Site Plan Review Committee Contents About this Document

Site Plan Review Committee Community Engagement Comments and Responses

Potomac Yard Land Bay C - East – SP #346

Site Plan Project Information

Project Name: Potomac Yard Land Bay C – East (RPC# 34-027-071)

Items Requested: PDSP Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and New Site Plan

Engagement Session: December 17 – 24, 2020

Review Focus Topics: (All Topics) Land Use and Zoning, Building Massing and Architecture, Transportation, Open Space/Landscaping and Other Site Plan Project Information

Project Name: 101 12th Street South

Items Requested: Block plan, rezoning, site plan amendment, new site plan

Engagement Session #1: July 1 – July 10, 2020

Review Focus Topics: Block plan, Land use & Zoning, Site Design, Architecture, & Transportation Site Plan Project Information

Project Name: 101 12th Street South

Items Requested: Block plan, rezoning, site plan amendment, new site plan

Engagement Session #1: July 1 – July 10, 2020

Review Focus Topics: Block plan, Land use & Zoning, Site Design, Architecture, & Transportation Site Plan Project Information

Project Contacts

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

Project Contacts:

County Staff Contact CPHD Planner Adam Watson 703-228-7926 [email protected]

DES Planner Rob Gibson 703-228-4833 [email protected]

[email protected] DES Planner Jane S. Kim 703-228-4833 [email protected]

Transportation .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Other Comments Error! Bookmark not defined.

Community Member Comments K "mailto:mcullen@arling

SPRC Chair Stephen Hughes [email protected]

SPRC Co-Chair Leonardo Sarli [email protected]

SPRC Chair & Co-Chair Jane Siegel [email protected] James Lantelme [email protected] SPRC Chair & Co-Chair Jane Siegel [email protected] James Lantelme [email protected] SPRC Chair & Co-Chair Jane Siegel [email protected] James Lantelme

Applicant Contact ZOM Living Jim Dunlop 917-822-1031 [email protected] Represented by Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh Nicholas Cumings 703-528-4700 [email protected]

Applicant Contact Snell Properties

Contents About this Document ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Responses to Common Topics ......................................................................................................................................... 2

SPRC Member Comments ............................................................................................................................................... 7

SPRC Comments: Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................................... 7

SPRC Comments: Building Massing and Architecture ...................................................................................................... 7

SPRC Comments: Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 8

SPRC Comments: Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................................ 12

SPRC Comments: Other ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Community Member Comments ................................................................................................................................... 13

About this Document This document contains all the comments recieved as a part of the Site Plan Review Committee’s online engagement for the Potomac Yard Land Bay C – East project between December 17 – 24, 2020. Additionally, the matrix below includes some comments that were directly emailed to staff during the engagement period. The comments are categorized by the topics that were highlighted in this review (Land Use and Zoning, Building Massing and Architecture, Transportation, Open Space/Landscaping) with SPRC member comments appearing first in the document. All comments not pertaining to the above topics are categorized as “Other.” Use the table of contents to easily jump to a particular section, or click on the “Return to Table of Contents” link at the bottom of each page to return to the first page of this document.

mailto:[email protected]



https://arlingtonva-my.sharepoint.com/personal/cbadger_arlingtonva_us/Documents/101%2012th%20St/Comment%20Template%20V7%20%20DRAFT.docx#_Toc45541480

_Toc45541485

_Toc45541485







https://arlingtonva-my.sharepoint.com/personal/awatson_arlingtonva_us/Documents/Site%20Plans/Potomac-Yard/Land-Bay-C-Amendments/2020-PDSP&Final-Site-Plan-Amendment/SPRC/1-OnlineEngagement/PublicComments/LandBayCEast-OnlineEngagement-CommentResponseMatrix-FINAL.docx#_Toc62468206

2 Return to Table of Contents

Responses to Common Topics Below are common topics or themes received through the online engagement session that were identified by County staff. The list includes a summary of the topic and responses from County staff and the applicant. Please note that the topics have been summarized in order to provide an overview of the common themes and may not fully capture the concerns expressed by each individual commenter. The topics are listed in order of most common to least common.

• Transportation

1. Potomac Avenue – Protected Bicycle Lanes Staff received numerous comments noting safety concern for bicyclists and requesting the installation of protected bike lanes in both directions along Potomac Avenue. Staff Response: Arlington County DES continues to work on ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle connections within Potomac Yard and along Potomac Avenue. Recently, the County completed a low-cost restriping and marking update to Potomac Avenue; reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, while also adding additional on-street parking. This road diet has allowed for a protected northbound bike lane and a buffered southbound bike lane. Arlington County is studying ways to further improve the bicycle facilities connecting Arlington and Alexandria along Potomac Avenue. At this early stage, it appears the best way to connect facilities within Arlington and Alexandria would be to build a protected cycle track/ multi-use trail along the eastern side of Potomac Avenue. Such as design would fully separate cyclists and vehicles along Potomac Avenue. Initial analysis suggests that this could be done within the typical 63-foot curb to curb cross section of Potomac Avenue, as shown below.

To achieve the above design, the existing planted median along Potomac Avenue would need to be removed, along with all the trees. There is approximately 1,000 feet of existing planted median between the Arlington/Alexandria border and Crystal Drive, along


Potomac Avenue. Only approximately 200 feet of this median is within the subject site plan limits. The County has also identified that traffic signal changes and improvements, along with changes at each intersection to add new crossings will be needed. The County cannot achieve all the design and physical changes that are necessary along this ½ mile corridor through either a simple low-cost restriping project or the redevelopment of a single block (site plan) along Potomac Avenue. Achieving a protected cycle track/ multi-use trail would require developing and advancing a major capital project that is not currently in the budget. However, as part of the site plan, staff recommends that the applicant remove the existing median along the subject site frontage, replacing it with a painted median. Staff also recommends that the applicant make any physical changes, such as adding handicap ramps, that would be needed at 33rd Street South and 29th Street South to facilitate a future County project to reconfigure the road and add a cycle track/multi-use trail along the eastern side. The removal of the median via this site plan project is consistent with adopted plans and policies and would allow for flexibility within the Potomac Avenue right-of-way to achieve the goals outlined in the Bicycle Element of the MTP, which recommends:

Upgrade the existing bicycle lanes on Potomac Avenue and Crystal Drive through the Potomac Yard and Crystal City areas. Where feasible provide further separation or protection of bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Provide for a lower stress route to link the Four Mile Run Trail to Crystal City, Pentagon City and Long Bridge Park. (1.5 miles)

Further, improving the bicycle facilities along Potomac Avenue will help support the County’s goals to build a network of Primary Bicycling Corridors that support regional and local for transportation and recreation opportunities. Applicant Response: The bike lane along Potomac Ave and any future improvements are within the County’s right of way and may be improved at the County’s discretion. The Applicant will work with County staff to determine what changes, if any, are required to the proposed streetscape to implement a protected bike lane and determine how it could be constructed in the future. At this time, the Applicant believes there is sufficient right of way to accommodate this improvement.

2. Potomac Avenue – Remove Loading Access Staff received several comments noting concern about the proposed loading access for the North Building off Potomac Ave. Comments called for significantly reducing the size of the apron or removing the access off Potomac Ave. entirely. Several comments suggested that loading access only be provided off 29th Street South or 33rd Street South. Staff Response: Staff remains concerned by the potential increase in the number and width of curb cuts across the entirety of Land Bay C that may result from multi-phased, mixed-use development (as opposed to the approved unified office campus). For example, the approved final site plan for Land Bay C includes two (2) curb cuts, totaling approximately 58 feet: one (1) approximately 28-feet wide along 29th Street South, and one (1) approximately 30-feet wide along Potomac Ave. Conversely, the proposed, hypothetical


plans for the entire Land Bay could include over 200-feet of curb cuts across five (5) locations along Potomac Avenue, 29th Street South and 33rd Street South. Therefore, staff is working with the applicant to examine alternative scenarios for reducing, removing or consolidating curb cuts associated with the project, to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on addressing loading concerns. Applicant Response: The Applicant understands the concern and will continue to work with County staff on the design and placement of the loading access for the north building. Further information on the existing design will be provided for the next SPRC meeting.

3. Potomac Avenue – Road Diet Staff received several comments requesting that the existing landscaped median along Potomac Ave. be removed to allow for protected bike lanes in both directions. Staff Response: Please see the response above regarding the protected bicycle lanes. Applicant Response: The landscaped median along Potomac Ave and any future improvements are within the County’s right of way and may be improved at the County’s discretion. The Applicant will cooperate with the County to show any potential future improvements on its civil plans.

• Open Space and Landscaping

4. Building separation and plaza water feature Several respondents expressed interest in the proposed water feature, which bisects the North and South Buildings as part of the proposed North Park Plaza design. Comments generally expressed support for the feature and for the appropriateness of the east-west plaza separating the building mass. Staff Response: Staff appreciates the feedback on the building separation and the water feature. Staff will continue to evaluate the technical aspects of the water feature and work with the applicant in reviewing the proposed design or alternative designs/features. This will include ongoing review by Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Public Health. Applicant Response: Thank you for your support. The proposed water feature brings a unique element to the North Park Plaza landscape that is designed to welcome and draw people into the space. The Applicant team intends to work with County staff in making sure that the feature is safe and compliant with county rules and regulations.

• Land Use and Zoning


5. Use conversion from office to residential is generally acceptable for this site

Several respondents stated that the proposed conversion from office to multifamily residential use is generally welcome. Staff Response: Staff appreciates the input on land use for this site. Staff continues to evaluate the proposed conversion from office to residential use based on the Administrative Guidance for Office Conversions and adopted plans and policies. In the video/presentation for the upcoming virtual SPRC meeting, staff will provide further information on the Administrative Guidance in the context of this proposal, and we look forward to the SPRC discussion. Applicant Response: Thank you for your support. The conversion from office to residential will bring more daytime users to the site and surrounding area and contribute to the housing supply needed throughout the County. The Applicant believes that this site is much better suited to residential development and will explore this topic in its presentation for the next SPRC meeting in the context of newly adopted administrative guidance on office to residential conversions.

• Building Massing and Architecture

6. Additional height is generally welcome Several respondents stated that additional density or height would be acceptable if affordable dwelling units are provided. Staff Response: Staff appreciates the interest in greater density or height and will take this into consideration. While staff has suggested that the applicant study additional height on the proposed North Building, that suggestion was made with the assumption that the proposed density would remain unchanged. Nevertheless, the applicant may earn additional in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, which includes the provision of affordable dwelling units. Staff continues to evaluate the proposed buildings in the context of the existing PDSP and the “C-O-1.5” zoning district regulations. Applicant Response: Permissible height for the site is governed by the Potomac Yard PDSP. The Applicant proposes to amend the Potomac Yard PDSP to allow for additional stories consistent with the overall height of nearby hotel and office buildings within the Potomac Yard PDSP. The Applicant will continue to discuss how any requested bonus density would be earned with County Staff.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprojects.arlingtonva.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F31%2F2020%2F12%2FOffice-Conversions-Administrative-Guidance-December-2020.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cawatson%40arlingtonva.us%7C4a7813443cf54384fea408d8bf09da0c%7C803548041fdf428e9f5f5091e994cf54%7C0%7C0%7C637469396312904221%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BLKSwmrR9uC%2F1msUs2uV4sdhGf5W6dXVBIbdqC0zlM0%3D&reserved=0


• Other

7. General desire for affordable dwelling units and increased building sustainability Several respondents stated that additional building height or density would be acceptable in exchange for affordable housing and/or that the building’s sustainability certification should be improved to LEED Gold. Staff Response: Similar to the previous response, the County Board may approve additional density, consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations, for the provision of benefits, such as affordable dwelling units and/or sustainable building design. While the amount of “bonus density” associated with this proposal is relatively limited (approximately seven dwelling units), staff will take this feedback into consideration as it works with the applicant on a community benefits package. Please note that this project is grandfathered under the 2014 Green Building Bonus Density Program standards. Nevertheless, while participation in the Green Building Bonus Density Program is voluntary, staff has encouraged the applicant to further improve its sustainability elements. Applicant Response: The Applicant will continue to work with staff regarding environmental sustainability and the community benefits package.


SPRC Member Comments SPRC Comments: Land Use and Zoning

Number Name Connection to Project Comments SPRC-LZ-1

Jim Lantelme Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PC)

I understand the change to residential for the site in light of the glut of office space and need for residential units in the county. I would like to see affordable units be included on site.

SPRC-LZ-2

Carol Fuller Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (CCCA)

Thank you for this opportunity to comment as a neighboring civic association during the community engagement period on the site plan for Potomac Yard Landbay C-East (also known as Hazel National Landing). From the Crystal City Civic Association perspective, we have the following comments, which are also in line with the principles of the Livability22202 Framework: --Overall, we welcome the change from commercial to residential property which will help to maintain the C/R balance in 22202 and lower anticipated traffic volume.

SPRC Comments: Building Massing and Architecture Number Name Connection to Project Comments SPRC-BA-1


The breaking up of the massing into two buildings (as contemplated in the PDSP) continues to be appropriate and the further design of the two buildings into sub-components is also appropriate. I would support additional height if it means more units and some affordable units. The use of color for the facades is a good choice. The arcades should work because they are two stories high. Bird friendly glass will need to be incorporated.

SPRC-BA-2


Height: As a general principle, we believe the County should be listing height in feet, not stories, since the height of a commercial story differs from that of a residential story. It is not clear what the maximum height of the North Tower (14 stories) will be, though it seems to be lower than the Marriott Residences and appears to be less than the 200' County ordinance limit. It looks like the South Tower (11 stories) is about 120'. Architectural feature: There is no discussion of this County requirement, so we wonder if the developer is proposing that the earth tone different colors are meant to be the architectural feature.

SPRC-BA-3

David Howell Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PRC)

The massing is ok, but the architecture and landscaping are too angular and not natural, and should be softened and made more organic to reflect the natural areas across the tracks. Similar to what I’ve noted on a couple of other projects, this design is on the cutting edge of 2005, repeating the abstract lines of the last two decades. It would be a positive trend-setter if its shapes (especially the landscaping) were softer and more biophilic in their fundamental design. This location is a great opportunity for better integration with natural resources surrounding the site, including bird-friendly glass, creative use of stormwater vaults as a source for natural, flowing water features, and use of topography (berms) and vegetation to create multiple spaces to relax, work, eat lunch, and talk. For art and architectural historians, think more nouveau and less deco or cubist. Residents and employees will benefit, and the south end of CC will become more a transition than abrupt jump from nature to built environment.


SPRC-BA-4

Pamela Van Hine Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PAC)

Phase two building – Fix SW edge along 33rd Street: • Architecture doc (slide 4): Sidewalk width for 33rd at Potomac Avenue is 27’2”, but goes down to only 5’4” at the SW corner of the building, which has a huge overhang with supporting pillar at the SW corner (and sidewalk seems to disappear after that). • Staff report also notes that this is a problem. • What happens to the sidewalk west of this edge?

SPRC Comments: Transportation

Number Name Connection to Project Comments SPRC-T-1 Darren Buck Site Plan Review

Committee member for this project (TC)

The loading dock along Potomac Ave is unacceptable. It degrades: Traffic for the southbound Potomac Ave arterial, safety for bike lane users, and the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk. Further, as only a small subset of freight drivers choose to use a loading dock, most will opt for the nearby unprotected bike lane. Leaving the southbound bike lane adjacent to the site unprotected is unacceptable (as there is no other long-term plan for providing a two-way solution for providing all-ages-and-abilities bicycling facilities along the Potomac Avenue corridor). With adjacent uses generating site activity, the existing bike lane will be blocked by pickup/dropoff activity and freight. This unsafe condition is being allowed solely because the median with eight trees would constrict clear width below the 20’ demanded by the fire department. Removing the median entirely, and designing and building as a part of this new development a tree-row into the buffer between parking and bike lane would provide a net increase in trees. Modifying the curbs of the median to be mountable, and installing a solid traversable surface along the edges, could provide a 20’ clear zone, while preserving the median trees (making additional trees provided in a bike lane buffer 100% additive). Either way, a protected bike lane along the site would not only provide a safer facility for bicyclists that is not degraded by the new adjacent activity, but would calm southbound driver speed by putting the vertical element ‘friction’ of parked cars closer to moving traffic. Four lanes at peak for 33rd Street is not justified by the forecasted volume. Additionally, I recall seeing a site plan amendment for The Sur that proposes to add a children’s park to the northern end of their interior open space. Uncontrolled crossing across four uncongested through-lanes, with a kid’s park as an attractor, is not safe. Please remove the peak-hour restrictions from the street parking (or otherwise reduce the midblock travel lanes to two), design a three-lane cross-section at the signals, and design a safe midblock crossing (preferably with a raised crosswalk, which should be a candidate treatment for a street of this classification and volume). Assuming that 60% of trips generated by the site will be by car is an overly-conservative assumption, and providing an on-site parking spot for 82% of the units built is the resultant failure. This site is located less than a mile from the Crystal City Metro, and the future Potomac Yard Metro (which will be completed before this proposed site). This site is almost immediately adjacent to a Metroway bus rapid transit station. The staff report cites a 2019 transportation report for Potomac Yards with 30-34% trips by car. Three comparable residential developments in Buzzard Point in DC (a similar brownfield area located nearly a mile from two Metro stations, but with less direct bus access) have been approved with parking ratios ranging from 0.47 to 0.63, with a total of 547 spaces for 1010 units, or a ratio of 0.54 per dwelling unit overall. Two of these three developments repurposed existing structures with existing large garages, and all are subject to DC’s Height Act, so they may


have gone with lower ratios with entirely new-build projects like this one. There is no reason why this site should not be building with a similar or lower ratio, and assume that more trips are taken by non-auto modes. After spending tens of millions on building the Metroway, it appears to still only be running at most every 20 minutes. This is an insufficient headway to encourage people to use it routinely, and apparently insufficient to convince developers and their financiers that a majority of new residents won’t opt instead to drive. If possible, maximum TDM and site contributions should be directed to increasing the number of daily runs of the Metroway. If we have no plan to increase the Metroway’s headways, perhaps we should reconsider this site plan until we do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To supplement my previous comments: Please design and provide at least temporary pedestrian facilities from the western limit of this parcel down to Crystal Drive along 33rd and 29th Streets. Particularly 33rd, which is the site of the transitway stop, and the only nearby signalized crossing of Route 1. 29th Street streetscape appears to show pedestrian space split by a tree-zone. This is not ideal urban design. Please relocate the tree pits to curbside, to provide a buffer between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic. Existing bulbouts along Potomac Ave appear to be 25’ radius, when the Master Transportation Plan calls for a baseline consideration 15’ for safety, with larger radii allowed for site-specific needs. Particularly with the ramps skewed diagonally by the radii, and turns being made from the new single southbound travel with a large effective radius, why aren’t we rebuilding these to 15’ for more direct crossings (and to protect the new southbound bike lane at the intersections)? The northern sidewalk along 33rd Street should be widened to trail width. This street connects scarce signalized crossings of Potomac Ave, Crystal Dr, and Route 1. All three of these roads already do or will include low-stress bicycling facilities. The nearest low-stress east-west bicycling connection planned between Potomac and Route 1 is 1500’ away, down by Four Mile Run. The width to accommodate this trail can be achieved without changing building dimensions by moving the northern curb southward to a 3-lane cross-section, which is safer for all modes, and more than sufficient to accommodate forecasted traffic. As shown, the sidewalk along 33rd pinches down in the southwest corner of the site, both by the treebox where a 7’ dimension is shown, and by a lamppost placed in line with the treebox end. This is unnecessarily narrow. The lack of sidewalk or trail along the east side of Potomac is a continuing gap in the walking and biking networks: • Is there a plan for if/how/when this east side will be brought up to standard? • Will a long-term answer for bicycling on the corridor be covered in the Crystal City bike plan that is in development? • Has the County coordinated with the City of Alexandria to determine how best this corridor can match the City’s Potomac Yard Trail plans? • Does this site plan provide space for the County to quickly/cheaply install safe accessible crossings/ramps to access the east side of Potomac from 29th, 33rd, and the mid-block plaza? What is the purpose of the N-S street planned for the West parcel? Is repurposing this as an extension of the linear park to the south a possibility? Where are primary planned pickup/dropoff points?


SPRC-T-2 Jim Lantelme Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PC)

I not happy about having a large loading bay curb cut on Potomac Ave. It should be pedestrian heavy with the proposed retail along the street as well as a bike lane. The bike lane should be separated. It is a long block and Potomac Ave is wide enough to accommodate a protected bikeway.

SPRC-T-3 Pamela Van Hine Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PAC)

Sidewalk along 33rd • 4.1 Plan (p. 18) shows a 9’ clear zone and 5’ tree well at one point east of the narrowest sidewalk point - and even 9’ is narrower than specified in th PYDG. Note PYDG p. 37 recommends a 9’6”SW; PYDG support sidewalks on both sides. The “under construction” sidewalk on the south side has been finished for months and has variable width (all zones) of approximately 100-110”, also less than the PYDG guidelines. • Park focal point along 33rd also cuts into the sidewalk space (see Landscape slide 2) • Transportation report recommends NO sidewalk on the north side between Ball and Crystal Drive (p. 25, Table 2-4)) - we really need a safe, wide sidewalk here! • The Metroway transit stop is right around the corner of 33rd – and many pedestrians will walk along 33rd to get to it. • The sidewalks on both sides of 33rd are critically important to pedestrians. 33rd is the only ped crossing over Route 1 in this area that is relatively safe – neither 35th nor 29th cross Route 1, and Glebe is not a safe crossing. As the ped crossing at 33rd is on the north side of the street, having a wide, continuous sidewalk on the north side of 33rd is essential for our safety. • The sidewalk on the south side of 33rd between Clark and the bus lane is often slippery and/or blocked by building workers, trash, and deliveries, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. As a good neighbor, please provide a temporary paved path on the north side until the completed development can have its real sidewalk. Other comments on sidewalks: • Need to define clear zone vs. shy zone vs. landscaping zone, and ensure that no café zones will take away clear zone space. • Sidewalk along Potomac Avenue (west side): 4.1 Plan (p. 17) A-A shows a 7.5 ‘ clear zone (transportation report recommends 8’), 5’ tree well, and a puzzling 7’5” mystery zone next to the curb (what is this?); moving south the total SW width is an undefined 16’75 width and 17’80 undefined zone. Please break these down into zones. Please make clear zones a minimum of 8’ wide on entire Potomac Avenue section. • Lack of sidewalk planned for the east side of Potomac Avenue Is unfortunate. We really need a shared use path on the east side to protect both cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian facilities at intersections: • Pedestrian ramps need to be aligned with crosswalks, so either 2 at each corner or one really wide one that is aligned with the crosswalks. The ped ramps at both corners along Potomac Avenue (4.1 plan, p. 12) are NOT aligned with their crosswalks; pedestrians with impairments could end up in the middle of the street without the correct guidance of the ped ramp. • Bumpouts are critical for peds to see and be seen - glad to see bumpouts on the plans. • Crosswalks need to be added to cross 33rd at Ball and at Clark. • Pedestrian signals need to be set for autorecall. . Loading bays on Potomac Avenue and on 33rd put both pedestrians and cyclists at risk. • 33rd Street Issues: The supporting pillar at the SW corner of the building impacts sight lines on 33rd for drivers and pedestrians. Because 33rd connects to Route One, allowing drivers to turn northbound and southbound, vehicular through traffic can be busier than on parallel streets, causing increased conflict with loading traffic. • Where are proposed loading bays? Transportation report (p. 34, A-7) does not match other documents.


Future estimated drive lane location (slide 15 Hazel project overview): What is the purpose of this proposed NS street through the middle of the block? It’s not in the PYDG, it’s a pedestrian hazard, it replaces potential green space with more hardscape, and it may encourage cut through traffic. It doesn’t seem to support any buildings in the complex, and it provides no room for PUDO because the lane is too narrow for even temporary parking. Add e-scooter charging station to encourage car-free travel to Metro and other destinations too far to walk to easily. Street Parking: • Where will PUDO be accommodated – and how will locations keep cyclists and pedestrians safe, while still being convenient for tenants? • Where are handicapped spaces and handicapped an spaces? • Consider restricted hours for parking along 33rd. • Consider creating PBL using the parking lane along Potomac Avenue. Note this is in the County recently completed Potomac Avenue project. Underground Parking: (slide 5 Arch) • Will two sections (north and south) connect? (looks like it on Slide 5) • Need charging stations – how many are proposed? • What is a retail shuttle? • Bike parking locations do not seem convenient for cyclists, especially for the north building. Transportation Report: • Data on cyclists and pedestrians from January 2020 do not reflect typical use. Traffic counts on 33rd (and possibly other streets) may be lower because of the construction that had been to the south. • Recommendations sometimes did not match recommendations in other documents (e.g. loading bays, sidewalks). • Details are sometimes not current (e.g. new linear park south of 33rd - and the sidewalks on the south side of 33rd - have been open and activated for months.)


SPRC Comments: Open Space and Landscaping Number Name Connection to Project Comments SPRC-OS-1


the water features are good. There also seem to be opportunities within the design for pollinator gardens. How will the landscape plan be coordinated with the to-be-developed western portion of the site?

SPRC-OS-2


The area between the North and South tower buildings has been changed from road to pedestrian park with a cascading water feature. This is very positive. We wonder however if that feature includes a splash park for kids? The rendering seems to indicate that, but it isn't mentioned.

SPRC-OS-3

David Howell Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PRC)

The massing is ok, but the architecture and landscaping are too angular and not natural, and should be softened and made more organic to reflect the natural areas across the tracks. Similar to what I’ve noted on a couple of other projects, this design is on the cutting edge of 2005, repeating the abstract lines of the last two decades. It would be a positive trend-setter if its shapes (especially the landscaping) were softer and more biophilic in their fundamental design. This location is a great opportunity for better integration with natural resources surrounding the site, including bird-friendly glass, creative use of stormwater vaults as a source for natural, flowing water features, and use of topography (berms) and vegetation to create multiple spaces to relax, work, eat lunch, and talk. For art and architectural historians, think more nouveau and less deco or cubist. Residents and employees will benefit, and the south end of CC will become more a transition than abrupt jump from nature to built environment.

SPRC-OS-4

Pamela Van Hine Site Plan Review Committee member for this project (PAC)

• East-west ped passage: Water element in EW pedestrian path is a lovely and too rarely used landscaping feature. It also helps mitigate the odd angles. Please add more green to this passage and decrease the amount of hardscape. • Ensure the Center Park element does not block the sidewalk on 33rd -- Currently it does block the sidewalk. • Create NS linear park in space currently shown as Future estimated drive lane location. Having a continuous, coordinated series of linear parks stretching from Short Bridge Park to 29th would be wonderful! • Thanks for providing breakdown of publicly accessible, semi-private, and private open space (slide 9) • Don’t forget to add drinking fountains and dog stations. Consider adding attractive JBG-style Zen-like dog stations to discourage damaging grass and other green space. • Consider adding aft that is also functional as seating and play areas, as has been done in the linear parks to the south.

SPRC Comments: Other Number Name Connection to Project Comments SPRC-O-1 Carol Fuller Site Plan Review

Committee member for this project (CCCA)

LEED Silver: As an environmental principle, to achieve its environmental aspirational goals, the County should be insisting that developers plan for a baseline of LEED Gold. JBG Smith just agreed to Leed Gold for the 101 S. 12th Street site plan in Crystal City, after the full planning process, in response to community and County requests. This should be a standard. Affordable Housing: The 22202 area has very little affordable or middle income housing available. We would hope that some of the 488 units would be designated for these purposes rather than a cash payment which would be used outside of 22202.


Community Member Comments

Number Name Connection to

Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

CM-1 Jane Green Community member or neighbor

X I want Crystal Drive to be an inviting corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. We should prioritize the active modes and vulnerable users over car driver convenience. To make sure that we maximize the mode share for active and public transportation, the parking spaces should be reduced. The bike land needs to be protected. And please don't put a loading dock off of Potomac Drive. The best thing for this area would be improved frequency of the Metroway bus route. Can this project help that goal?

CM-2 D. Taylor Reich

Community member or neighbor

X X X X 1) There is far too much parking, which will bring unnecessary car trips into a transit- and walking-friendly area. This addition of parking will cause pollution, carbon emissions, congestion, and collisions. 2) The new street between 29th and 33rd should not be open to cars. If it is open to cars, it will almost certainly exceed the industry standard 1,500 veh/day threshold to be considered safe as a shared street. 3) South Potomac Ave should have a protected cyclelane (along its entire length) with protected intersections instead of curb bulb-outs. Remove street parking. 4) Much more short-term bicycle parking is necessary, and should be listed in the transportation slides. 5) Additional residential density should be permitted if it is designated affordable. 6) The architecture lacks a clear bottom-middle-top pattern. 7) The architecture should have more ornament at a human scale, especially in the arcade.

CM-3 Chris Slatt Other Arlington County Board, Commission, or Committee member

X POTOMAC AVE: The existing Potomac Ave cross-section adjacent to this development is a temporary hack; a sub-optimal solution constrained by the lack of a sidewalk here and fire code conflicts with the short stretch of median. A vastly superior cross-section is possible with construction work: http://chrisslatt.com/i/potomac-ave%20streetmix%202.png The above 87' cross-section is designed to fit into the existing 71' county curb-to-curb + the proposed 16' of streetscape from the applicant. It would be safer, greener, more attractive, more comfortable for biking and more comfortable for walking than the status quo and this development should be upgrading Potomac Avenue to something comparable.



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

Leaving unprotected bike lanes in front of this development will lead to bike lanes that are consistently blocked by double-parking, pick-up & drop-off and loading vehicles. LOADING: Loading access needs to be moved OFF of Potomac Ave to be entirely from 29th & 33rd to prevent bike & pedestrian conflicts. PARKING: I would support a lower parking ratio at this site.

CM-4 Ken Notis Other: Frequent user of Potomac Avenue

X I have often used Potomac Avenue to access Crystal City and patronize businesses there. Please use this opportunity to protect the bike lane there.

CM-5 Alexis Glenn Community member or neighbor

X Please take this opportunity to take full advantage of the Potomac Ave road diet. With removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for safe, comfortable parking-protected bike lanes in both directions, and the trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. We know this from past experience. Do not let this occur! Increased development in Potomac Yard will also be increasing bike activity, especially given the proximity to Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Let's make the biking experience here great! Also, please move the loading access off of Potomac Avenue onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles.

CM-6 Kendra Slatt Community member or neighbor

X Please take this opportunity to take full advantage of the Potomac Ave road diet. With removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for safe, comfortable parking-protected bike lanes in both directions, and the trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane).



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. We know this from past experience. Do not let this occur! Increased development in Potomac Yard will also be increasing bike activity, especially given the proximity to Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Let's make the biking experience here great! Also, please move the loading access off of Potomac Avenue onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles.

CM-7 Jake Jakubek Community member or neighbor

X I ride my bike on Potomac Avenue for recreation and transportation. Please ensure that protected bike lanes and a continuous sidewalk are built on Potomac Avenue to make it safer for people walking and cycling. If parking has to be removed, that is fine. There are garages for that purpose.

CM-8 Jerry Cowden Community member or neighbor

X I am an Arlington County resident. I do not own a car and I often use my bicycle to get around Arlington and to run errands. I was pleased to see recent improvements for cyclists on Potomac Ave. and I want to see that progress continue in the context of this project. As such I agree with the suggestions made by Sustainable Mobility for Arlington County and I include those suggestions below. I know all too well from my personal experience in Arlington that unprotected bike lanes often end up serving as "short-term parking" for motorists. Please take this opportunity to take full advantage of the Potomac Ave road diet. With removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for safe, comfortable parking-protected bike lanes in both directions, and the trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. We know this from past experience. Do not let this occur! Increased development in Potomac Yard will also be increasing bike activity, especially given the proximity to Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Let's make the biking experience here great! Also, please move the loading access off of Potomac Avenue onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles.

CM-9 D Blue Community member or

X Please take this opportunity to take full advantage of the Potomac Ave road diet. With removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for safe, comfortable parking-protected bike lanes in both



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

neighbor directions, and the trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. We know this from past experience. Do not let this occur! Increased development in Potomac Yard will also be increasing bike activity, especially given the proximity to Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Let's make the biking experience here great! Also, please move the loading access off of Potomac Avenue onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles.

CM-10 Dana Bres Community member or neighbor

X The Potomac Avenue should have a road diet. Two lanes are shown in the applicant’s presentation for each direction. Reduce those with a road diet to a single lane with a dedicated turn lane in the middle. That would allow for parking and protected bike lanes in both direction. Moving the bike lanes to outside the roadway would provide safety and encourage alternative transit modes. The applicant’s presentation suggests building unprotected bike lanes in both directions. That is inconsistent with Arlington’s stated goals, plans, and visions. Failure to provide protected bike lanes here will condemn this portion of Potomac Avenue to substandard bike facilities for a generation. That is far too high a price to pay for the expedience of a mediocre solution.

CM-11 Judd Isbell Community member or neighbor

X Please use the redevelopment of this site to install protected bike lanes. The Potomac Avenue road diet has creased a wonderful connection from Crystal City and the new Amazon HQ to the Potomac Yard Trail and Four Mile Run trail. The this project will create a significant amount of parking demand including PUDO. Leaving this lane unprotected and allowing deliveries at the front of the building will encourage parking and standing in the park lane like we see on Crystal Drive, essentially making the bike lane unusable and forcing vulnerable road users into traffic.

CM-12 Sara Carioscia Community member or neighbor

X Protected bike lanes are crucial for a healthy and safe community - please add more! Thank you



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

CM-13 Lori Bowes Community member or neighbor

X Please take this opportunity to take full advantage of the Potomac Ave road diet. With removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for safe, comfortable parking-protected bike lanes in both directions, and the trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. Take a bike ride through Crystal City if you want a preview. We know this from past experience. Do not let this occur! Increased development in Potomac Yard will also be increasing bike activity, especially given the proximity to Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Let's make the biking experience here great! Also, please move the loading access off of Potomac Avenue onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles

CM-14 Chris Benson Community member or neighbor

X Need better bike paths - specifically protected bike lanes (like the ones on eads between glebe and 23rd)

CM-15 Stephanie Eckman



CM-16 Christopher Soghoian

Community member or

X It is currently far too dangerous to cycle in and around Potomac Yard, in large part due to cars illegally parking/waiting in the unprotected bike lanes that already exist. Please include protected bike lanes in



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

neighbor all future plans. Please also move the loading docks off potomac ave, onto a side street, so that cyclists do not have to dodge trucks entering or existing the loading docks.

CM-17 Bill Ross Other Arlington County Board, Commission, or Committee member

X X X Architecture -- It is not that interesting, which I would argue any new building should have. The colors and materials choice are interesting, but other than that, I am not sure if the North Building "twisted boxes" design is that distinct from other buildings already in the area. Perhaps providing a more distinctive cap, or building roof design for the 3 North Building elements would help. Open Space -- I like the concept of the open area between the two buildings. A water feature has not been proposed by other recent projects in the county. The space does have a lot of hardscaping compared with planted area, however. The wooden platform is a good idea, but will it really be used as imagined? Maybe it can be made smaller, replaced in part with other plantings. Speaking of which, can we see a shadow study for the entire project to assess the amount of sunlight that will be present in the various open spaces? Also, can we get an estimate of the square footage of the proposed publicly accessible open space for the project, compared with the original site plan? I like the apparently unique design of wooden seatings, depicted. It will also be helpful to see what the transition and connection between the townhouses and the open space will be. Will the townhouses have mini gardens surrounded by gates? Also, what does the county envision for the final North Park Plaza, once the West side of Land Bay C is developed? Will there be any expectations of how that part of the plaza will be integrated into the current project? Even though the Metro Park split open space has taken years to develop, there at least was an original depiction for it. If we are doing modifications to planning documents, the county should at least produce how it sees the land being used in this Land Bay. Transportation/Circulation -- The planning documents call for a "linked system of landscaped open spaces" for this area. I am trying to envision how pedestrians, notably transiting north and south will experience the site--both within it and moving to and from other properties in the area. A major pedestrian activity is likely to be from people walking from Landbays D/E through Landbay C and on towards the major parts of Crystal City. Can you better describe what this path and the experience will be like, especially at the Northern part of the plaza? Also, is the width of the open space under



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

the arcade in the South end really as wide as envisioned in the illustrations shown? Biophilia -- There are some promising elements proposed here, including the water and bioretention proposals. I look forward to more details on green roof, amenity plantings. Please discuss any considerations on bird-friendly glass. This is a particular issue given how the eastern facades of these buildings face the Potomac River.

CM-18 Bob Trencheny


X I would like to see a protected bike lane along Potomac Avenue. This is a major bike route to the new Metro stop and Alexandria. With the increasing density in the local area and larger region it is expected that more people will avoid motor vehicles because of traffic and pollution. It is imperative that local government and developers make the road safe for all road users, not just motorists. Thank You.

CM-19 Daniel Bernstein


X The Potomac Yard Land Bay C must include a protected bike lane to make this route a safe and hospitable connection between the Four Mile Run trail and Crystal City. I bike along Four Mile Run multiple times each week and I would love to be able to stop in Crystal City for leisure but the area is quite dangerous for cyclists in its current form. The unprotected bike lane adjacent to on-street parking creates an unpredictable environment where cyclists do not know when drivers might pull out or block the bike lane for extended amounts of time. This issue is compounded by any commercial development. In a blog post last year (https://medium.com/safe-lane/we-identified-over-9-500-bike-lane-obstacles-in-one-week-in-arlington-va-f54b5a5b5650), I identified that a similar street segment on Crystal City Drive was blocked 24% of the time during a week period, and as often as 70% of the time. I wager that this issue is largely due to delivery drivers and patrons double-parking. The unprotected bike lane at Land Bay C is remarkably similar and further development adjacent to this road segment will make the area more busy and more inhospitable if a protected bike lane is not added. This development has the opportunity to champion safe, multimodal transportation that encourages healthy lifestyles. A protected bike lane here would fill in the gaps in the bike lane system that encourage more people to frequent National Landing.

CM-20 Corey Faherty Community member or neighbor

X Please provide protected bike lanes on this stretch of road on potomac avenue. The future can't be cars. It has to be bikes, and if we want people to use bikes, we have to provide bike infrastructure that is actually safe. That means protected bike lanes.



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

CM-21 David Balick Community member or neighbor


CM-22 Gordon Chaffin


X Please make the developer reduce car travel lanes within the project area and add protected bike lanes in both directions and wider -- more accessible sidewalks -- and greater stormwater management infrastructure (green infrastructure like a bioswale). You have the ROW within the curb by removing the median. You need to calm traffic here and repurpose the curbside for delivery/pick-up/drop-off. An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. I live near a similar building and the curbside paint-only bike lane is very dangerous, filled with food and TNC pickups. We call it "Chipotle Way." Trees that are lost from the median can be more than replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). I'm writing to you as a transportation policy and planning expert. I'm a local reporter covering public spaces across the DMV. My main point is that you cannot allow this developer to build anything less than a safe-for-all bike and walk design. The curbside challenges are real for mixed-use development and you can do better to mitigate conflicts between uses. PBL + designated PUDO zone so families feel safe riding cargo bikes to school.



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

CM-23 Josephine Liu Community member or neighbor

X I live in Alexandria and regularly bike on Potomac Avenue on my way to destinations in Crystal City and elsewhere. The recent road diet on Potomac Avenue improved the biking experience considerably. I now see more people of all ages and abilities using the bike lanes. Please take this opportunity to make the biking experience on Potomac Avenue even better. Removing the concrete median would create space for safe, comfortable, parking-protected bike lanes in both directions. The trees that are lost from removal of the median could be replaced by including rows of street trees on both sides of the southbound bike lane (both between the sidewalk and the bike lane and between the street parking and the bike lane). An unprotected bike lane at this location will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars and loading vehicles once there is a building here. That already happens just north of this site -- hotel shuttles and other hotel traffic constantly park in the southbound bike lane, forcing people on bikes to swerve into the general traffic lanes. A parking-protected bike lane would save people on bikes from having to make this dangerous maneuver. Also, please move the loading access away from Potomac Avenue and onto one of the side streets to prevent bike and pedestrian conflicts with loading vehicles. Potomac Avenue is a crucial route that connects the increasingly dense development in Crystal City with the Four Mile Run Trail and Alexandria's Potomac Yard Trail. Making this route safer for people on bikes will reduce car dependency and give people more opportunities for recreation. Thank you for considering my comments.

CM-24 Nancy Iacomini


X X X X LAND USE I agree with the conversion of the office space to residential use – but interested in how this conversion will play out over the long term within the full PDSP. Will another block need to be more office to make up what will become residential? We’ve had other PDSPs (Pentagon City) change use mixes over a long period. Will we just change the overall PDSP residential number? BUILDING FORM AND HEIGHT/ARCHITECTURE This current proposal is much more interesting architecturally than the currently approved site plan. The use of color on the building facades interesting. This half of the block would look very different from others in Potomac Yard and that’s not a bad thing. I agree with the idea to see what different building form might come from increasing the height of the



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

14 story building. I would like to see more renderings at pedestrian height to understand the use of loggias more. I’m not opposed to covered exterior spaces. I think we’ve found over the past year that people want to be in the outdoors more – and having a mix of sheltered open air places with the open park space would be good. It would also be good to have material samples for the Virtual SPRC. Would it be possible to see the renderings in context with nearby building facades. OPEN SPACE Just want to clarify that the applicant is going to submit a design for the open space for the whole block – but at this point only build out their half – installing a screen of temporary trees in the middle. SUSTAINABILITY Given Arlington’s commitment to sustainability – making the buildings LEED Gold should be explored.

CM-25 Chelsea Richardson


X I strongly support the inclusion of barrier-protected bicycle infrastructure on Potomac Ave. I am a car-free Arlington resident and I look forward to using this corridor daily to connect to friends, work, and amenities in Potomac Yard and Alexandria.

CM-26 Hannah Follweiler



CM-27 Michael Neubert

Community member or

X I rely on my bicycle as my primary means of transportation. Anything other than protected bike lanes at a location like this is not safe and not useful. Do the right thing for complete streets. Thank you.



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

neighbor CM-28 Rachel

Maisler


X Potomac Avenue must have a PROTECTED bike lane when Landbay C is redeveloped. The current plan will encourage blocked bike lanes that would prevent a safe connection to Potomac Yard and Four Mile Run trails. Remember, paint isn't protection.

CM-29 Christopher Mrstik


X I hope that everyone takes full advantage of the opportunity to reimagine Potomac Ave from a higher speed "back door cut through" to US 1 and make it a street that is truly there for all. In particular, with the removal of the concrete median, there is plenty of space for a safe, comfortable, suitable for all ages and abilities protected bike lane in both directions. In addition, trees lost from the median can be more than replaced by using space on both sides of the road. Failure to provide protected cycling infrastructure will result in any infrastructure being blocked by double-parked cars, either forcing cyclists into more dangerous traffic or to share the sidewalk with pedestrians. Additionally, to prevent conflicts between loading vehicles and more vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists, please ensure that loading access is on the side streets rather than on Potomac Avenue itself.

CM-30 Rudi Riet Community member or neighbor

X Having physical separation for motor vehicles, micromobility, and pedestrians is fantastic and a better use of space for safety. Separated areas for each user group is best for safety, best for keeping a green canopy, and the most climate change resilient option other than completely banning private motor vehicles. With the Amazon-driven influx of workers and residents into the area, building something safe and future-looking now is of utmost importance.

CM-31 Collier Cook Community member or neighbor

X X Potomac Avenue Bike Lanes: Prior to Covid, I was a regular user of Potomac Avenue & Crystal Drive biking from the Four Mile Run trail up into the heart of Crystal City. So I am disappointed by the unprotected bike lanes currently being proposed on Potomac Avenue. As is the case along Crystal Drive north of this site, this bike lane will become a de facto waiting area for motor vehicles. A fully separated protected bike lane will actually make this stretch useable for riders of all ages and abilities. In addition we should reconsider the allocation of spaces for the entire road section of Potomac Avenue, even including the removal of the median. We should put the trees where the people (walkers and riders) are located along the side of the street, not in the middle of the street. With this there would be enough room for wide pleasant sidewalks and protected bike lanes. Bike Parking Rooms: This proposal allocates most of the bike parking on the LL01 and LL02 levels in out of the way spaces. In the past we have worked to get all of bike parking on the ground floor with direct



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

access to the exterior. That would be ideal for this project. If this requires the building to be taller, then so be it. But if the bike parking must be down in the garage, then it all must be just at the bottom of the entry ramp on LL01. As this building seems to have a significant excess of vehicle parking, those spaces nearest the entry ramp should be reallocated for a centralized bike room. Loading Dock on Potomac Avenue: All curb cuts for vehicular access and loading should be on 29th and 33rd Streets only. Potomac Avenue should not have any curb cuts in order to reduce conflicts with vulnerable users (peds/bikes). Cascading Water Feature: How will this look in the winter when it is drained? It needs to be just as interesting then as during the summer. 33rd St Sidewalk: This seems too narrow especially where the building angles towards it on the west end.

CM-32 Adam Bibler Community member or neighbor

X Please add a south bound protected bike lane on potomac ave. The unprotected bikelanes in crystal city are constantly blocked and are a major safety hazard.

CM-33 Annie Ebbers Community member or neighbor

X Please protect the bike lanes on both sides of Potomac Ave. Unprotected lanes will be constantly blocked by double-parked cars, just like the southbound Crystal Drive lane is. The more developed Potomac Ave becomes, the less friendly it will be to cyclists; please plan for a busier street. Also, please consider moving loading zones off of Potomac Ave to reduce conflicts with cyclists. The one at the Residence Inn is bad enough. Thanks!

CM-34 Andrea Holmes


X X 1. Exterior building design: If used as residential or apartments, I dont see many balconies phase 1 or 2. Floor to ceiling windows are nice, but most units would be better with balconies. The center portion of building in phase 1 lookd to have balconies facing east/west but looks recessed which would obstruct the view looking north or south. Same with north most section of phase 2 building having obstructed view. 2. Sidewalk going south from 29-33th: If retail loading for phase 2 is along Potomac going South, cars entering & leaving the loading zone will constantly interfere with bikers & pedestrians. Loading zone should not be along Potomac, but should be a side street.



Project

Lan

d U

se &

Zo

nin

g

Bu

ildin

g M

assi

ng

& A

rch

ite

ctu

re

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Op

en

Sp

ace

& L

and

scap

ing

Oth

er

Community Comments

3. Bike lane: Bike lane street design could be protected. Otherwise could turm into same awful situation that happens daily along S Crystal Dr from 18-23rd where cars constantly impede the bike lane as they enter the shops for orders. 4. Parking: Should not be any parking going South on Potomac from 29-33 ST. With cars already driving too fast along that section, parking could be dangerous as is. Opening a car door on opposite side going N Potomac is sketchy given the width of that side. Same would probably happen going S on Potomac. Besides that, additional parking will add to the congestion if retail shops are popular. Add speed bumps if speed limit will not change.

Site Plan Review Committee Contents About this Document

Documents

Transcript of Site Plan Review Committee Contents About this Document