applicant,
or
does
the
county
actually
coordinate
with
ApS
to
suggest
moving
bus
stops
or
just
letting
them
know?
You
know,
what's
going
on
in
the
area,
I,
don't.
V
S
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
board
adopt
the
attached
resolution
to
the
staff
report
dated
February
6
2018
to
amend
the
general
land-use
plan
from
low
medium
residential
16
to
36
units.
An
acre
to
high
medium
residential
excuse
up
to
3.2
for
FA
are
including
associated
office
and
retail
activities
for
the
middle
one.
S
R
R
R
This
is
not
to
say
to
the
applicant
who
has
I
think
very
much
worked
on
the
building
and
you
know
worked
with
staff
on
the
chamfering
of
the
corners,
which
I
think
is
very
interesting.
Completely
responded
to
the
neighborhood
with
the
townhouses
to
the
north,
but
to
me
there
has
always
been
embedded
in
this,
the
fatal
flaw
of
being
taller
than
six
storeys
and
as
well
as
building
separation,
and
that
no
amount
of
improving
the
surface
really
gets
to
that.
So
that's
the
purpose
of
my
motion.
I.
A
R
R
A
I'll,
read
it
and
then
I'll
speak
to
it,
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
the
county
board
to
direct
staff
to
provide
additional
opportunities
for
neighbors
in
adjoining
abutting
properties
to
work
with
the
developer
on
a
list
of
issues
including,
but
not
limited
to
parking
traffic
circulation,
pedestrian
circulation,
open
space
and
other
issues
to
be
determined.
So
a
second.
T
A
I
had
hope
we
could
resolve
them
by
this
evening,
or
at
least
by
the
time
the
board
meets,
but
I'm
not
sure,
that's
going
to
happen
and
I
think
there
are
some
misunderstandings
that
I
think
would
benefit
from
some
additional
conversation
and
not
only
the
two
areas
that
you
raised.
So
that's
why
I
made
the
motion
discussion
I.
V
A
I'm,
asking
staff
to
actually
convene
additional
conversations
to
I
mean
that
could
be
anything
from
providing
space
discussion
space
that
kind
of
space
in
the
county
offices
or
at
I,
don't
know
where
bbse
is
CIA
meets,
could
be
it's
sort
of
a
convening
opportunity.
Already
we
see
there
are
going
to
be
two
opportunities
and
I'm
merely
suggesting
that
those
the
extent
that
the
list
of
discussion
items
be
extended,
yep.
A
No
I'm
not
asking
for
a
delay,
no
post-approval,
so
instruction
issues,
the
pre-construction
meeting
and
the
parklet
meeting.
That's
post
approval
so
I'm
simply
suggesting
there
are
other.
How
will
the
parking
work?
What
are
creative
solutions
to
the
parking
that
the
developer
be
open
to
input
the
dent
efficacious
of
problems?
And
at
that
point
you
could
come
back
with
a
solution
and
that
would
I
think
create
some
confidence
between
the
old
neighbors
and
the
new
new
neighbors.
That's
all
I'm,
suggesting
staff
role
can
be
somewhat
minimal.
A
A
convening
role
is
just
that:
I'm,
not
asking
staff
to
do
additional
staff
work,
although
that
may
be
something
you
might
want
to
do,
for
example,
with
parking.
If
there
are
creative
solutions
that
can
be
determined
now
it's
one
thing
to
wait
a
year
and
a
half
for
data
to
come
in
on
people
on
the
parking
programs,
but
we
have
an
urgency
now,
I
think
with
this
new
development.
Commissioner.
R
Yeah
Kamini,
madam
chair
I,
am
I
very
much
appreciate
your
you're
listening
to
the
neighborhood
and
and
knowing
that
there
are
various
ongoing
issues.
I
I
have
a
hard
time,
knowing
what
thinking
about
what
to
do
with
this
motion,
because
it's
so
different
than
what
we've
ever
done
and
the
notion
of
having
the
board
direct
staff
to
convene
some
meetings
with
a
specific
neighborhood
about
generalities
of
parking
and
other
things
is
something
I
know
is
not
part
of
their
work
plan.
Generally.
R
Staff
time
is
tied
to
specific
site
plans
and
once
those
are
done
that
staff
Matt
will
continue
to
be
shepherding
this
site
plan
as
it
goes
through
and
pulls
its
permits
and
and
zoning
needs
to
ask
questions.
You
know
he
doesn't
just
you
know,
wash
his
hands
of
it
after
the
county
board.
He
continues
with
it,
but
to
add
the
extra
dimension
to
think
that
he
needs
on
he
or
Miss
Kim
need
to
call
up
the
neighborhood
and
the
applicant
and
say:
let's
talk
about
parking.
I
think
is
a
step
too
far.
Okay,.
R
R
A
Other
comments
before
we
vote
I
do
have
one
I
went
through
the
Ballston
sector
plan
this
this
afternoon,
trying
to
understand
where
the
issue,
what
what
the,
what
the
starting
point
for
these
issues.
What
was
and
I
found
on
page
41,
the
following
the
boundary
between
the
high
medium
designation
along
Fairfax,
Drive
and
the
low
medium
designation
along
11th
Street
north,
is
viewed
as
in
general,
is
viewed
as
general,
and
no
attempt
has
been
made
to
describe
a
specific
line
for
zoning
purposes.
A
A
I
think
this
portion
of
the
plan
that
have
just
read
is
still
relevant
and
what
we've
done
is
had
this
open
view
of
this
area
as
transitional
without
too
much
specificity.
That's
what
we
face
today.
Perhaps
it
should
have
been
redone
for
open
spaces.
Commissioner
yeah
Kamini
had
said,
but
we've
got
to
start
from
some
particular
point
and
we
do
that
with
our
with
our
sector
plans,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
make
that
I
am
going
to
support
the
main
motion.
S
Before
we
vote,
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
your
work,
the
applicant
for
responding
to
a
lot
of
what
you
heard
from
staff
at
the
SPOC
table.
Also,
the
community
I
know
folks,
who
came
out
tonight,
were
frustrated
throughout
the
process
and
may
remain
frustrated.
I
think
you,
your
participation
did
make
this
project
better.
S
So
I
hope
you,
if
you
are
frustrated
about
other
things,
I
hope
you
still
leave
with
that
that
you
did
make
this
project
better
than
where
we
started
at
the
first
SPRC.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that
and
I
encourage
you
all
to
participate
in
and
other
processes.
I
hope
this
isn't
your
only
interaction
with
with
county
staff
or
kind
of
the
public
process.
S
W
Will
be
supporting
this
motion?
I
have
gone
through
as
have
other
commissioners.
The
Ballston
sector
plan
and
I
do
believe
that
the
South
portion
is
absolutely
consistent.
The
club
changes
we're
proposing
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
sector
plan.
The
north
side
I've
looked
at
that
also
and
I
believe.
It
is
also
consistent.
I
also
see
that
the
buildings
that
are
being
proposed
there
are
will
fit
in
with
the
other
town
houses
that
have
been
developed
over
the
past
thirty
years
through
that
area.
W
I've
walked
that
area
and
it's
quite
a
remarkable
variety
of
townhouses
different
styles
different
sizes,
different
heights.
Yet
there's
still
there's
a
consistency,
because
they're
all
townhouses
and
I
think
that
this
will
actually
fit
in
appropriately
with
what
you
already
have
there.
That
being
said,
the
Boston
sector
plan
is
actually
almost
40
years
old
and
I.
W
Do
think
that
at
this
point
with
the
just
about
the
last
infill
here,
it
is
time
for
Boston,
2.0
I
have
been
raising
I
think
it
is
time
for
us
to
start
taking
a
where
you
look
at
that
sector
plan
and
redoing
it.
It
is
clear
that
the
citizens
you
people
out
here
have
looked
at
this
I
think
it
is
now
time
for
you
to
start
agitating
to
start
having
the
Boston
sector
plan
be
revisited,
it's
time
to
think
it
through
again.
W
A
A
Missed
all
had
we'll
get
get
us
a
draft
Commissioner
troll
we'll
send
it
around.
Please
make
comments,
read
line,
strike
out
and
send
back
to
commissioners
roll
who
will
accept
changes
and
then
forward
the
letter
on
to
miss
stall
hood
other
than
that
this
meeting
is
recessed
until
Wednesday
this
Wednesday
February
14th
at
7
o'clock.
Thank
you.