►
Description
To view the agenda, go to https://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=45
B
C
Hi
everybody
I'm
here
to
offer
considerations
as
preparations
are
underway
for
your
September
13th,
meaning
on
the
VRE
we've
already
expressed
in
a
letter
on
August
11th.
Our
concerns
about
the
efficacy
of
the
VRE
citizen,
Crystal
City
Station
improvement
project
that
is
under
consideration
and
we're.
Faced
now
with
the
situation
whereby
the
impact
on
the
Crystal
City
residential
community
has
not
been
given
any
consideration
by
VRE
in
their
assessment,
even
the
updated
assessment
released
on
August
28th.
So
we
have
sort
of
two
immediate
ask.
C
One
is
to
recommend
an
immediate
delay
of
any
decision
to
limit
options
at
this
stage.
Why
not
consider
more
than
one
considering
the
fact
that
platforms
overlap
in
the
next
stage
and
then
for
you
to
hopefully
raise
some
of
the
questions
that
I'm
going
to
share
today
about
resident
concerns
when
BRE
speaks
with
us.
C
The
figure
presented
in
their
report
figure
20,
does
not
represent
the
fact
that
the
garage
is
actually
open.
So
therefore
any
edge
engine
servicing
the
platform
would
actually
director
bent
directly
into
our
building.
The
second
big
consideration
is
that
the
VRS
VRE
analysis
package
in
our
consideration
is
incomplete.
It
excludes
the
following
critical
and
significant
factors
for
consideration.
Health
effects
of
train
operate.
Train
station
operating
being
next
to
HVAC
units
and
bedrooms
and
balconies,
particularly
for
those
more
susceptible
to
health,
affects
both
children
and
elderly.
Purvi
Ari's
analysis
not
considered
at
this
time.
C
Any
provision
for
emergency
access
by
fire,
emergency
vehicles
and
personnel
per
VRE
is
not
considered
at
this
time.
Noise
and
vibration
impact
at
the
base
of
our
building
in
garage
per
VRE.
It
was
it
was
done
at
an
adjacent
area
not
on
our
property
and
in
fact,
that
the
analysis
of
the
impact
of
CSX
and
Amtrak
engines
has
been
given
no
consideration
and
they
do
use
the
station.
The
third
consideration
is
we
really
do
not
understand.
Why
not
option
three.
C
It
is
the
better
option
because
it
has
an
existing
fire
lane
along
the
entire
length
of
the
proposed
platform.
It
has
direct
access
access
to
commercial
real
estate
and
it
is
a
closer
and
extends
the
reach
of
public
transit
by
servicing
those
in
the
Potomac
yard
area
better,
and
there
is
an
existing
Metro,
a
station
that
would
provide
morning
rush
service
to
both
those
buildings
north,
as
well
as
the
Pentagon
City.
C
It
is
fully
compatible
with
any
option
that
is
under
consideration
for
national
airport
access,
pedestrian
access
and,
furthermore,
according
to
even
the
VRE
analysis,
it
would
provide
a
reduction
in
the
horn
sounding
locations
where
they
would
be
by
either
commercial
or
park
locations
rather
than
directly
next
to
residents.
So,
but,
despite
all
of
our
efforts
and
granted,
we've
become
somewhat
late
to
the
game.
C
They
have
not
been
addressed
at
all
by
the
re
VRE
shares
that
it
has
included
outreach
and
it's
included
representatives,
Arlington
County,
National,
Park
services,
MWAA
DoD,
Crystal,
City
bid
and
JB
just
a
myth,
not
on
the
list,
civil
society
or
even
the
residence.
That
would
actually
be
on
top
of
the
station.
So
in
our
opinion,
if
option
two
stands
as
the
sole
choice,
the
REE
will
be
prematurely
limiting
the
options
based
on
incomplete
data
and
considerations,
a
very
important
thing
and,
furthermore,
adversely
affecting
a
thousand
citizens.
C
You
call
Resident,
Crystal
City
drive
their
home,
but
meanwhile,
if
option
three
is
the
selected,
we
feel
that
BRE
and
Arlington
Connery
Carlington
Arlington
County
have
the
option
to
produce
a
win-win
for
the
VRE
and
the
community.
It
meets
all
the
goals
of
2014
system,
it
expands
access
and
invest
in
multimodal.
C
It
provides
excellent
access
to
the
super
majority
of
the
current
riders,
who
actually
prefer
to
walk
and
close
access
for
those
who
take
Metro,
which
are
in
the
minority
and,
furthermore,
the
design
of
that
platform
depends
on
a
tunnel
and
the
distance
gain
is
actually
very
minor.
So,
in
summary,
we
are
asking
for
a
delay
in
the
lap
to
allow
reasonable
time
for
consideration
of
an
analysis
that
a
comprehensive,
inclusive
and
fair
so.
C
D
E
Evening
I
will
I
will
give
a
brief
presentation
and
then
I'll
be
open
for
questions
from
the
commissioners.
The
item
before
you
is
a
request
to
advertise
for
some
changes
to
the
master
transportation
plan
map.
These
are
all
related
to
the
courthouse
sector,
Plan
Update,
which
was
approved
by
the
County
Board
in
the
fall
of
2015,
the
master
transportation
plan.
The
MTP
amendments
are
going
along
with
several
other
amendments
to
our
comprehensive
plan,
those
basically
being
zoning
ordinance
and
general
land-use
plan
changes,
because
this
is
a
change
to
the
comprehensive
plan.
E
It
does
require
kind
of
a
two-step,
a
process
of
approval.
First,
the
request
advertised
has
to
be
approved
by
the
county
or
that
will
take
place
at
their
September
meeting
and
then
following
that
there
will
be
hearings
and
those
would
likely
be
in
October
by
the
both
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
county
board
to
actually
prove
this
set
of
changes.
E
We
come
to
the
Transportation
Commission
before
the
requests
advertised,
basically
to
get
your
kind
of
review
and
endorsement
of
changes,
and
then
we
will
be
coming
back
again
actually
at
before
the
October
county
board
meeting
for
an
actual
vote
on
the
the
proposed
changes,
and
so
I
can
just
run
through
them
fairly
quickly.
These
are
all
items
that
were
that
are
in
the
courthouse
sector
plan
update
the
for
this
courthouse
square
area.
Page
five
of
the
staffs
report
lists
the
number
of
items
that
are
to
be
changes
to
the
mass
transportation
plan
map.
E
The
other
changes
to
the
MDP
map
regarding
some
of
the
concrete
classifications
of
certain
streets
around
this
Courthouse
Square
area,
15,
Street,
14th,
Street,
Yule,
Street,
courthouse,
Road
and
then
lastly,
some
deletions
of
some
existing
street
segments
very
short
sections
of
beach
and
you'll
Street,
which
are
currently
a
bit
south
of
this
building
here
around.
What's
called
a
court
square
West
building
that
area
is
considered
to
be
kind
of
the
land
sort
of
pre
consolidated
and
those
two
streets
being
removed.
E
With
this
with
the
redevelopment
that's
planned
for
here,
you
can
also
see
those
changes
on
the
last
page
of
that
staff
report,
which
has
a
graphic,
a
map
that
can
show
you
where
those
things
are
and
largely
that's
it.
So
the
ideas
that
prove
the
request
advertised
tonight
and
then
I'll
be
back
again
and
in
your
next
book
next
Commission
meeting
in
a
month,
and
we
can
talk
about
them
a
little
bit
again.
So
that's
it
for
my
presentation
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
F
A
B
B
H
G
I'm
very
happy
to
be
here
at
this
time
of
the
day.
Well
with
that
said
good
evening,
mr.
chair
and
other
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Stephen
creme
and
I
am
the
parking
planner
with
Arlington's
Department
of
Environmental,
Services
and
I'm
here
to
talk
to
you
tonight
about
a
request
to
authorize
advertisement
for
a
policy
guiding
off-street
residential
multifamily
parking.
This
policy
proposal
comes
out
of
a
process
that
we've
been
referring
to
up
to
now,
as
the
residential
parking
working
group.
G
G
We
slightly
expanded
that
scope
to
also
include
the
unified
commercial
mixed
use,
development
use
permits
and,
as
you
all
know,
the
board
in
recent
years
on
staff
recommendation
and
your
endorsement
has
approved
multifamily
projects
that
have
modifications
from
the
typical
buy
right
off
street
parking
requirements
that
you
would
find
in
the
zoning
code
and
those
requirements
have
come
from
broader
policy
that
guides
the
county
on
making
decisions
about
parking.
But
this
process
has
really
been
about
clarifying
and
standardizing
the
criteria
or
considerations
that
should
go
into
when
those
kinds
of
modifications
be
made.
G
G
Other
parts
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
well
as
sector
plans
for
various
areas
of
the
county
and
I,
think
you'll
see
some
of
these
themes.
Here
again,
as
we
talk
about
the
policy
specifics
and
it's
with
this
policy
backing
a
scan
of
practices
in
other
communities
and
local
data
on
parking
demand
that
we
embarked
on
our
policy
making
process
and
central
to
that
process
was
a
group
of
11
Arlington
residents
and
business
representatives
who
are
listed
here.
We
especially
want
to
thank
mr.
James
roll
mr.
Michael
Perkins
and,
of
course
mr.
G
Dennis
Garrity
who's
with
us
here
in
the
audience.
If
there's
anybody
I
missed
No,
my
apologies.
So,
anyway,
this
group
was
central
to
our
public
engagement
process.
This
group
met
with
staff
over
the
course
of
six
months
meeting
11
times
to
develop
a
recommendation
to
the
county
manager
that
was
delivered
in
March
of
2017.
G
Now,
in
addition
to
that
working
group
process,
we
also
engaged
in
a
variety
of
other
broader
engagement
activities,
including
in-person
presentations,
presentations
to
other
advisory
commissions.
And,
of
course,
we
were
here
with
you
all
back
in
April
as
an
information
item,
we
also
launched
an
online
platform
for
comment
at
two
points
in
time
during
this
process
and
garnered
about
370
responses
from
that
and
most
recently
there
was
a
work
session
on
this
with
the
County
Board
on
July
11th.
G
Now,
before
getting
to
the
actual
elements
of
this
policy,
I
want
to
go
over
some
of
the
potential
benefits
that
the
working
group
called
out
through
its
work
and
that
staff
agree
on
as
the
potential
positives
that
could
be
a
result
of
this
policy.
First
of
all,
we
believe
that
it
supports
transit-oriented
development
and
leverages
the
county's
continuing
leadership
and
investment
in
our
metro,
rail
system,
and
it
does
that
by
allowing
for
the
creation
of
more
housing
that
is
marketed
to
and
developed
for,
low
and
zero
income.
G
This
policy,
we
think
also
will
help
provide
for
more
housing
production
and
housing
choice.
We
know
that
affordable
housing,
of
course,
is
a
major
concern
in
Arlington
today
and
one
of
the
elements,
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
is
considering
minimum
parking
requirements
that
further
the
goals
of
producing,
affordable
housing.
G
Finally,
we
think
that
there's
a
very
important
benefit
in
creating
a
policy
that
gives
more
predictability,
structure
and
clarity
to
the
development
process
when
it
comes
to
parking
for
all
sides,
be
a
county
staff
members,
the
community
that
are
involved
in
the
SPRC
process
or
developers,
as
I
mentioned,
the
policy
would
apply
within
the
to
Metro
corridors.
This
map
here
gives
you
a
little
bit
more
context
on
that.
G
The
area
in
pink
reflects
the
zoning
districts
where
the
policy
would
apply,
because
those
are
the
areas
where
site
plans
are
allowed
or
multifamily
site
plans
or
Achmed's
are
permitted.
You
also
see
on
that
map
the
on
street
parking
management
strategies
in
the
immediate
area,
most
of
the
streets
where
this
policy
would
apply
our
managed
either
through
meters
or
our
pp,
and
then
this
map
also
overlays
the
distances
to
each
zoning
or
I'm.
Sorry,
each
Metro
entrance.
G
The
real
core
of
the
policy
is
on
this
slide
here
and
it's
in
two
halves
on
the
lower
half,
you
see
a
new
set
of
parking
minimums
that
are
related
to
the
project's
distance
to
a
metro
station.
So
at
the
very
closest
point
to
Metro,
the
minimum
required
amount
of
parking
would
be
0.2
spaces
per
unit,
and
it
would
climb
to
0.6
spaces
per
unit.
G
What,
if
the
project
were
to
be
located
more
than
three-quarters
of
a
mile
from
the
nearest
metro
station
entrance,
but
still
within
one
of
the
Metro
Planning
corridors
now
below
that
dark,
blue
line,
which
is
the
market
rate
minimum
parking
ratio?
You
see
lower
lines
that
correspond
to
levels
of
committed,
affordable
housing
units,
so,
in
other
words,
as
a
unit
becomes
targeted
to
families
with
lower
and
lower
incomes.
G
G
Well
that
means
that,
under
this
policy,
if
a
developer
were
to
propose
a
project
that
has
more
than
one
point,
six
five
spaces
per
unit
for
each
of
those
spaces
mitigation
would
be
required,
so
either
the
developer
would
be
required
to
put
those
excess
spaces
in
the
tandem
configuration
that
you
see
at
the
top
or
the
stacker
configuration
that
you
see
in
the
bottom,
or
they
would
be
required
to
pay
a
mitigation
fee
to
the
county.
We
have
an
estimated
amount
there
per
year
for
30
years
for
each
of
those
spaces.
G
Of
course,
why
do
that
well?
Part
of
the
master
transportation
plan
calls
on
us
to
ensure
that
excess
parking
is
not
built,
and
this
part
comes
out
of
research
from
around
the
world.
That
demonstrates
a
relationship
between
parking
supply
and
parking
demand
and
that
housing
built
with
lots
of
parking
attracts
people
that
own
many
vehicles,
our
own
data
on
site
plan
residence
corroborates.
These
findings
to.
G
G
These
beige
bars
represent
the
range
of
parking
amande
we've
seen
various
multifamily
buildings
around
the
county,
and
we've
gathered
this
data
from
two
sources,
both
from
registrations
from
the
Commissioner
of
Revenue,
as
well
as
our
own
studies
of
site
plan
buildings
where
we
go
in
and
actually
count
cars
in
the
garages.
So
this
is
basically
showing
you
the
range
of
cars
parked
per
unit
or
registered
per
unit,
I
think
about
a
hundred
and
sixty
buildings
around
the
county.
G
We
also
split
this
out.
So
the
pages
you
see
here,
the
these
are
buildings
that
are
either
market
rate,
or
they
only
have
a
few
affordable
units
in
them
say
5
or
10.
The
green
bars
here
show
the
the
range
of
parking
demands
seen
at
projects
that
are
100%
committed,
affordable
in
the
bands
of
distance
that
we're
talking
about
here
and
you'll,
see
that
the
demand
for
parking
seen
at
those
buildings
is
generally
lower
or
the
range
goes
lower
than
those
for
market
rate
buildings.
G
Now.
Aside
from
that
core
part
of
the
policy,
there
are
a
few
additional
elements
that
we
have
included
here.
One
of
those
is
a
provision
that
would
allow
developers
to
exchange
some
of
their
parking
spaces
for
investment
in
car
share
bike
share
and
bike
parking.
You
see
on
these
tables
here
the
exchanges
of
spaces
of
vehicle
parking
to
other
facilities.
G
We've
added
from
the
working
groups
proposal
a
cap
such
that
you
would
not
be
able
to
exchange
more
than
50%
of
your
minimum
required
parking.
Also,
any
handicapped
spaces
couldn't
be
exchanged
through
these,
so
in
other
words,
you
could
exchange
non-accessible
or
standard
parking
spaces
for
these
investments,
but
any
accessible
spaces
could
not
be
exchanged
for
through
this.
G
Another
element
that
staff
have
added
is
a
visitor
parking
requirement
of
one
space
for
every
20
units
or
point
zero
five
spaces
per
unit.
This
is
in
order
to
respond
to
or,
of
course,
very
consistent
concerns
about
spillover,
but
we
think
that
this
does
this
in
a
way
that
is
surgically
applied
to
the
demand
for
parking
that
we
see
on
Street
through
our
surveys
of
meter
occupancy
into
the
evening.
G
Now,
not
every
Street
around
the
Metro
corridors
is
governed
by
meters,
but
a
lot
of
the
streets
near
site
plans,
our
streets
with
parking
meters,
and
our
demand
data
shows
that
the
peak
demand
for
those
spaces,
even
after
the
meters
have
gone
off,
is
in
the
7
p.m.
to
9
p.m.
hour
more
or
less,
depending
on
where
you
are
in
the
county.
G
We
would
anticipate
that
if
demand
for
on
street
parking
was
coming
from
residence,
that
those
cars
would
stay
overnight,
the
you
know
you
would
come
home
and
leave
your
vehicle
there,
but
we
believe
that,
given
that
pattern
of
7:00
p.m.
to
9:00
p.m.
it
is
in
fact,
more
of
an
issue
of
visitors
that
are
coming
to
either
visit
residential
buildings
or
patronize
businesses,
which
is
why
we've
included
this
additional
visitor
parking
require.
G
The
proposed
policy
would
also
encourage
shared
parking.
Our
broader
policy
elements
do
this
in
a
lot
of
different
ways,
but
this
policy
would
give
clear
guidance
on
when
developers
could
share
parking
between
uses
in
the
same
project
to
say
between
an
office
building
and
a
residential
building
and
also
between
buildings.
So
if
a
developer
were
able
to
arrange
a
lease
or
owned
two
buildings
that
are
within
800
feet
of
the
new
project,
the
developer
would
be
able
to
fulfill
some
of
their
off-street
parking
requirement
in
that
off-street,
location
or
I'll
I'm,
sorry
off-site
location.
G
G
Final
modifications
and
staff
made
that
I'll
point
out
here
is
that
we
have
decided
to
set
the
minimum
number
of
handicapped
or
accessible
spaces
equal
to
the
number
of
accessible
units
required,
which
is
higher
than
what
is
typically
required
in
the
building
code
and
also
in
response
to
concerns
about
the
potential
for
offsite
shared
parking
to
either
slow
down
the
redevelopment
of
vacant
or
I'm.
Sorry
of
surface
parking
lots
or
to
lead
to
tear
downs
of
lower
density
properties
outside
the
corridors.
G
Briefly,
I'll
just
tell
you
about
our
next
steps
with
this
process,
so
you
are
our
first
Advisory
Commission
presentation
on
this
from
here
on
out,
and
this
is
our
schedule
of
meetings
through
November
when
we
hope
to
go
for
board
action.
So
with
that
I
look
forward
to
taking
your
questions.
Listening
to
any
comment
and
explaining
this
to
you
further.
A
B
D
D
We,
you
know
we
appreciate
that
there's
been
a
very
deliberate
process
and
that
you've
taken
on
what
sometimes
I
call
sort
of
the
Achilles
heel
of
good
urbanism
sort
of
how
to
kind
of
fit
cars
into
communities
that
might
have
originally
been
built
around
around
walking
and
biking
and
bicycling,
or
even
inner
suburbs
that
are
trying
to
redesign
their
communities
in
places
that
are
great
places
to
walk
and
bicycle
and
ride.
Transit.
So
appreciate
that
the
parking
policy
is
one
of
these
sort
of
vexing
issues.
D
I
think
that
you
know
we're
very
excited
supportive
of
what
you're
proposing
we
I
would
say
that
sort
of
in
were
generally
would
question
even
the
validity
of
the
government
getting
involved
in
the
in
the
business
of
establishing
parking
minimums,
and
rather
just
control,
manage
Street
space
and
marriage
expectations
around
that,
because
developers
will
build
parking
to
basically
to
lease
or
sell
their
units
and
that
that's
probably
best
left
up
to
then.
But
that
didn't
happen
in
the
District
of
Columbia,
where
I
worked
for
many
years
on
that
policy
issue
and
I.
D
Don't
expect
that
to
happen
here
so
I
appreciate
the
the
low
range
of
parking
minimums
that
you've
recommended
recognizing
the
importance
of
transit
access
and
wanting
to
build
off
of
that
asset,
rather
than
undermine
it
by
forcing
an
sort
of
additional
kind
of
subsidization
of
car
ownership,
and
I
will
note
that
DC
more
recently
had
developed
has
developed
sort
of
a
parking
evaluation
tool
where
one
of
the
conclusions
of
their
analysis
was
that
parking
supply
predicts
parking
demand.
So
that's
not
the
opposite.
D
It's
that
basically,
they
found
that
when
there
was
more
parking
supplied,
you
can
predict
there
would
be
more
parking
used
and
so
going
forward
in
their
development
review
process.
They
are
recommending
less
parking.
Even
when
developers
are
argument,
they
want
to
build
more
because
in
looking
at
transit,
accessible
sites,
they're
seeing
less
and
less
demand
for
parking
and
that
and
that
it's
important
to
recognize
that
parking
demand
is
not
a
fixed
number
that
if
you
could
just
guess
it
right,
you
can
just
set
it
into
policy.
D
A
G
I'm
turning
to
make
sure
that
I
have
them
all
right
in
front
of
me,
so
we
have
heard
from
multiple
little
individuals
through
this
process
that,
while
encouraging
shared
parking
between
two
buildings
is
a
good
idea,
there
are,
of
course,
many
barriers
to
making
it
happen.
One
of
those
being
the
fact
that,
if
to
site
plan
buildings
are
interested
in
sharing
parking
between
them,
then
that
would
require
at
least
a
minor
site
plan
amendment
for
the
building
that
is
leasing
out
its
parking.
G
So
one
of
our
recommendations
is
to
have
the
county
manager
explore
options
for
streamlining
the
approval
process
for
two
site
plan
buildings
that
are
looking
to
share
parking
off
site.
The
next
one
is
actually
something
that
came
from
the
Working
Group
quite
strongly
in
which
we're
already
committed
to
doing,
which
is
to
review
the
residential
permit
parking
program
and
to
recommend
improvements
to
that
program.
G
One
of
the
other
elements
that
we
heard
is
there
in
one
of
the
recommendations
that
we've
put
forward
is
to
consider
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance
specifically
for
the
RC
districts,
because
the
RC
district
does
not
currently
allow
for
modifications
of
the
Mart
parking
requirement
below
one
space
per
unit.
We
actually
are
recommending
that
this
policy
not
apply
to
those
districts
unless
that
zoning
district
is
amended.
G
The
next
recommendation
is
to
direct
the
county
manager
to
consider
similar
policy
or
go
through
a
similar
review
for
site
plans
and
use
permits
in
the
Lee
Highway
and
Columbia
Pike
corridors
and
then
finally
consider
amendments
to
the
buy-rite
minimum
parking
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Obviously,
zoning
changes
require
a
whole
new
set
of
processes
and
where
we
don't
imagine
that
that
would
be
a
quick
process.
But
these
were
all
elements
that
either
came
from
the
working
group
or
which
we
thought
were
important
as
follow-ons.
I
Think
I'm
going
to
express
a
little
bit
of
concern
about
the
requirement
for
the
visitor
parking
being
on
site
in
the
rasen
Boston,
as
well
as
the
Crystal,
City
and
Pentagon
city
areas.
There.
A
significant
number
of
shared
parking
garages
already
have
excess
space
between
seven
and
nine
o'clock
in
the
evening.
I
That
is
available
for
price
to
include
that
in
residential
buildings
creates
more
spots
that
may
or
may
not
go
to
people
who
happen
to
live
in
the
buildings
and
will
also
just
encourage
people
to
drive
to
visit
their
friends
instead
of
taking
public
transportation
or
using
a
space
that's
already
available
and
therefore
creating
a
higher
cost
of
building
units.
So
for
me,
that's
one
of
the
policies
in
here
that
I,
don't
think,
was
emphasized
the
last
time
we
heard
about
this.
I
G
So,
while
I
think
you
see
here
that
we
are
definitely
trying
to
carry
out
a
policy
that
doesn't
subsidize
driving
and
reduces
the
incentive
to
drive,
we
think
that,
in
order
to
help
allay
some
of
both
the
concern
and
also
what
appears
to
be
a
lack
of
uptake
of
the
existing
off
street
parking
in
our
commercial
facilities,
this
was
a
way
to.
This
was
an
element
that
could
be
added.
F
G
Well,
yeah,
any
any
site
plan
or
use
permit,
building
that
had
already
been
approved
would
have
to
come
in
through
a
site
plan
amendment
process.
But
yes,
as
with
any
you
know,
change
in
policy.
If
there
is
something
that
the
developer
thinks
they
can
do
with
parking
that
isn't
being
utilized,
then
yes,
they
would
be
able
to
apply
for
an
amendment
to
redevelop
the
site
in
some
way
or
redeveloped.
The
parking
okay.
F
And
then,
to
the
point
of
the
the
speaker,
what
what
prevents
us
from
scrapping
the
minimum
parking
requirement
altogether,
what
what
actually
is
the
support
from
needing
a
minimum
parking
requirement?
What
was
the
second
question?
The
support
for
what?
What's
the
what's,
the
basis
for
needing
a
minimum
parking
requirement.
G
G
Don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
zoning,
but
I
think
that
there's
the
policy
language
in
there
about
needing
to
provide
some
kind
of
off
street
parking
limits.
What
staff
could
do
with
policy
now
the
board
is
certainly
able
to
modify,
except
for
in
those
RC
districts
down
to
zero
spaces
per
unit.
They
have
in
the
past,
not
for
residential,
but
they've
approved
buildings
with
no
parking.
G
So
for
us
right
now
also
are
the
master
transportation
plan,
which
has
policy
elements
that
seek
more
for
us
to
find
balance
and
ask
for
us
to
reduce
parking,
but
only
in
very
limited
cases,
eliminate
them.
I
think
that
those
I
think
those
broader
policy
statements
and
documents
would
need
to
change
before
we
would
be
eliminating
minimums
across
the
board.
Let's.
F
G
G
Well,
the
county,
of
course,
has
a
policy
imperative
to
manage
the
transportation
system
now
in
terms
of
parking
minimums
that
may
or
may
not
always
be
an
appropriate
policy
response.
I
think
one
of
the
key
things
is
in
the
Metro
corridors.
We
have
a
lot
of
other
forms
of
transportation
that
provide
an
obvious
way
of
getting
around
that
isn't
traveling
by
car,
so
those
areas
are
different
from
the
other
parts
of
the
community.
F
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
scratch
the
surface
a
little
bit
here.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
you
know
just
sort
of
stuck
with
a
policy
that
we
put
in
place
in
1960s,
and
now
we
have
it
and
nobody
knows
how
to
get
rid
of
it.
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
if
there
are
actual
stakeholders
in
wanting
to
keep
the
parking
minimums
around.
That's
all
so.
G
There's
certainly
our
stakeholders
that
want
to
keep
the
parking
minimums
around
when
we
have
spoken
with
the
public
there.
There
are
some
who
believe
that
the
minimum
parking
requirements
and
the
by
right
zoning
should
be
set
higher
than
they
currently
are.
Today
there
are
those
who
think
that
the
by
right
is
sorry,
the
site
plan
process
shouldn't
approve
parking
lower
than
one
per
unit
or
1.125.
G
That
comes
out
of
a
belief
that
there
that,
if
a
certain
amount
of
off
street
parking
is
not
supplied,
then
that
parking
demand
will
go
to
the
streets
to
street
parking.
Now,
as
I
said
earlier,
there
is.
We
believe
that
on
street
parking
management
is
really
the
best
way
to
deal
with
on
street
demand,
but
there
is
certainly
a
widespread
sentiment
that
we
need
to
maintain
at
least
some
kind
of
off
street
parking
requirement
in
order
to
mitigate
demand
on
street.
Do.
F
G
G
The
proposed
minimums
are
lower
than
recent
demand
and
again
we
think
that
that's
a
good
idea,
because
the
supply
is
driving,
the
demand
is
in
part
driving
the
demand
and
also,
if
we
want
to
allow
for
the
kinds
of
new
development
and
sustainable
growth
that
we
want
to
see
in
the
community
that
we
need
to
be
looking
for
a
different
kind
of
development
pattern
than
we've
had
in
the
past.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Mr.
J
So
I
don't
know
whether
this
is
the
number
of
people
that
would
like
to
have
a
parking
space
if
it
were
free,
I,
don't
know
whether
this
is
the
number
of
people
who
want
a
parking
space
if
it's
$50
a
month
or
$100
a
month
or
$1000
a
month.
So
without
the
information
about
how
much
these
people
are
being
asked
to
pay
for
this
parking
space,
it's
it's
not
as
relevant
in
seeing
how
much
parking
is
being
demanded.
J
So
I
don't
know
that
the
working
group
ever
looked
at
any
of
the
the
cost
data
we
just
kind
of
assumed
that
the
developer
or
the
building
operator
would
just
charge
whatever
they.
You
know
needed
what
they
thought
was
the
best
policy
for
their
building
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
the
the
parking
garage
was
full,
but
not
so
full
that
they
couldn't
accommodate
somebody
new
that
wanted
a
new
space.
That's
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
mention
the
one.
J
The
one
thing
that
I
really
want
to
emphasize
that
was
part
of
the
parking
working
groups.
Recommendations
was
this.
Whole
policy
doesn't
work
if
we
don't
get
on
street
management
correct.
So
that's
why
the
parking
group
wrote
into
our
recommendations
that
the
county
needs
to
look
at
on
street
management
through
meters.
J
We
need
to
look
at
on
Street
management
through
resident
permit
parking,
because
if
we
don't
get
those
right,
then
we
end
up
building
buildings
that
don't
have
you
know
a
space
per
person
that
has
a
car
and
the
people
who
have
cars
will
just
park
their
car
on
the
street.
So
we
really
need
to
get
the
on
Street
management
correct,
which
is
why
it
was
part
of
the
recommendation.
So
on
that
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
about
the
data
that
we
collected
about
the
usage
at
meters
near
residential
buildings.
J
It
was
mentioned
during
the
presentation
that
the
peak
of
the
demand
was
between
I
think
it
was
7:00
to
9:00
p.m.
do.
We
have
that
data,
oh
look
there.
It
is
so
the
meters
in
Arlington
I
believe
shut
off
for
the
most
part
at
6
p.m.
is
that
correct?
Yes,
ok,
so
the
peak
of
demand
for
meters
is
after
the
meters
are
shut
off.
Is
there
I
believe
that
that
should
be
part
of
one
of
the
things
that
we
look
at
in
terms
of
our
meter
management?
J
Is
that
we
run
meters
in
order
to
try
to
keep
spaces
available
for
people
who
arrive
at
an
area
and
want
to
go
park?
But
if
we
turn
off
the
meters
at
the
time
when
the
most
people
want
to
park,
does
that
policy
make
any
sense
at
all?
So
I
also
noticed
that
even
late
at
night,
which
10
p.m.
11
p.m.
that's
after
a
lot
of
the
local
businesses
that
these
meters
are
supporting,
having
parking
available
for
people
coming
to
visit,
we're
still
seeing
a
half
to
a
third
of
the
space
is
still
being
used.
G
I,
without
more
detailed
data
collection,
I,
wouldn't
be
able
to
tell
you
what
that
remaining
demand
is
one
of
the
things
that
is
surprisingly
vexing
about
doing
parking.
Research
is
like
well,
what
is
what
is
that
car
going
to,
or
what's
the
person
in
that
car
going
to
unless
it's
going
into
a
garage
or
a
lot,
it's
really
hard
to
tell
so
it's
possible
that
some
of
that
is
residents
who
are
parking
overnight.
It's
possible,
it's
somebody
who
decided
to
do
the
right
thing
and
get
a
taxi
home
after
a
night
out.
I.
J
Well,
I
portion
of
it
would
come
from
people
who
don't
live
there,
but
then
the
residual
demand
of
people
who
you
know
are
still
there
at
11
p.m.
12
p.m.
1
a.m.
it's
possible
that
they
are
living
there
and
the
other
they're,
using
up
the
same
space
that
somebody
earlier
who
could
be
a
patron
of
a
restaurant
or
a
business?
J
J
I
have
one
other
question,
and
that
is
I
saw
something
in
the
report
about
not
discriminating
between
CAF
parking
and
regular
market
rate
units
for
parking
is
the
intention
for
that
that
the
building
would
not
be
able
to
set-aside
spaces
for
just
the
market
rate
units
and
say
well,
you're
a
CAF
you're
in
a
CAF
unit.
Therefore,
a
space
won't
even
be
available
to
you,
assuming
you
were
willing
to
pay
for
it.
Is
that
what
that
intent
of
that
is
correct.
Okay,
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
Other
Commission
questions
or
comments
all
right,
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
latch
on
to
what
both
this
court
and
mr.
Perkins
said
in
general.
That
parking
is
a
substitutable
good.
You
can
park
your
car
inside
a
building,
you
can
park
your
car
outside
a
building
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
care.
So
if
we're
trying
to
fix
parking
policy
overall,
I
wholeheartedly
agree,
we
have
to
be
working
on
on
the
street
management
as
well
and
I
think
it
all
comes
down
to
the
fact
that
parking
is
a
market.
A
You
know
it's
like
any
other
good,
but
we
for
some
reason.
We
rarely
treat
it
like
that,
and
so
one
of
the
reasons
that
parking
supply
drives
parking
demand
is
parking.
Supply
drives
price.
If
we
force
a
developer
to
build
twice
as
much
parking
as
they
want
to
they're
gonna
charge
less
for
it,
so
that
they
get.
You
know
more
money
from
all
of
those
spaces
and
if
they're
charging
less
for
it
more
people
are
gonna
use
it.
So
I'm
inclined
at
this
point
to
of
course
support
the
RTA.
It's
a
great
policy.
A
It
is
great
movement
in
the
right
direction.
I'm
inclined
to
tack
on
to
our
letter
to
the
board
our
wholehearted
endorsement
of
all
of
the
additional
recommendations
in
here
about
re-examining
our
PP
and
re-examining
our
meter
hours
and
what
we
charge
for
meters
and
all
of
those
other
recommendations
and.
A
G
Do
not
not
separated
out
I
will
say
this,
though
one
thing
that
was
just
an
interesting
piece
of
data,
the
you
may
remember
if
you
had,
if
you
were
president
or
watched,
the
the
recording
of
the
July
11th
work
session,
one
of
the
requests
from
the
board
was
various
demographic
groups,
demand
for
vehicles
or
driving
a
driving
or
other
mode
choice.
So
one
of
the
things
we
did
look
at
was
for
Arlington
County.
What
is
the
vehicle
ownership
between
groups
based
on
the
variety
of
disability
types
that
the
American
Community
Survey
collects
data
on?
G
And
this
isn't
the
same
thing,
obviously
as
parking
demand.
But
one
of
the
findings
was
that
those
with
entire
range
of
disabilities
that
the
Census
Bureau
asks
about
vehicle
ownership
is
lower
if
these
numbers
are
higher,
because
the
question
is:
do
you
live
in
a
household
without
a
vehicle?
So
for
each
of
those
disability,
statuses,
vehicle
ownership
is
lower,
but
no,
we
have
not
typically
collected
data
in
such
a
way
that
we
can
tell
whether
the
demand
is
for
accessible
spaces
or
for
standard
spaces.
A.
A
G
If
I
may
I
think,
while
we
understand
that
there
is
a,
there,
is
lower
vehicle
ownership
for
people
with
a
variety
of
disabilities,
we
also
have
I
think
strong
imperative
that
we've
heard
in
the
community
for
the
need
to
provide
for
Aging
in
Place
and
the
needs
of
those
who
might
have
a
situation
where
they
are
and
have
some
sort
of
disability,
but
for
whom
driving
is
still
their
preferred
option,
and
so
we're
still
creating
a
housing
range.
I
mean
in
the
end
of
the
day.
G
G
So,
in
other
words,
we're
simply
we're
simply
raising
by
about
0.01
spaces
per
unit,
the
requirement
for
accessible
spaces,
but
it's
not
such
that
those
spaces
are
only
held
for
those
who
live
in
the
accessible
units.
If
there's
somebody
who
has
the
necessary
permits
or
credentials
to
qualify
for
an
accessible
space,
then
they
could
still
rent
that
space,
even
if
they
live
in
a
non
accessible
unit.
Thank
you.
That's
helpful.
J
Mr.
chairman,
mr.
Perkins
I
move
that
the
Transportation
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
board
authorized
the
advertisement
of
a
public
hearing
for
off
street
parking
policy
for
multi-family
residential
projects,
approved
by
special
exemption
in
the
RV
and
Jefferson
Davis.
Metro
quarters
and
related
recommendations
asked
set
forth
in
the
staff
report
that
we
were
given
and
also
I,
recommend
that
the
County
Board
or
the
Transportation
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
board
acknowledge
the
residential
parking
work
groups.
Policy
recommendations
to
the
county
manager.
A
K
F
A
B
L
Hello:
everyone,
my
name,
is
Matthew
almond
I'm,
with
the
law
firm,
Walsh
Colucci,
representing
the
applicant
here
to
talk
about
the
crystal
houses.
Three
major
site
plan
amendment
that
next
slide.
Please
just
quickly
to
introduce
the
site
before
I,
pass
the
presentation
off
to
our
transportation
consultant.
L
L
It
covers
two
blocks:
the
Crystal
Towers
block
on
the
north
and
the
Crystal
houses
block
on
the
south
in
2006.
The
county
board
approved
a
major
amendment
to
transfer
density
from
the
north
block
to
the
south
block,
and
that
density
was
realized
in
two
loft-style
apartment
buildings,
one
at
the
corner
of
18th
and
EADS
Street,
and
the
second
at
the
corner
of
22nd
and
8th
Street.
L
L
There
are
a
number
of
different
entrance
points
for
pedestrians
to
circulate
in
and
out
of
the
building
one
right
at
that
corner,
18th
and
EADS.
That's
the
corner,
that's
most
proximate
to
the
Crystal
City
metro
station.
So
we
think
it's
important
to
provide
an
access
point
at
that
intersection
and
then
moving
further
south.
We
have
a
pair
of
entrances
at
the
opposite
corner
of
the
building.
L
We've
also
highlighted
an
additional
entry
point,
a
little
further
back
along
the
site
and
then
highlighted
a
few
spaces
where
we
think
it
makes
the
most
sense
to
have
sort
of
temporary
pickup,
drop-off
and
delivery
type
spaces
between
the
existing
building
in
the
gray
and
then
the
OHS
building,
yellow
just
quickly
a
if
anyone's,
not
familiar
with
the
site.
This
is
what
it
looks
like
today.
It's
mostly
surface
parking.
This
is
the
view
from
each
street
and
you
can
kind
of
see
that
this
is
just
paved
area
without
much.
L
M
Hello
good
evening,
I'm
mike
mckowski
with
Welles
and
associates,
we
performed
a
multimodal
traffic
study
for
the
proposal.
As
Matt
mentioned,
the
proposed
site
plan
was
originally
approved
in
2006,
and
at
that
time
we
completed
that
T
ia
that
included
ten
intersections
in
coordination
with
the
new
application
and
coordinating
with
DES
staff.
The
five
intersections
highlighted
on
the
screen
were
chosen
for
re-evaluation
there,
since
their
most
proximate
to
the
proposed
building.
The
analysis
showed
that
vehicular
traffic
in
the
area
along
EADS
and
18th
Street
is
generally
consistent
with
the
2006
data.
M
In
addition
to
the
to
the
traffic
study
that
was
submitted,
we
prepared
in
the
comprehensive
multimodal
addendum
to
address
some
additional
staff
comments.
As
Matt
mentioned,
the
252
dwelling
units
would
generate
approximately
36
a.m.
peak
hour
trips
and
44
p.m.
peak
hour
trips.
That
assumes
a
60%
non-auto
reduction
based
on
proximity
to
the.
M
Metro
station,
as
well
as
other
facilities
in
the
area.
Some
some
of
the
improvements
I'd
like
to
highlight
include
the
streetscape
improvements
along
18th
and
EADS,
as
well
as
there's
a
county
project
that
will
remove
the
median
along
18th
Street
to
provide
full
movement
at
the
site,
driveway
ID'd
as
intersection
2
next
slide.
M
M
There's
for
Capital
Bikeshare
stations
within
a
one
block,
walking
distance
of
the
proposed
building,
including
one
immediately
adjacent
total
of
56
docks
and
in
the
Capital
Bikeshare
station
immediately
adjacent
the
building
has
11
stations,
there's
also
multiple
bus
lines,
as
well
as
car
sharing
options.
Immediate
vicinity
this
this
slide
summarizes
the
vehicular
routes
in
the
immediate
area.
Again,
it
highlights
the
removal
of
the
median
the
the
drive
the
driveway
into
the
garage
is
located
along
the
northern
extent
of
the
building.
M
The
loading
would
be
in
the
middle
of
the
building
and
Matt
highlighted
the
pedestrian
access
points
earlier.
These
are
the
existing
cross
sections
for
reference.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
slide
shows
the
the
improve
the
improvements
planned
along
18th
Street
and
the
removal
of
the
median.
The
curved
curved
dimensions
stay
the
same
for
both
roads
at
18th
Street,
with
the
removal
of
the
median
there's
created
protected
bike
lanes
along
both
sides
of
the
road,
the
north
and
south
side,
and
there's
streetscape
improvements.
M
M
This
slide
summarizes
the
pedestrian
circulation
in
and
around
the
site.
We
have
connected
system
of
sidewalks
immediately
surrounding
crystal
house
buildings,
as
well
as
sidewalks
through
the
new
park
and
along
the
pool
and
through
the
site
these
are
rendered
Street
scapes.
This
one
right
here
highlights
the
street
streetscape.
This
is
the
northern
portion
closer
to
18th
Street
and
shows
the
bus.
Shelter
again
shows
the
six
foot
buffer
strip,
as
well
as
a
six
foot,
clear
sidewalk
that
leads
to
the
some
of
the
walking
units.
M
This
slide,
we
have
the
18th
Street
skeets
streetscape
on
the
north.
Again
we
have
the
six
foot
sidewalks
with
the
six
foot
landscape
strip.
Currently
that
section,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
site,
has
the
five
foot
sidewalks
I've
mentioned
previously
and
then
there's
a
shrub
line
immediately
adjacent
to
that
sidewalk,
which
makes
the
sidewalk
feel
fairly
tight
through
there.
This
the
proposal
will
open
that
up,
as
you
can
see,
there's
there's
more
open
space.
M
If
you
will
south
of
the
of
the
sidewalk
adjacent
to
the
building,
which
will
open
up
the
area
and
feel
more
welcoming,
this
slide
summarizes
the
existing
bicycle
facilities
in
the
area.
I
will
point
out
that
north
of
the
site
along
EADS,
there
are
protected
bike
lanes
now
and
on
this
slide,
that
I
don't
know
if
the
plan
is
actually
the
map
has
been
updated,
but
that
was
just
idea
of
them
as
on
street
routes,
but
there
are
protected
sidewalks
or
bike
lanes
on
EADS
north
of
18th.
M
Here's
the
parking
and
loading
summary
for
the
overall
development.
With
the
proposed
redevelopment
you
we
have
a
total
of
1026
spaces.
We
would
provide
the
bicycle
parking
to
code
requirement,
which
is
a
hundred
and
seven
spaces.
We'll
have
two
loading
bays
in
the
parking
ratio
today
by
right
was
one
point:
zero
one.
The
crystal
house
block
with
the
current
proposal
would
be
reduced
to
zero
point.
Nine
five
and
the
overall
site
plan
would
be
0.98.
M
M
This
is
the
preliminary
transportation
demand
man
plan.
It
highlights
multiple
commitments,
including
facilities,
improvements
for
the
bike,
storage,
streetscape
improvements
along
18th
and
EADS
parking
management
plan,
promotional
services,
including
one-time
smart
trip
or
Bike
Share
car
share
benefits,
as
well
as
performance
and
monitoring,
and
an
annual
report
would
be
submitted.
N
My
name
is
Joanne
Gabor
I'm
with
DES
I
have
a
very,
very
brief
presentation.
I'm
gonna
make
even
a
little
more
brief.
This
is
Crystal
houses
3,
it
is
site
plan
13,
and
this
is
a
major
site
plan
amendment.
We
all
understand
we
were
allocated
now
again.
As
the
applicant
mentioned,
the
site
plan
13
consists
of
two
blocks.
This
is
the
block
between
north
of
18th,
Street
and
then
south
of
18th
Street.
The
density
was
taken
from
basically
north
block
to
combine
with
the
south
block
the
2006
approval.
N
As
seen
here,
there
were
two
buildings
approved.
There
is
this
building
at
the
corner
of
18th
and
EADS,
and
then
this
building
at
the
corner
of
22nd
and
EADS
and
again,
as
the
applicant
mentioned,
that
was
two
buildings.
It
was
252
units.
There
were
588
underground
spaces
in
two
different
garages.
That
proposal
actually
did
have
some
streetscape
improvements
around
the
entire
site,
specifically
some
on
fern
Street
with
the
proposal
and
they
had
a
lead
score
of
26
and
that
is
technically
still
an
active
site
plan.
N
The
current
proposal
has
just
this
one:
building
at
the
North
corner
of
18th
and
EADS
Street
is
approximately
the
same
shape
as
the
other
building,
because
there
is
no
building
here.
They
are
proposing
some
landscape
enhancements
here.
This
will
be
able
to
maintain
this
surface
parking.
That's
here
today
and
provide
a
better
buffer.
The
streetscape
improvements
that
were
proposed
on
the
2006
plan
on
fern
Street
actually
have
been
completed
as
County
projects.
N
So
that's
not
something
that
we
are
seeking
to
have
the
applicant
do
because
it's
already
been
completed
in
the
ten
years
since
the
2006
approval.
This
is
within
the
Crystal
City
sector
plan
area
and
they
are
maintaining
the
existing
zoning
of
ra6
15
and
it
will
be
five
storeys
that
is
within
the
height
requirement
of
the
zoning
and,
as
they
mentioned,
is
0.95
parking
spaces
per
unit
on
this
block
and
they
are
going
to
be
LEED
Silver
there
very
minimal
modifications
they're
requesting
for
the
site
plan
amendment.
N
It
is
all
related
to
parking,
as
we've
discussed
and
the
next
steps
are.
We
have
site
plan
number
3
which
anticipate
to
be
their
last
site
plan.
Sprc
meeting.
Excuse
me
on
September
11th
and
there
will
be
a
walking
tour
of
the
site
prior
to
the
meeting.
The
walking
tour
will
be
at
5:45
and
then
the
meeting
will
commence
at
7:00
p.m.
and
that
is
all
I
have
for
you.
Thank
you
all.
A
Is
there
is
existing
protected
bike
lanes
on
each
street
in
front
of
this
project,
except
the
protection
goes
away
at
both
of
the
bus
stops.
There
is
a
bus
stop
at
the
far
north
end
of
the
project
and
a
bus
stop
at
the
far
south
end
of
the
project
and
instead
of
yeah,
because
the
protected
bike
lanes
that
were
put
in
on
EADS
were
done
just
as
a
restriping
project
and
not
as
anything
with
actual
concrete.
There
aren't
floating
bus
islands,
so
the
bus
crosses
the
bike
lane
in
both
of
those
places.
H
L
Hard
to
say
for
sure
we
have
looked
at
parking
utilization
as
part
of
our
site
plan
process.
We
think
that
the
ratio
that's
currently
on
our
site
plan
may
be
a
bit
high,
that
we
could
actually
accomplish
something
a
little
bit
lower.
That's
something
we
continue
to
look
at
whether
we
could
push
the
ratio
down
either
through
modifying
the
garage
or
we're.
Looking
at
our
surface
parking,
you
know
we
are
tracking
the
residential
parking
study
and
we'll
see
where
that
goes
as
the.
L
Don't
think
it's
it's
being
driven
by
a
county
policy,
necessarily
I,
think
in
in
honesty
we
wanted
to
take
the
2006
approval
and
not
change
it
dramatically.
We
tried
to
keep
the
same
building
footprint.
We
tried
to
keep
the
same
height
approximately
we
tried
to
keep
more
or
less
the
same
parking
you,
you
know
we're
in
a
new
environment
now,
so
it
may
be
time
for
a
little
bit
lower
parking
ratio,
and
so
that's
why
we're?
We
are
kind
of
continuing
to
evaluate
that
I
have.
J
H
L
I
That
question
more
for
County
staff,
with
the
removal
of
the
median
I'm
assuming
it's
just
gonna-
be
a
striped
median
now,
instead
of
a
built
buffered
median
that
you
can't
cross
there.
Any
concerns.
Now
that
more
of
the
trips
are
gonna
be
going
in
and
out
of
this
location,
as
opposed
to
from
the
2006
plan,
where
it
would
have
been
separated
with
the
consider
consideration
that
there
is
so
much
pasture
and
traffic
on
18th
and
people
can
get
a
little
aggressive
when
they're
making
left
turns
into
parking
garages.
N
It's
something
that
I
wouldn't
say
we're
concerned
about
I
mean
we
are
aware
that
that
is
a
potential,
because
it
is
a
new
traffic
pattern
that
doesn't
exist
today.
It
is
part
of
the
reason
we
had
the
applicant
evaluate
with
the
TI
a
you
know:
it's
something
that
we'll
evaluate
as
it
comes
up.
It's
not
something
we're
concerned
about
now
and
again
at
20th,
Street
and
EADS,
which
is
the
other
area
closest
to
this
new
building
that
they
can
leave
the
site
from.
N
B
K
One
more
second,
just
as
we
orient
ourselves
in
and
out
well
good
evening,
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Matt
Roberts
and
with
the
law
firm
of
beam,
Kenyon,
Corman
I'm
here
tonight
on
behalf
the
applicant
and
VR
Inc,
and
we're
here
tonight
to
discuss
our
proposal
for
the
six
seven
one,
one,
the
highway
SunTrust
Bank
site,
which
is
a
rezoning
and
major
site
plan.
Amendment
next
slide,
please
just
very
quickly.
K
I
want
to
orient
you
to
where
we're
talking
about
on
the
site,
as
you
could
probably
guess,
from
the
address
we're
located
along
Lee
Highway
near
its
intersection
with
north
Underwood
Street,
as
well
as
very
close
to
the
intersection
of
Lee
Highway
and
Washington
Boulevard,
to
help
a
little
bit
with
context,
we're
about
approximately
a
half
mile
from
the
East
Falls
Church
Metro.
Next
slide,
please
taking
a
quick
step
out.
This
is
a
site,
a
view
of
the
site
in
context
to
its
surroundings.
K
As
you
can
see,
Charles
a
Stewart
Park
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site,
single-family
residential
immediately
across
from
north
Underwood
Street,
the
Fenwick
Court
homeowners
association,
which
is
a
townhouse
development
of
relatively
similar
size
to
the
proposal,
also
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site
and
then
finally
cross
Lee,
Highway,
various
retail,
commercial
and
townhouse
projects.
Next
slide,
please,
the
existing
site
is
developed
with
a
Sun
Trust
Bank,
as
you
can
see
in
the
picture
in
front
of
you.
K
The
site
currently
has
roughly
four
curb
cuts
to
along
Lee
highway
to
along
North
Underwood
Street,
providing
a
very
odd
condition
in
terms
of
turning
in
and
out
of
the
site,
particularly
along
Lee
Highway.
If
you've
ever
been
to
the
site,
it's
actually
fairly
difficult
to
ascertain
where
the
in
and
out
actually
is
per
at
that
set
of
curb
cuts.
There's
if
you
were
to
count
it
up,
you'd
see
approximately
73
on
site
surface
parking
spaces
today
and
if
you
walked
the
site,
all
the
frontages
have
approximately
five
foot
widths
for
their
sidewalks.
K
As
you
can
again
see
in
this
photo,
the
existing
condition
is
there
is
some
on-street
parking
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site
on
Underwood
Street
across
Underwood
near
the
single-family
residential
there,
zoned
parking
for
the
single-family
homes
and
closer
to
Charles
a
Stewart
Park
there's
also
some
additional
on
street
parking
next
slide.
Please,
and
this
is
a
site
plan
proposal
for
what
NVR
is
bringing
in
front
of
the
SPRC.
K
Currently,
our
current
proposals
for
27
townhomes
that
is
going
to
be
conducted
with
a
rezoning
from
the
current
zoning
of
CO
and
effectively
a
down
zoning
to
the
RA
818
district.
That
has
two
reasons.
One
is
that
the
glop
currently
calls
for
this
site
to
be
low,
medium
residential
in
line
with
the
East
Falls
Church
area
plan,
as
well
as
to
get
us
a
zoning
district
that
permits
townhome
development.
Again,
townhome
development
is
what
is
called
for
on
this
site
and
the
East
Falls
Church
plan.
K
Simultaneous
with
that
is
the
site
plan,
amendment
to
site
plan
number
three,
which
brought
the
SunTrust
Bank
site
here
in
the
first
place,
and
so
that
is
to
reorient
the
site
from
a
bank
to
the
townhouse
proposal
in
front
of
you.
If
you
were
to
do
the
math
on
it,
20
the
site's
approximately
one
point:
six,
nine
acres,
so
we're
talking
roughly
sixteen
units
per
acre
on
this
site
slightly
less
than
that
which
is
actually
a
27
percent
decrease
below
the
22
units
per
acre
permitted
in
a
townhouse
development
for
RA
818.
K
The
units
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
units
a
little
bit
in
context
soon,
but
I
do
want
to
let
you
know
the
measurements
on
the
units.
They're
22
feet
wide
by
50
feet
deep.
That
has
a
number
of
things
that
are
beneficial
here.
In
terms
of
you
know,
transportation
elements
it
allows
two
cars
to
be
parked
in
the
garage.
It's
a
sufficient
with
to
allow
that
to
occur.
The
other
things
to
understand
at
22
by
50
we
have
and
the
way
they're
oriented
on
site
is
we
have.
K
The
majority
of
these
are
front
loaded
units,
meaning
the
the
front
door
in
the
garage
or
on
the
exact
same
side.
The
nine
lee
highway
units
are
currently
the
only
rear
unit,
rear
loaded
units
on
site.
That's
to
permit
a
residential
frontage
directly
on
the
street.
We
talked
about
the
fact
that
you
know
we'll
have
two
cars
in
the
garage,
but
again
we
have
ten
and
I
apologize,
the
handout
you
have
says
seven.
K
In
fact,
there
are
ten
additional
visitor
parking
spaces
on
this
site,
as
with
almost
any
townhouse
development
that
you'll
see
in
Arlington
or
surrounding
jurisdictions.
The
necessity
for
visitor
parking
to
deal
with
you
know:
visitors
for
residents,
the
guy
who
comes
from
uber
to
pick
you
up
or
the
guy
who
comes
from
UPS
to
drop
off
your
packages
and
anything
else
in
between
including
the
pizza
delivery
guy.
K
As
you
can
also
see
from
the
site
plan
in
front
of
you,
we
are
eliminating
the
two
curb
cuts
along
Lee,
Highway
and
providing
the
fringe
is
called
for.
In
the
East
Falls
Church
plan
and
the
site
will
be
accessed
along
North
Underwood
by
reorienting,
where
the
two
curb
cuts
are
located
once
you're
accessing
the
site,
you'll
be
accessing
an
internal
private
street
on
an
internal
sidewalk
network.
The
interior
Street
is
26
feet
wide,
and
that
is
a
fire
department
requirement
for
the
size
of
these
units,
which
are
roughly
four
stories
once
that
occurs.
K
You
need
to
be
able
to
bring
in
a
ladder
truck
and
that's
roughly
26
feet
wide
for
turning
movements.
Next
slide,
please
just
very
quickly.
I
wanted
to
show
a
couple
renderings.
We
have
been
through
one
SPRC
meeting.
I.
Think
the
bulk
of
the
comments
we've
received
today
do
involve
the
architecture
for
the
buildings,
so
some
of
this
is
in
flux
and
some
of
the
options
that
we
are
exploring,
but
this
is
the
lehigh
way
stick.
As
you
can
see,
it's
largely
brick.
K
Wrapping
around
all
sides
with
the
Stoops
and
doors
facing
out
immediately
into
the
right-of-way
to
create
that
resident
residential
frontage.
That's
called
for
in
the
plan
next
slide,
please
this
is
a
view
from
the
north
Underwood
Street
or,
if
you're
actually
looking
at
the
end
unit
closest
to
Charles
a
Stewart
Park,
again,
primarily
brick
with
these
units
within
the
interior
of
the
site,
with
hardiplank
or
similar
siding
along
the
edges
/.
Some
of
the
comments
we've
received
to
date
from
staff.
K
However,
we
are
exploring
options
for
the
unit
mix,
the
materials,
the
orientation
of
the
site,
seeing
how
that
might
work.
There
are
some
stormwater
issues
we
need
to
work
out
if
we
are
going
to
do
some
of
these
things.
We
haven't
come
to
a
conclusion
yet
next
slide.
Please
importantly
for
this
commission
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
cross-sections
their
proposed
and
existing
really
quick.
These
are
pulled
directly
from
our
plan
documents
in
the
4.1,
as
well
as
the
East
Falls
Church
plan.
K
Importantly
on
both
Lee
Highway
and
Underwood,
the
street
right-of-way,
the
existing
street
right-of-way
is
not
designated
to
get.
Why
are
smaller,
but
everything
behind
the
curb
does
change
and
in
fact
that's
occurring
on
our
site
today.
So,
on
Underwood
Street,
we
are
meeting
the
East
Falls
Church
plans
call
for
a
16-foot
proposed
sidewalk
area
from
back
of
curb,
and
that
includes
adding
the
new
landscaping
strips
tree
zones
and
so
forth,
as
you
can
see
in
front
of
you
next
slide.
K
Here
we
do
want
to
reorient
you
that
you
saw
this
slide
already,
but
to
point
out
there
are
a
number
of
bus
stops
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site.
There
is
a
bike
share
parking
down
close
to
the
metro
station.
We
will
have
onsite
bike
parking
for
visitors
and
so
forth,
but
also
again
just
to
mention
we
are
within
approximately
1/2
mile
of
the
East
Falls
Church
Metro
next
slide.
In
terms
of
the
impact
analysis,
this
is
a
brief
overview
of
what
the
ti
a
came
out
with
on
micro
costs.
K
Key
is
here
with
Wells
and
associates
for
any
questions.
You
know
that
go
deeper,
but
the
long
story
short
in
addition
to
reducing
the
number
of
curb
cuts
on
site
by
half,
we
are
in
fact
doing
an
improvement
to
the
overall
site,
run
or
site
trip
generation,
AM
peak
hours
being
reduced
by
roughly
seventy
four
percent
and
a
sixty-seven
percent
reduction
in
PM
peak
hours.
The
reason
the
the
one
of
the
issue
intersections
is
going
to
be
north
under
woodenly
highway,
but
at
that
condition
exists
today
and
does
not
get
worse
with
this.
K
With
this
development
and
in
fact,
given
the
reductions,
you
know
one
might
say
it's
slightly
better
in
the
sense
that
there
are
less
trips
coming
to
and
from
the
site,
but
overall,
less
trips
generated
period
within
a
pretty
significant
way,
with
moving
this
for
a
bank
proposal
to
a
townhouse
development.
Next
slide,
please
and
last
but
not
least
in
terms
of
the
the
TDM
for
this
site.
K
The
applicant
does
intend
to
commit
to
the
standard
TDM
measures,
which
will
you
know
currently
working
through
with
staff,
but
to
include
the
continuing
relationship
with
the
ATP
dealing
with
car
share
bike
share
metro,
subsidy,
things
such
as
that
and
with
that
we
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
If
you
have
any
questions,
we're
happy
to
answer
them.
Thank
you.
O
I'm
Dennis
selling,
with
Department
of
Environmental
Services
I,
will
give
you
a
brief
presentation
not
going
to
cover
things
that
the
applicant
has
already
recovered.
I
just
wanted
to
call
your
attention
to
the
plan
guidance
that
we
are
using.
Obviously
we
have
our
master
transportation
plan
in
the
East
Falls
Church
area
plan,
which
was
adopted
in
2011
streets,
pedestrian
and
bicycle
element.
Policy
is
apply
to
this
site
and
particularly
with
the
East
Falls
Church
area
plan.
O
There
are
some
various
relevant
policies
and
recommendations
that
we
are
going
to
be
paying
close
attention
to
as
we
go
through
the
SPRC
process.
With
this
one
and
I
think
this
is
particularly
with
bicycle
and
pedestrian
access
has
come
up
in
the
very
first
SPRC
meeting
and
we
probably
will
anticipate
more
of
this
in
the
subsequent
meetings.
Some
very
specific
recommendations
apply
here
and
I
would
call
your
attention
specifically
to
recommendation
25,
which,
which
desires
some
pedestrian
crossing
at
Lee,
Highway
and
Underwood
streets.
O
It
actually
calls
for
a
signalized
pedestrian
crossing
here,
as
well
as
signalized
pedestrian
crossing
on
Washington
Boulevard
near
Verizon,
and
that's
because
there
actually
is
a
sort
of
a
pedestrian
desire
approach
to
the
metro.
This
site
is
actually
really
close
to
the
metro
station,
but
some
difficult
roadway
conditions
really
prevent
a
good
pedestrian
access
point
to
it.
O
27
is
recommends
some
bicycle
improvements
and
28
is
very
specific
about
some
bicycle
improvements
to
Lee
Highway
and
Sycamore
Street,
Fairfax,
Drive
et
cetera,
so
those
will
all
come
into
play
as
we
continue
through
the
site
plan
review
process.
The
site
here
is
shown
in
gold,
so
it
is
surrounded
by
a
healthy
pedestrian
network
and,
as
you
can
see,
adjacent
to
the
site,
the
red
dashed
mine
is
actually
a
cut
through
the
Verizon
parking
lot.
O
That
would
bring
you
to
Washington,
Boulevard
and
then
subsequently,
sort
of
down
the
hill
and
over
and
eventually
accessing
the
metro,
and
these
are
all
from
the
2011
East
Falls
Church
plan,
again
more
detail
on
that.
This
site
is
circled
here
in
gold
and
that
shows
the
desire
for
signalized
pedestrian
crossing
and
a
pedestrian
connection
again
down
to
Washington,
Boulevard
and
eventually
to
the
Metro.
O
Point
of
view,
the
the
building
orientation
on
north
Underwood
Street,
which
I
think
mr.
Roberts
has
shown
you
that
we're
basically
looking
at
the
sides
of
all
the
townhouses
on
Underwood
and
can
that
be
improved.
And
so
those
are
all
comments
that
I
have
for.
You
be
willing
to
take
any
questions
that
you
have.
J
Right
so
the
discussion
that
we've
had
so
far
from
the
applicant
from
staff
I
think
covered
all
the
things
that
are
transportation
related
that
we
had
at
the
SPRC
meeting.
I
wanted
to
ask
staff
whether
you've
looked
into
the
potential
for
a
signalized
pedestrian
crossing,
either
a
hawk
or
I.
Don't
think
it
meets
the
criteria
for
a
full
signal,
but
a
hawk.
Could
we
have
a
signalized
pedestrian
crossing
at
this
site
under
the
conditions
that
we
have
so
far.
O
Well,
we
have
not
sort
of
fully
examined
that,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
it
is
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
meet
the
warrants
for
a
signalized
pedestrian
crossing.
Here
we
only
do
Hawks
at
mid
blocks
and
not
at
street
intersections,
so
it
would
have
to
be
some
other
type
of
either
a
full
signal
or
the
flashing
beacons,
but
we
will
continue
to
look
at
this
and
discuss
it,
permit,
correct
and
also
work
with
our
partners,
Virginia
Department
of
Transportation,
which
controls
the
roadway.
Of
course,
all.
J
I
A
quick
question
about
whether
or
not
a
connection
you
have
to
internal
sites
on
the
townhouse,
that
is
to
I,
guess
that
would
just
the
other
townhouse
community
and
then
the
one
that's
being
proposed.
You
have
two
streets
that
are
running
parallel
to
29
there
and
they
don't
connect.
Has
there
been
any
thought
about
connecting
those
two
facilities
so
that
people
from
the
other
community
don't
have
to
turn
on
a
left
onto
Lee
Highway
in
order
to
end
up
on
north
Underwood
Street.
K
So,
sort
of
from
two
perspectives:
one
there's
a
really
significant
grade
change
between
where
the
two
property
lines
meet
with
the
federal
court
h
away,
I
mean
if
you
we
could
brought
photos
and
perhaps
it'll
be
good
to
do
so.
I
think
Commissioner
Perkins
might
be
coming
to
the
site
tour
on
the
18th
that
that's
being
set
up,
but
there's
a
significant
grade
change
that
would
require
you
know,
steps
or
something
like
that
and
in
the
current
orientation,
with
the
site.
Townhomes
and
their
backyards
are
along
that
along
that
property
line.
K
A
O
B
L
L
We
get
the
next
next
slide.
It's
a
a
three
block
site
plan
blocks
a
B
and
C
we've
outlined
those
here
block
a
is
a
strip
of
inline
retail
and
the
old
Education
Center
building.
If
you
recall
that
block
B
is
the
Whole
Foods
and
Block
C
is
what
we
call
the
retail
loop
with
the
bookstore
and
Pottery
Barn
and
all
the
garage
there.
L
On
this
slide,
we're
also
proposing
to
increase
the
boundary
of
the
site
plan
by
incorporating
some
new
parcels.
We've
outlined
those
in
gray,
those
are
the
iota
Cafe
space
and
the
historic
and
graver
retail
building
and
there's
a
service
alley
right
next
to
the
engraver
building.
Right
now,
those
are
not
part
of
the
site
plan.
Those
are
just
by
right,
C
to
legacy
buildings,
so
we're
proposing
to
rezone
those
and
bring
them
in
to
the
site
plan.
L
So
we'll
just
rezone
that
area
and
great
a
CO
1.5
and
make
it
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
market.
Common
site
plan,
those
spaces,
the
Ida
and
the
engravers
will
be
incorporated
into
this
new
building
renovation
and
expansion
as
well,
and
the
engraver
facade
will
be
that
that
portion
will
actually
be
preserved.
Is
it
it
is
recommended
for
historic
preservation
under
the
sector
plan
and
other
county
guidance.
L
There
will
be
architectural
updates
around
the
block,
including
to
the
existing
in
line
retail
along
clearing
to
mold
art,
but
we're
not
proposing
any
large-scale
redevelopment
of
that.
No
expansion
in
the
footprint
of
those
retail
spaces
and
no
modifications
to
the
garage
we'll
also
be
making
some
improvements
to
the
sidewalk,
which
Mike
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
in
a
moment
and
if
we
get
the
next
slide
please
just
quickly.
This
is
just
one
view
from
the
corner
of
Wilson
and
Edgewood
in
the
top
left.
You
can
see
the
photo
of
the
existing
office
building.
L
It's
it's
three
stories
and
a
little
tired
looking
in
the
rendering.
You
see
that
the
renovation
of
that
building,
with
the
addition
of
the
fourth
storey
at
the
top,
and
you
can
start
to
pick
up
some
of
the
streetscape
improvements
a
little
little
bump
out
at
that
corner,
to
shorten
the
crossing
distance
along
Edgewood
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Mike.
We
will
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
transportation
component.
Thank
you.
M
Hello
again,
Mike
Penkovsky
with
walls
and
associates,
we
completed
a
multi
motive.
Traffic
study
for
the
proposal.
Traffic
counts
were
collected
at
nine
intersections
in
coordination
with
DES
staff.
The
max
pedestrian
traffic
was
observed
at
Highland
and
Claridon
adjacent
to
the
Metro.
Claridon
Boulevard
currently
carries
the
higher
bike
traffic
with
50
a.m.
bicycle
trips
in
23
p.m.
bicycle
trips.
The
proposal
would
result
in
a
net
increase
of
approximately
27,000
square
feet
of
commercial
uses
for
purposes
of
the
TI.
A
we
looked
at
the
more
conservative
trip
estimates.
M
The
site
plan
allows
for
flexibility
in
the
second
floor
of
the
proposed
building
for
either
retail
or
office.
We
we
analyze
it
as
an
office
because
it
generates
more
trips
in
the
PM
peak
hour,
which
the
way
that
the
analysis
was
completed.
It
actually
reduces
the
am
trips
by
approximately
twenty
four
and
the
assumption
was
a
forty
percent
non,
auto
mode
share
based
on
proximity
to
mass
transit
and
other
facilities
in
the
area
we
assume
to
pipeline
projects,
as
well
as
a
half
percent
growth
rate.
M
This
slide
summarizes
the
transit
facilities
in
the
area
malte
get
multiple
bus
lines,
as
well
as
the
claritin
metro
to
the
west.
It's
approximately
eleven
hundred
feet
from
the
metro
station
pedestrian
circulation.
The
slide
highlights
accessible
routes
in
blue
for
pedestrians
on
street
parking
surrounding
the
site
on
all
roadways
is
highlighted
in
orange.
M
The
bike
lanes
are
highlighted
in
red.
They
are
on
both
Wilson
and
Clarendon
Boulevard
and
the
vehicular
travel
routes
are
highlighted
in
green
pedestrian.
Access
to
the
proposed
uses
are
indicated
with
the
red
arrows.
Multiple
access
points
along
the
public
plaza
the
main
entrance
to
the
office
lobby
mid-block
on
Edgewood,
with
additional
access
points
to
retail
uses
along
Wilson
Boulevard.
M
This
slide
summarizes
the
proposed
streetscape
along
Wilson
Boulevard
early
in
the
process
staff
asked
requested.
The
curb
extensions
in
the
southwest
quadrant,
which
we
have
provided
on
the
bottom
of
the
slide,
you'll,
see
next
to
the
retail
to
the
right
there's
a
clear
sidewalk
of
less
than
three
feet.
It's
two
feet:
eight
inches
is
measured
on
the
plan
because
of
the
landscape
strip
and
the
tree
pits
that
are
there.
M
There
is
a
reduction
in
approximately
nine
spaces
in
within
the
block,
a
a
portion
of
the
block,
a
serves
the
Cheesecake
Factory
restaurant
uses,
as
well
as
the
retail
and
office
components
on
block
a
and
then
there's
additional
parking
provided
in
the
Block
C
to
the
south
on
the
south
side
of
Clarendon
Boulevard,
the
bicycle
parking
because
of
the
flexibility
on
the
second
floor.
There's
a
range
and
the
intent
is
to
provide
the
the
required
amount
of
bicycle
parking
and
that
that
range
between
22
and
42
spaces
there'll
be
two
loading
spaces
within
that
court.
M
Access
from
Wilson
Boulevard
and
the
overall
parking
ratio
due
to
the
loss
of
the
spaces
goes
from
one
space
per
357
square
feet
to
one
space
per
436
square
feet
again
as
we
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there's
on
street
parking
and
available
on
all
blocks
and
all
roadways
surrounding
the
site.
It's
a
combination
of
paid
and
meter
parking,
as
well
as
some
zone
parking.
M
O
O
This
talks
about
guidance
for
the
street
section
for
Wilson
Boulevard,
and
here
it
is
recommended
this
is
showing
a
20
foot
entire
complete
sidewalk,
with
with
a
clear
sidewalk
of
8
feet,
6
feet
for
cafe
space,
so
that
really
makes
this
sort
of
a
14
foot
sidewalk
with
a
6
foot
tree
pit,
we're
obviously
not
going
to
achieve
that
in
this
site
plan.
This
is
a
renovation
of
an
existing
building.
It
is
not
a
teardown,
but
I
think
the
applicant
has
shown
that
they
are
sort
of
moving
in
that
direction
of
widening.
O
What
is
was
really
an
unacceptable,
unacceptably
narrow
sidewalk
on
Wilson
Boulevard
is
something
that's
much
more
going
to
be
much
more
accommodating
for
pedestrians,
for
people
with
strollers
people
walking
their
dogs,
it's
era,
so
I
think
that's
that's
going
to
be
we're
going
to
continue
to
work
with
the
applicant
on
on
getting
an
improved
pedestrian
environment
on
both
Edgewood
and
Wilson
Boulevard,
as
well
as
visitor
bicycle
parking,
we're
looking
for
about
20
additional
visitor
parking
spaces
which
we
want
to
be.
You
know
on
the
streets
sidewalks,
we
want
those
to
be
proximate
and
prominent.
O
This
is
the
sort
of
core
of
the
Clarendon
retail
center
and
we
need
more
bike
parking
here
and
I.
Think
that's
really
all
that
I
have
the
next
SPRC
meaning
for
this
project
is
going
to
be
on
the
14th.
That
will
be
the
second
as
a
PRC
meeting.
That
will
also
be
preceded
by
a
walking
tour
of
the
site.
F
F
Yes,
so
I'm
not
sure
the
questions
for
the
applicator,
for
staff
or
for
both,
but
if
the
goal
is
to
make
for
a
better,
a
better
pedestrian
experience,
why
not
just
get
rid
of
all
the
the
street
parking
there
and
widen
the
the
the
sidewalk
today
little
width
of
the
bump
outside
right,
yeah
I
mean
this.
This
site
plan
has
a
large
garage
in
it.
So
is
there
really
the
need
for
those?
What
one
two
three
four
parking
spots
I,
don't
know
who
can
answer
that
question.
O
This
is
making
a
good
sort
of
first
effort
at
the
project.
I
do
believe
that
part
of
the
Clarendon
sector
plan
is
looking
for
sort
of.
You
know
if
you
can
say
a
balanced
approach
to
maintaining
some
on
street
parking
again.
The
retailers
along
these
strips
really
do
like
to
have
some
on
street
parking
in
proximity
to
their
locations,
so.
F
F
This
particular
I
don't
is
iota.
It's
still
gonna,
be
part
of
this,
so
I
plan
on
mean
people
tend
to
hang
out
in
front
of
that
bar
regularly.
There's
Wilson.
What's
a
Whitlow's
on
that
corner,
there
are
people
on
Thursday,
Friday,
Saturday
night,
always
on
this
sidewalk,
it's
jam-packed,
so
you
know
the
question
is:
why
not
just
make
it
wider?
I
mean
those
I,
don't
see
how
those
four
parking
spots
are
gonna
make
a
difference
in
an
area
that
has
multiple
garages
a
huge
one.
O
F
Yeah
either
way
lots
lots
of
folks
are
crowding
the
sidewalk,
so
I
guess
I
just
don't
understand
the
trade-off.
For
you
know
if
you
go
back
to
the
other,
if
you're
on
Clarendon
Boulevard,
you
get
pretty
wide
sidewalks
right,
I
think
it's
what
fifteen
feet
or
something
like
that.
So
what
what
are
these
force?
Why
these
special
force
space
is
still
reserved?
Alright?
Why
are
we
keeping
those.
O
Was
built
that
way
right
we're?
We
have
the
legacy
of
this
building.
This
building
is
remaining
and
so
we're
working
within
the
right-of-way
that
we
have
I.
Think
your
question
is
entirely
fair
and
I.
Think
it's
possibly
something
that
can
be
brought
up
through
the
SPRC
process
to
see
if
I
think
it's
good
to
probably
get
all
all
sides
of
this
to
be
discussed
whether
there
is
a
desire
on
the
part
of
some
to
retain
some
of
the
parking
or
does
it
all
go
away.
Yes,
I
said
it's.
A
fair
question
is.
F
J
Can
we
go
to
the
applicants
slide
that
had
the
parking
restrictions
on
various
blocks?
It
was
several
slides
ahead
of
this.
One
I
think
I
think
maybe
two
from
the
end
you're
going
back
so
to
slide,
maybe
that
one
okay.
So
this
is
not
part
of
discussing
the
applicants
proposal,
but
I'm
going
to
note
here
that
zone
six
permanent
parking
runs
until
10:00
p.m.
so
the
county
believes
that
there
is
a
reason
to
restrict
the
use
of
on-street
parking
until
10:00
p.m.
J
and
but
I
will
also
note
that
the
meters
in
this
area
only
run
until
6:00
p.m.
so
I'm.
Just
gonna
point
out
this
difference
in
in
county
policy
between
the
blocks
that
we
are
trying
to
protect
from
people
using
and
the
blocks
that
we
are
willing
to
actually
charge
people
to
use
in
one
of
the
most
heavily
trafficked
commercial
areas
in
the
entire
county,
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying.
L
P
O
P
P
So
in
the
to
my
to
my
fellow
commissioners,
I
am
the
second
chair
for
the
SPRC
process.
Commissioner
Calkins
is
representing
the
Transportation
Commission
at
the
SPRC,
but
I
asked
this
just
because
I've
been
to
some
of
these
meetings.
There
was
a
question
at
one
of
the
earlier
meetings
about
accessible
access
to
the
building
lobby,
which
is
in
the
middle
of
Edgewood.
Have
there
been
any
changes
to
the
plans
to
address
that,
or
is
the
idea
still
that
the
accessible
path
would
be
from
Wilson
and
Edgewood,
the
arcade
into
the
office
lobby?
P
L
There
have
not
been
any
changes
since
the
first
SPRC,
but
just
to
show
you
that
the
two
means
of
accessible
entrance
to
the
office
main
entryway.
If
you
start
at
the
corner
of
Clarendon
and
Edgewood,
you
can
see
the
public
plaza
area,
that's
at
grade
and
you
can
kind
of
see
the
line
that
that
goes
up
and
and
kind
of
jogs
into
the
arcade
area.
So
that's
the
accessible
point
of
entry
from
Clarendon.
L
B
Item
seven
is
actually
an
announcement.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
a
special
meeting
on
September
13th.
This
is
at
Wednesday
and
this
will
be
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
county
board
on
the
Crystal
City
VRE
station
location.
So
we
will
meet
in
this
this
room
here.
Obviously
we
had
a
tour.
I
guess
is
about
two.
Three
weeks
ago,
many
of
you
attended.
B
L
B
B
Hear
it
next
week,
I
believe
Thursday,
okay,
yes,
there
was.
We
had
some
pressure
not
to
have
it
when
this
evening,
if
realizing
it's
sort
of
the
Thursday
before
a
long
weekend.
So
we
we
picked
a
date
in
September.
However,
we
will
have
to
get
a
response
to
the
board,
probably
the
next
day
or
so.
So,
if
we
have
this
meeting
Wednesday
night,
we'll
be
you
know,
sort
of
busy
back
and
forth
on
Thursday
getting
a
response
to
the
board.
Yeah.