DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
POTOMAC YARD/POTOMAC GREENS
The report on the proposed Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens Plan is organized into five sections, including the staff recommended conditions for the Concept Plan, located in the last section:
*Note: The analysis of the traffic impact study and transportation issues is contained within the staff report for the Transportation Management Plan for Potomac Yard.
SECTION 1: OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN
The proposed concept plan provides for development of the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens tract
as a mixed use community of office, retail and residential uses. The overall development program
provides for a maximum of 1.9 million net square feet of office space, a 625 room hotel, 735,000 net
square feet of retail space (including 600,000 square feet at the existing Potomac Yard Retail Center)
and 1,927 residential units. The plan is structured by an interconnected network of streets and open
spaces.
The streets in the project form a grid system, connecting east-west across Jefferson Davis Highway
physically linking with the existing neighborhoods at East Glebe Road, Swann Avenue, Custis Avenue
and Howell Avenue Street, and connecting north-south to Crystal City and the Monroe Avenue
Bridge via a new spine road. A hierarchy of streets is provided, ranging from arterial streets such as
Potomac Avenue down to residential streets and alleys. All of the new streets are proposed to be
public, and the street sections show streets similar to existing streets in Old Town and Del Ray.
Another defining feature of the plan is a hierarchy of open spaces, tied to existing open spaces in the
region and to each other through a system of bike trails and pedestrian connections. Roughly sixty
acres of common open space is planned, and all is proposed to be dedicated to the City as public open
space. The open spaces include playfields and other active recreational facilities as well as passive
spaces, and range in size from two large 20+ acre spaces to small neighborhood-oriented open spaces
of less than half an acre.
The focal point of the development is intended to be the "Town Center," which is to be located
immediately south of the existing Potomac Yard Retail Center. Higher density residential and office
uses, and a hotel and retail uses, are concentrated at this location, organized around a large open
space such as a plaza or town green. Additional concentrations of office space are also proposed
toward the south, on either side of the existing Monroe Avenue bridge. Smaller scale office uses are
also located along Route 1.
The remainder of the development is primarily residential. As proposed, roughly one-third of the
residential units on the site would be townhouses, one-third would be stacked townhouses, and one-third would be other types of multifamily units. In addition to the Town Center, higher density
multi-family residential uses are also proposed to be concentrated at the southern end of the site, near
the Monroe Avenue Bridge, mixed with the office uses. On the remainder of the site, including
Potomac Greens, the residential development would be in townhouses and stacked townhouses.
OVERVIEW OF STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the proposed concept plan for the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens CDD now
before the City for consideration is a fundamentally good plan, with numerous benefits to the City,
and recommends that it be approved, with some changes which are important but do not
fundamentally change the nature of the overall plan. In staff's opinion, the overall design concept
plan and the design guidelines, if approved, will form the basis for a high quality residential and mixed
use development on the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens tract. Staff believes that the plan
successfully integrates many of the concerns raised by citizens at numerous public meetings held by
the applicant with many of the design principles of a successful mixed use community, and
successfully knits the project within the fabric of an existing community.
The plan provides for a series of neighborhoods, both residential and mixed use. The proposed Town
Center, with office, retail, residential and hotel uses organized around a town green or plaza, could,
if successful, evolve into a vibrant activity center not unlike Reston Town Center for residents of the
new development. The development along Route 1, with proposed commercial and residential uses
and some ground-floor retail space, could change the character of this street, an important entryway
into the City. The neighborhoods within the development are linked to the existing neighborhoods
of Del Ray by pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets modeled after those in Old Town and Del Ray,
and by a significant number of open spaces which serve both the development and the greater City.
Although a number of changes to the plan are proposed by staff, in staff's opinion only four of these
changes are major. The most significant of these is the proposed straightening of the Route 1
Monroe Avenue bridge, with a realignment of the street system and proposed land uses in the
southernmost portion of the tract. The second major change proposed is the relocation of one of
three proposed playfields from the Potomac Greens site to a less isolated location near the Monroe
Avenue Bridge or, if the bridge is straightened, adjacent to Simpson field. The third major change
proposed is an increase in office density in the Town Center, with a comparable decrease on the
southern portion of the site. The final major issue between staff and the applicant is the extent to
which the proposed open spaces are to be public. The applicant proposes that all but a few of the
smallest neighborhood parks be dedicated to and maintained by the public; staff is recommending that
many of the parks remain in private ownership with private maintenance.
Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's proposed concept plan, with the major changes
noted above as well as other changes, but with a two-tiered level of approval for the portion of the
site affected by the Monroe Avenue bridge straightening, the area south of Howell Avenue. This
two-tiered approach provides for approval of plans both with and without the straightened bridge,
with the final decision on whether or not the bridge is straightened made by the City at some time in
the future in conjunction with a detailed assessment of the costs--including potential costs for the
City--of the straightening. This approach effectively makes the final approval of the applicant's plans
for the area south of Howell Avenue contingent on a finding by the City in the future. The applicant
has agreed that this approach is acceptable since they will concentrate development on other portions
of the Yard in the next few years. This two-tiered approval approach is discussed in more detail in
the report.
Timing and the By-Right Plan
The applicant has indicated to the City that they need to secure approval of a plan--at least through
the Planning Commission--before the summer break in order to proceed with coordinated
development of the Yard. CAP has indicated that if approvals are not secured, they will abandon
coordinated development and proceed with development of the Yard pursuant to the underlying
zoning, the so-called "By-Right" plan. In order to assess the potential By-Right plan, staff produced
an illustrative plan of one potential "By-Right" scenario; it includes townhouse development on
Potomac Greens and the area south of the Monroe Avenue bridge, additional retail uses adjacent to
the existing Potomac Yard Center and office and warehouses on the remainder of the site. Staff
estimates that a total of 3.8 million square feet of By-Right development could reasonably be located
on the tract, including the existing uses.
Staff has no way of knowing whether or not CAP will proceed with By-Right development on the
site if the current proposal is delayed or not approved, but Planning staff does find it a plausible
outcome. The amount of infrastructure needed to support By-Right development is substantially less
than that needed to support the proposed CDD development, making it easier as well as less risky
for the developer to proceed with the By-Right alternative. The existing shopping center has proven
to be highly successful, and additional retail uses are not difficult to imagine on the Yard, nor are
additional warehouse and storage or parking uses such as the GSA warehouse and Avis facility.
Staff believes there are many negatives for the City with the By-Right plan. These include an
increased level of truck traffic, no parks or playfields for public open space, no integration with the
surrounding community and, possibly, no spine road to ease Route 1 congestion.
Staff believes the high potential for By-Right development is a reason for the City to proceed with
the approved CDD plan in a timely fashion. If the CDD plan were not fundamentally a good one,
the risk of the By-Right plan might be a reasonable risk for the City to take. But, as noted, staff
believes the CDD plan provides for high quality development on a parcel of land that has long been
underutilized, with numerous benefits to the City, and recommends that the City proceed with
approving the plan.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
The applicant, Commonwealth Atlantic Properties (CAP) is requesting approval of a Coordinated
Development District (CDD) Concept Plan for the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens tract. In
conjunction with the Concept Plan approval, CAP also seeks approval of an amendment to the
Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens Small Area Plan chapter of the City's 1992 Master Plan and section
5-600 of the zoning ordinance in order to amend the CDD guidelines for the Potomac Yard/Potomac
Greens Tract (Case MPA#99-0004 and REZ#99-0004). Approval of a special use permit for a
transportation management plan for the site is also requested (Case SUP#99-0020).
THE SITE
The Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens site is a 295 acre tract of land located in the northeast area of
the City. A former railroad yard, the parcel is linear in nature and is divided into two main parcels--Potomac Yards and Potomac Greens--by a 120' wide railroad corridor running through the tract. A
summary of the site area is provided in the table below.
Land Area (in Acres)
Total Gross Site Area .................................................. 294.89
Less Old Town Greens Site.......................................... -20.10
(previously developed and not
included in this concept plan)
Area Within Concept Plan............................................ 274.79
Less Areas Not Developable......................................... -39.73
Railroad/Metro Corridor 36.94
Four Mile Run 2.79
Developable Site Area.................................................. 235.06
Less Potomac Yard Center........................................... -69.07
Remaining Developable Site Area................................. 165.99
The site has a great number of physical constraints which affect development. First is the shape of
the site itself, which is long and narrow, reflecting its previous use as a railroad yard. Four Mile Run,
the Monroe Avenue Bridge and the railroad and Metrorail tracks running through the site create
physical barriers which isolate and fragment the site. The Potomac Greens portion of the site has a
number of environmental constraints which preclude development on a significant portion of the site;
these include the flood plain, wetlands and a resource protection area. The location of the site within
the flight path for National Airport create noise impacts, particularly on the eastern part of the tract,
and also limits heights.
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE SITE
Starting in 1987, about the same time the City began updating the 1974 Master Plan for the Potomac
Yard/Potomac Greens portion of the site, the previous owners of Potomac Yard, RF&P Railroad,
began to explore development alternatives for the Yard because it was no longer being used for the
classification of trains. The first proposal for the Yard, Alexandria 2020, was a mixed-use,
neighborhood development which continued the street grid of the adjacent neighborhoods and
replicated typical setbacks, heights and architectural styles. The plan included a tree lined interior
boulevard, parks and interesting pedestrian gathering places not unlike the current proposal. Most
importantly, however, the plan included a metro station near the center of the Yard, with the potential
for commuter rail service and bus connections. The densities proposed in the 2020 plan were much
higher than what is proposed with the current plan:
- 5.8 million sq.ft. of office space,
- 440,000 sq.ft. of retail uses,
- 180,000 sq.ft. for hotel uses, and
- 6,450 residential units (an estimated 9.67 million sq.ft. @1,500 sq.ft./unit)
Total development: about 16 million square feet
The 2020 plan was never formally submitted to the City for approval, but the City did approve new
zoning for the site in the context of the Master Plan update in 1992. The new zoning, CDD, provided
for a lower overall density of development than was proposed with Alexandria 2020, with:
- 2.75 million square feet of office space,
- 300,000 square feet of retail uses,
- 625 room hotel, (an estimated 456,250 sq.ft. @ 650 sq.ft./room + 50,000 sq.ft.)
- 3,500 residential units (an estimated 5.25 million sq.ft. @ 1,500 sq.ft./unit)
Total development: about 8.8 million square feet.
Immediately after approving these development levels through the zoning of Potomac Yard/Potomac
Greens, a proposal to locate Jack Kent Cook football stadium at Potomac Yard was pursued by the
owner of the Potomac Yard tract. This proposal was successfully fought by the City, but as part of
the negotiations related to the stadium, the zoning on the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens site was
changed to allow increased levels of development on the site:
- 3.75 million square feet of office space,
- 425,000 square feet of retail uses,
- 625 room hotel (an estimated 456,250 sq.ft. @ 650 sq.ft/room + 50,000 sq.ft.)
- 4,500 residential units (an estimated 6.75 million sq.ft. @ 1,500 sq.ft./unit)
Total development: about 11.4 million square feet
In 1997, there was another proposed change to the CDD guidelines in the Master Plan in order to
allow for the location of a Patent and Trade Office at Potomac Yard. While the office buildings were
within the maximum office square footages, a height increase was requested, as well as two other
changes to the Master Plan CDD guidelines which were not related to the PTO proposal. One of the
proposals was a change to the definition of the "rule of proportionality" which required a certain
amount of residential development concurrent with any commercial development on the site, and the
other was to permit a more dense housing type, stacked townhouses. The request was denied by
Planning Commission and withdrawn by the applicant prior to the City Council hearing.
The type and density of development on Potomac Greens has been the subject of a lawsuit regarding
access from the George Washington Parkway. Just recently an agreement has been reached between
the developer and the National Park Service confirming that no access shall be provided from the
Parkway to Potomac Greens.
Interim and By-Right Uses
A number of uses have been developed on the Potomac Yard, Potomac Greens tract during the
1990s. All of these interim uses have proceeded pursuant to the underlying provisions of the site's
CDD zoning. The first development came in 1994, when the Planning Commission approved a site
plan (SP#94-0021) for a 106,622 sq.ft. warehouse building to be constructed on the site in the area
near Custis Avenue the building is utilized for GSA storage. A second use, an Avis vehicle storage
facility, was added to the Yard immediately to the south in 1995 (SUP #95-0154).
In 1995, the applicant requested and received approval of a change to the underlying zoning
provisions of the CDD zoning for the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens, changing the underlying
zoning for the portion of the site known as the "Piggyback Yard" from RB/Residential to CRMU-L/Commercial Residential Mixed Use Low Density in conjunction with a development plan for the
construction of 273 residential units. That project, now known as Old Town Greens, was approved
by City Council in 1995 (SUP #95-0120) and is now nearing completion. This tract is now under
separate ownership and is already developed and is, therefore, not included within this CDD concept
plan.
Finally, in 1995, the owner of Potomac Yard/Greens received approval from the Planning
Commission for the construction of a 600,000 square foot shopping center on the northern portion
of Potomac Yard (SP #95-0020). This approval was amended in 1997 to replace a portion of the
retail uses in the rear of the center with a sixteen screen movie theater (SUP #96-0091). Although
originally presented as being interim uses, with leases limited to a life of 20 years, the shopping center
use is now being incorporated as a permanent use in the CDD plan now proposed for the site.
SECTION 3: STAFF ANALYSIS
Note: The T&ES analysis of transportation, including the
assessment of the traffic impact study, is located within the report
on the transportation management plan for the project.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN AND STAFF ANALYSIS
This section describes in detail each subarea of the proposed plan for Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens,
and provides staff comment and analysis for each area. This neighborhood analysis is followed by
an analysis of the open space, the street system and parking, and of other, primarily procedural, issues
related to the proposed concept plan.
Areas East of the Railroad Tracks
The area east of the railroad tracks includes the site known as "Potomac Greens" (Landbay A) and
the land located within the traffic circle that will be formed by the new Slater's Lane one-way pair
of streets (Landbay C). Except for a small amount of retail use proposed for Landbay C (15,000
sq.ft.), the remainder of this area is to be developed entirely for residential and open space uses. The
existing and under construction 273 unit Old Town Greens residential townhouse and stacked
townhouse development is located between Landbay "A" and Landbay "C".
Landbay A, Potomac Greens, contains a total of 33 acres. Of this area, 20 acres (60% of the site)
is proposed to be maintained in open space. A large portion of this open space, sixteen acres located
on the north and eastern edge of the site, is environmentally protected wetlands. CAP proposes to
provide pedestrian and bicycle paths, including interpretive trails, through the wetland area, as well
as seating and picnic facilities, creating a destination public open space. An additional 2.5 acres
located adjacent to the wetland's is proposed for a public multipurpose field with a small parking area
next to the field. In Landbay A there would also be an additional 1.5 acres for neighborhood parks.
Residential development on the site is proposed to be a mix of townhomes (174 units) and stacked
townhomes (44 units). All townhomes will have rear-load garages, either attached or detached, with
access from alleys, except the units facing the Parkway may have front-entry garages if necessary to
comply with Board of Architectural Review standards.
Landbay C, which the applicant refers to as "Potomac Plaza," is a 3.1 acre area of land located within
the Slater's Lane traffic circle, but not including a portion of the circle not owned by CAP. It is
proposed for a small amount of community serving retail space, up to 15,000 sq.ft., with surface
parking and open space. The space includes a well-landscaped passive space at the eastern end, to
denote Slaters Lane as a gateway from the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and a park at the
western end proposed for neighborhood use, containing facilities such as a children's playground.
Also located east of the main-line railroad tracks is a proposed "rail park" which is between the rail
tracks and Metrorail tracks. The park is a 4.5 acre elongated strip of land varying in width from a
narrow triangular piece of land between the two tracks to approximately 150' at its widest point. At-grade access into the park would be provided only at the southern end, in the area of the existing Old
Town Greens development. However, two additional pedestrian access points to the park would be
provided via footbridges from Potomac Greens at the north and south ends of the park. The applicant
has proposed a variety of potential uses in the rail park, including a community garden plot, tennis
courts or volleyball courts, exercise stations and a dog run area.
No access into this area is provided from George Washington Memorial Parkway. In addition to
being prohibited by the City's master plan, such a connection is also not permitted pursuant to an
agreement between CAP and the National Park Service. Therefore, the only vehicular access into
this portion of the development is via Slaters Lane to Potomac Greens Drive. A pedestrian bridge
over the mainline railroad tracks will provide pedestrian access from Potomac Greens to the
remainder of the Yard.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff is highly supportive of the proposed residential development at Landbay A in Potomac
Greens, which will form a natural extension of the neighborhood now under construction at
Old Town Greens, directly to the south. Although the general types of units being proposed
for Potomac Greens--stacked townhouses and townhouses--are similar to those under
construction at Old Town Greens, the new development will be distinguished by the absence
of curbcuts, because parking for almost all of the new townhouse and stacked townhouse
units within the entire Potomac Yard project will have parking serviced by alleys from the
rear, creating a more traditional, pedestrian-oriented streetscape. In addition, the design
guidelines proposed by the applicant are likely to result in somewhat higher quality, more
traditional units because they apply standards on items such as height variety, utility
location, building materials, etc.
A significant amount of open space is proposed in the area east of the railroad tracks,
almost all of which CAP proposes for public open space. The proposed open spaces include
the playfield, the wetlands area, the rail park and the park located in the Slater's Lane
traffic circle.
One of staff's major proposed changes to the plan is the relocation of the proposed playfield
from Potomac Greens to the Monroe Avenue bridge area, adjacent to another proposed
playfield. Staff finds the location of this proposed field at Potomac Greens problematic.
First, access to this portion of the site is extremely limited, with only one road (Potomac
Greens Drive) serving this portion of the development. The isolated location at the end of
a street deep within what will be a somewhat exclusive residential complex is not the most
desirable location for a public playfield. Staff is concerned that the adjacent residents will
naturally come to expect some level of control over the use of the playfied within the midst
of their development, leading to conflict that will not allow the use of the field to be
maximized for the City. In addition, the Director of RP&CA has indicated that the costs of
maintaining the field, because of its relative isolation, would be higher than the costs
associated with maintaining a field located adjacent or near other fields. Staff's proposed
location for this relocated field would most likely create fewer conflicts with neighbors, be
much more accessible to residents of Potomac Yard and the surrounding community, and
make maintenance much easier for the City. The alternative location would also allow the
field to be illuminated without impact to an immediately adjacent residential community,
increasing the extent to which the field could be utilized.
City staff is recommending that the City not accept dedication of any of the open space
within this area except for a small portion of the Rail Park to be utilized for a Dog Run area.
Staff believes the remainder of the open spaces should be maintained as private common
open space for use of the residents of the project and their visitors. Staff does not believe
that the proposed spaces are of major benefit to the remainder of the City, and does not,
therefore, support their dedication, because of the high costs associated with maintaining
such spaces. And, in any case, it would be unusual for all of the open space within a project
to be public, as has been proposed here.
Because of limited access to the rail park, the police have expressed concerns about public
safety and because of the questionable desirability of such a narrow space located between
two rail corridors, the Recreation Director recommends not accepting the space as a public
park, except for an area toward the south of the space, to be utilized for a public dog-run
area.
Slaters Area
Staff has some concern about the proposed uses of Landbay C, called "Potomac Plaza" by
the applicant, in particular, the park related uses on the western end of the site. It does not
seem to staff that the center of what is effectively a traffic island with no traffic lights to
allow children to cross is an appropriate place for active open space, particularly for the
tot lot proposed by the applicant. Staff is highly supportive of retail use for this parcel; a
plan for such uses was previously shown to staff for the site and such uses are certainly
needed within the neighborhood. Staff would even support additional retail square footage
at this location. Staff recommends keeping the remainder of the space on this site as
privately owned, highly landscaped greenspace in order to visually improve this entryway
into the City.
Town Center
The focal point of the proposed new development is the Town Center (Landbay G), located just south
of the existing Retail Center at Potomac Yard. The Town Center, incorporating about 20 acres, is
planned to be the most dense portion of the site, providing the greatest variety of uses, with office
uses, a concentration of retail uses, a hotel and high density residential uses. The commercial and
hotel uses, with first floor retail space, would be organized around a large open space plaza or green,
roughly the size of Market Square at City Hall. The retail square footage for the entire project is
concentrated in this area; the applicant has proposed up to 80,000 square feet in retail use within the
Town Center, nearly 60% of the new retail space proposed for the project (excluding the Potomac
Yard Center). The majority of the buildings in the Town Center would be 60-80 feet in height, with
a maximum height of 110' permitted for up to five buildings. The hotel would be among the tallest
buildings and would provide the visual anchor of the Town Center. Residential uses in the town
center will be concentrated on the outer rings of the landbay and to the east near the linear park.
The Town Center is purposefully located directly adjacent to the Potomac Yard Shopping Center,
including Hoyt's Theaters, and is intended to "draw upon the success of Potomac Yard Center" and
to enhance the single use nature of the Potomac Yard Center by adding a variety of uses in close
proximity.
The eastern edge of the Town Center landbay is defined by Potomac Avenue and the linear Potomac
Yard park, which forms an open space connection throughout the length of the development.
Potomac Avenue provides vehicular access to the eastern side of the Town Center. Main Street also
passes thorough the town center and connects to the existing street in front of the retail center,
providing north-south access throughout Potomac Yard. East Glebe Road terminates at Town
Center, providing the main east-west access. The reserved location of a potential Metrorail station
is located on a portion of the Linear Park area, directly adjacent to the Town Center.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff believes the proposed Town Center could provide a vital and vibrant center of activity
which will serve not only the residents of the development but which could also draw people
from a larger area. In concept, the proposed Town Center is not unlike Reston Town Center,
which successfully functions as a pedestrian-oriented area. The existing Reston Town
Center has about the same overall level of development on the same land area as is
proposed at the Town Center for Potomac Yard. However, the amount of retail (the type of
use which actually activates the space) proposed at the Potomac Yard Town Center (80,000
sq.ft.) is only one-third the level of that provided at Reston Town Center (220,000 sq.ft.).
The applicant is hopeful that the adjoining Retail Center, with the 16 theater screens and
a total of almost 600,000 sq.ft. will help to activate the Town Center, even though a majority
of the retail center and movie theater are a good walking distance away. Staff agrees that
the existing retail center and theaters do attract a significant number of people to the area,
and we believe that this may help to some limited extent to support the Town Center. In any
case, we do not believe that the existence of the adjoining center will be detrimental to the
success of the Town Center.
Of critical importance to the success of such a Center is the level of development
concentrated in the immediate area; it is the concentration of office and residential density
that supports the retail shops and restaurants, and it is the retail area which creates the
desirable activity. While the applicant has proposed locating significant levels of office and
residential uses within the Town Center, as well as the project's single hotel, staff supports
moving additional office from other parts of the proposed development to the Town Center
in order to increase the potential viability of the proposed retail uses.
CAP has requested that the office use be shifted from south of the Monroe Avenue bridge
to the Town Center under the staff recommended concept plan. With a second playfield
located at the Monroe Avenue bridge, CAP sees the site as a less desirable one for office
uses and prefers to proceed with residential development in the area south of the bridge.
(Changes south of the bridge are discussed in more detail later in the report.) Therefore,
staff is recommending that 600,000 square feet of office use located south of the bridge
under the applicant's proposal be shifted to the Town Center, increasing the total level of
office to 1,000,000 square feet in the Center.
The applicant has provided information to staff which shows that the increased floor area
can be accommodated within the Town Center within the maximum height limits permitted,
while still maintaining a variety of heights and a mix of uses within the blocks. With a total
of about 2.0 million square feet of development in Landbay "G" (including the 600,000
square feet of additional office density), staff has estimated that the average density of
development on the development parcels within Landbay "G" will be about a 2.5 to 3.0 floor
area ratio, a level of density similar to that found and permitted within the central business
district of Alexandria (2.5 FAR) and around the City's Metrorail stations (3.0 F.A.R.).
In the event the Monroe Avenue bridge is straightened, there is more land area available for
development south of the bridge, and the applicant would prefer to maintain some office in
that area. Therefore, under this alternative scheme, the amount of office in the Town
Center drops from 1.0 million square feet to 800,000 square feet, still twice the level
proposed originally by CAP for the Town Center.
Metrorail Station
The area where a future Metrorail station would be located is immediately adjacent to the
planned Town Center, another reason, in staff's opinion, why density should be concentrated
within the Town Center. Although a Metrorail Station was previously a requirement for
development under the CDD guidelines on the Potomac Yard, a Metrorail station has not
been proposed as part of this plan. Staff agrees with the applicant's contention that the
overall level of development proposed for the tract---roughly 6,000,000 million square feet--is not sufficient to support the cost of building a new Metrorail station on the site.
Therefore, as part of the plan, staff is recommending that the applicant 1) specifically
identify the land area that would be required for a future Metrorail station and 2) that the
proposed development not preclude the development of any such future station. In addition,
future owners in the area may be required to participate in a tax financing district to offset
a reasonable proportion of the costs of such a new Metrorail station.
Main Body of the Yard
The main body of the Yard, the blocks south of the Town Center to the Monroe Avenue Bridge, is
divided into four development landbays (H, I, and J) and several significant open spaces, including
the bulk of the Potomac Yard Linear Park and a playfield on the north side of the Monroe Avenue
Bridge (Landbay K). Except for the blocks facing Route 1, where a mix of residential and office
with ground floor retail uses is proposed, this area is to be developed in residential uses, primarily
townhouses and stacked townhouses.
Route 1 Development
The blocks along Route 1 include a mix of uses, both office and residential, many with the potential
for retail on the first floor. Heights of buildings are generally proposed to be 50-65', descending
from 80' at the Town Center along Route 1, and increasing to 90' on Route 1 on the blocks just north
of the proposed playfield at the Monroe Avenue Bridge, where a substantial concentration of office
uses--663,000 square feet--has been proposed.
The developer is proposing an access road parallel to Route 1, which would provide one travel lane
and on-street parking in front of the buildings. The access road is intended to provide a front-door
facing Route 1 for buildings on Route 1, with accessible surface parking facilities. It is also intended
to create a more pedestrian friendly scale to Route 1, by placing parked cars between the pedestrian
and the Route 1 travel lanes. In addition, improvements to Route 1 would be completed similar to
the improvements in front of the retail center, where a tree-planted median is provided.
Residential Development
The remainder of the area between the Town Center and the Monroe Avenue bridge is developed for
townhouse and stacked-townhouse residential uses and for open spaces. Main Street and Potomac
Avenue frame this residential area, with more narrow residential streets running east-west, including
extensions of Swann, Custis and Howell. The stacked townhouses, 45-55' in height, are proposed
to be located along the wider north-south streets--Main Street and Potomac Avenue, with more
traditional single family townhouses, 35'-45' in height, fronting the remainder of the streets.
All of the houses will be oriented toward the street, with parking at the rear of the units, accessed
from a system of alleys. No curb cuts for individual garages will interrupt the sidewalk and on-street
parking will be provided on at least one side--and in most cases both sides--of the street. Street
widths are comparable to those in Old Town and Del Ray, and will adequately provide for travel
lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks and street-trees on both sides of the street. Houses will be located
on the front property line or set back no more than 15', depending on the unit type, creating a house-to-sidewalk relationship similar to Old Town.
All east-west streets will terminate to the east at the linear Potomac Yard Park, providing views into
a green landscaped area. The Potomac Yard Park is a 20+ acre park extending the length of the
project just west of the railroad track, connecting the project with a series of trails and providing both
active and passive open space opportunities. At the southern end of this area, just north of the
Monroe Avenue Bridge in Landbay K, the Park expands westward to include a proposed regulation
size soccer field, with parking provided under the bridge.
Landbay H and I have two long and narrow "finger parks" at Swann and Custis Avenue connecting
Route 1 and the linear Potomac Yard Park. A third park containing .7 acres will be located in
Landbay J, called Howell Park. In addition to these three park spaces, there will be smaller
neighborhood parks comprising up to 3/4 acre located throughout the residential area which the
applicant has proposed as private, neighborhood serving parks. The finger parks and the
neighborhood parks are intended to provide green space and passive open space for residents and
include such amenities such as tot lots, benches, and walkways.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
These landbays, along with Potomac Greens, form the core of the residential neighborhoods.
Except along Route 1, where a mix of office and residential uses are provided, the area is
comprised of residential townhomes and stacked townhomes. The new residential
neighborhoods will be distinguished by the absence of curbcuts, because all parking for the
units will be accessed from alleys to the rear of units. Along with the proposed wider streets,
street trees and sidewalks, the absence of curb-cuts will create a traditional, pedestrian-oriented streetscape in the residential neighborhoods.
Townhouses
In terms of height and scale, the proposed townhouses are typical of the maximum allowed
by the city's residential townhouse zones, and are like those found within most new
developments in the city; a maximum of three full stories in height will be permitted, with
dormers in the gabled roof sometimes providing a partial fourth story, for heights ranging
from 35' to 45'. Lots are proposed to range in width from 18' to 25' and in length from 55'
to 100'. The length of the lot is determined by whether a detached garage is provided. Some
of the detached garages show a granny flat or small apartment, with no more than 400
square feet, above the garage. Many of the units will not have a detached garage, but will
have a single or double garage within the unit, similar to most townhomes now built in the
City.
Stacked townhouses are larger in overall mass than the single family townhouses, but
aesthetically not significantly different than the proposed townhouses. Each of these
buildings contains two units and is proposed to be no more than five stories in height,
including the gable roof/dormer floor, with a maximum height of 55'.
In terms of density, the proposed units exceed the typical densities found in most recent
projects in the City and also exceed typical densities of residential development in Old Town
and Del Ray. The table below provides the densities for some recent projects in the City and
for some established blocks in Old Town and Del Ray. Density has been calculated in two
different ways for comparative purposes, as "block density" and as "average density." The
"block density" calculation is for a typical residential block within the proposed project,
and includes only the house lots and the alleys serving the lots; it does not include land area
devoted to streets, sidewalks, or neighborhood open spaces. This measure allows us to
compare density to typical blocks in Del Ray and Old Town, and with some small new
development projects in the City that do not have internal street systems or common open
spaces. The other measure "average density" is used to compare the proposed residential
neighborhoods in Potomac Yard with some larger residential developments recently built in
the City. The calculation of "average density" includes most streets and sidewalks in a
project, as well as any small open spaces located within the residential development.
Project/Area Density Average Density
Potomac Yard Blocks H&I 30.0 du/acre 23.0 du/acre
townhouse/stacked townhouse blocks*1
New Development
Cameron Station Phase I 16.6 du/acre
Old Town Greens 16.8 du/acre
Stonegate D-1, A 16.9 du/acre
Old Town Village (Townhomes only) 17.7 du/acre
Rivergate (without River park) 24.8 du/acre
Portners Landing (townhouses only) 28.8 du/acre
Hearthstone Mews 31.5 du/acre
Del Ray and Old Town Blocks
Del Ray Block*2 11.0 du/acre
Old Town Block-Yates Gardens 16.8 du/acre
Del Ray Rowhouse Block3 17.4 du/acre
Old Town Block*4 21.9 du/acre
Old Town Block-Newer Construction5 22.6 du/acre
_____________________________________________________________
1 Estimated by staff from applicant's illustrative plans & design guidelines
2 Turner/Clifford/Montrose/LaVerne
3 500 block E. Nelson (north side)
4 N. Royal/Queen/N. Pitt/Princess
5 Queen/N. Union/Princess/N. Lee
These numbers suggest that, in terms of density, the bulk of the residential neighborhoods
in the Yard will feel most similar to the Hearthstone Mews and Portners Landing
(townhouses only) projects, and staff believes this to be an accurate characterization.
However, whereas the Portners and Hearthstone Mews townhouse projects each cover less
than a block, in the case of the Potomac Yard, this residential form will cover a contiguous
area roughly equivalent to ten Old Town Blocks within these landbays.
The density is higher primarily because most units do not have back yards, a contemporary
development pattern which places increased importance on common open spaces. There is
no question that this is a very urban form of development and that the interiors of the
residential blocks will be very tight, with virtually zero open space or landscaping.
However, the experience of this density within the public realm will, in staff's opinion, be
significantly softened by the well-designed streetscape and, also, by the variety of open
spaces provided throughout the project.
A Note on Granny Flats
One alternate townhouse type that may be constructed is a unit with a detached garage
separated from the house by a small yard, or partially attached. The applicant has
proposed granny flats--small 400 sq.ft. accessory apartments--be permitted as a second story
on some of these garages. Staff is enthusiastic about the concept, because it provides a
small yard space which may be more conducive to families and provides a limited mix of
house types for rental or extended family. However, staff also believes the accessory unit
should be counted as a dwelling unit and that at least one parking space should be provided
for the unit (requirements that would apply elsewhere in the City), whereas the applicant
does not wish to count the units or provide parking for them; therefore few of these granny
flats are actually likely to be provided.
Route 1 Development
Along Route 1, the concept plan provides for a mix of office and residential uses, with some
limited ground floor retail. The applicant has proposed to construct an access road along
the frontage of Route 1 from the Town Center south in order to improve the character of the
corridor and also to provide on-street parking for uses facing the street.
Staff finds both of these goals laudable, but cannot support the proposed access road.
Experience with access or service roads elsewhere in the City, such as at Duke Street near
the new library and at Bradlee Center, has suggested that they do not work well and create
conflicts at intersections; the City has in fact been eliminating existing service roads over
time, where possible. In lieu of the access road, staff is proposing that lay-bys be permitted
for buildings facing Route 1, where they can be safely accommodated. These will allow
convenient drop-off at the front door of a building for taxis and quick deliveries. The
Director of T&ES has indicated that he believes laybys are workable in this area.
Elimination of the service road will also allow sidewalks along Route 1 which are wider than
those proposed. It will also allow a wider central median to be provided down Route 1; the
wider median would allow street trees to be provided even where turn lanes are also
provided, giving continuous rather than limited and sporadic trees down the center of the
street.
Office Concentration
CAP is proposing that office uses be concentrated at the southern end of this area in
Landbay "J"; 663,000 sq.ft. of office uses are proposed in this area, the most of any
landbay. Staff does not object to creation of an office center at the southern part of the
area, along Route 1 as one approaches the Monroe Avenue bridge; however, the level
proposed by the applicant seems somewhat implausible. Further, in order to accommodate
that level of office use, CAP has proposed increasing the height limits for the area to 90'
from the 77' now permitted by the master plan. Staff proposed to CAP the shifting of
200,000 sq. ft. Of office from this area to the Town Center, to increase density in the Town
Center. CAP has agreed to this shift under the straightened bridge scenario, where the land
area available for office within this landbay decreases. However, under the staff
recommended plan without the straightened bridge, CAP expressed a desire to maintain full
office at this location, instead shifting all of the office from south of the bridge to the Town
Center. While staff is not convinced that either level of office--463,000 sq.ft. or 663,000
sq.ft.--is plausible, staff has no real objection to setting this as the maximum limit, provided
the design guidelines are followed, including the height limit recommended by staff.
Staff is recommending that the maximum height in this area be limited to 82', the height limit
in the King Street Metro area. The existing master plan provided for maximum heights of
77' in this area, and staff believes somewhere around this height is appropriate, given the
low-scale nature of the surrounding neighborhoods. The extra 5', to 82', helps to
accommodate the potential for ground floor retail.
Straightening of Route 1
In addition to the shift of office uses associated with the proposed straightening of Route 1,
other changes occur in this area, primarily to the street system and open space, when the
bridge is straightened. A detailed description of the other changes resulting from the bridge
straightening is provided in the next section.
South of Monroe Avenue Bridge (Landbay "L")
South of the existing Monroe Avenue bridge, on the 11 acre landbay "L", the applicant is proposing
another concentration of high density office uses--673,000 square feet--and 319 multifamily
residential units. The applicant has indicated that density is being concentrated in this area because
it is the portion of the site closest to the Braddock Road Metrorail station. Heights are proposed at
110' for up to four buildings, with the majority of heights reaching no higher than 60'.
The project's Main Street continues under the Monroe Avenue bridge into this portion of the project,
providing the only vehicular access into the area. Main Street extends to the southern portion of the
site to culminate in a cul-de-sac located approximately 675' feet from Braddock Road. This cul-de-sac is proposed to be a drop-off point to the Metrorail for the proposed shuttle bus system serving
the Yard. No vehicular connections are provided to the neighborhoods to the west, although
pedestrian connections are suggested to align with existing streets in the area.
The linear Potomac Yard park extends along the railroad along the eastern edge of this parcel, but
narrows substantially, providing room for only a bike/pedestrian trail and landscaping.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
One of the goals of the adopted Master Plan for Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens is the
extension of the existing neighborhood grid into the site, creating an integration between the
projects and existing neighborhoods. While the streets north of the bridge do an admirable
job in this respect, the narrow southern tail of the plan has no such integration. As proposed
by the applicant, development proposed within the tail is completely isolated from the
surrounding community.
The most substantial change to the conceptual plan proposed by staff is the straightening
of the Route 1 Monroe Avenue bridge. In staff's opinion, this change, combined with a
reconfiguration of the local street system in the area of the bridge and south, transforms the
southern portion of the site from a series of isolated land uses located on a dead end street
(S. Main Street), into a more cohesive development which forms a natural extension of the
surrounding neighborhood. An illustrative plan for the area around and south of the
Monroe Avenue bridge with a straightened bridge is provided in the attached drawing set
(Attachment B-1).
The straightening of the bridge affects the plan starting at or around Howell Avenue and
extending southward (Part of Landbay "J" and Landbays "K" and "L"). A straightened
bridge creates a greater amount of land for development south of the new bridge and results
in less severe grades around this area because the length of the bridge span is reduced and
the embankment for Monroe Avenue is eliminated, allowing Monroe Avenue to be at-grade.
The reconfigured Monroe Avenue would go under the straightened Route 1, connecting
directly with Main Street, the new spine road, and, ultimately Route 1. While a direct
connection from southbound Route 1 onto Monroe Avenue is maintained under the
reconfiguration via a ramp/access Road, the connection from Monroe Avenue to Route 1
and from Route 1 north-bound to Monroe Avenue would no longer be as direct as it is today.
Rather, Monroe would connect directly into the Main Street of the new development at
Potomac Yard, becoming part of a more neighborhood oriented network of streets, from
which Route 1 would then be accessed. The new spine road would intersection Route 1 at
grade at the foot of the north end of the new Route 1 bride. In the opinion of the Director
of T&ES, the reconfigured bridge also provides enhanced traffic operations and increases
safety. These transportation issues are discussed in detail in the transportation analysis for
this plan, contained in the Transportation Management Plan report.
The straightened Route 1 has, in the opinion of staff, substantial land-use benefits for the
area. Simply eliminating the embankments makes the land in the area more developable.
But, also, the reconfiguration allows the neighborhood street grid to be extended into the
development from both the north and west, creating the opportunity for development which
relates better to the surrounding communities. Staff's proposed plan with the bridge
straightening shows that a mix of uses similar to those in the proposed concept plan,
including office and higher density housing, could still be located in the same area south of
the bridge, with townhouse units providing a transition to the existing lower-scale residential
in the area. However, the heights and scale of the new development could have a much
better relationship to the small townhomes of the existing neighborhood by keeping the new
blocks small and the street vistas open. It locates the taller office building on Monroe
avenue adjacent to the new Route 1 bridge and looking over Simpson Field and substantially
enhances the value of several underutilized commercial buildings in the vicinity.
This alternate plan also substantially increases the accessibility of the existing neighborhood
to the streets and parks of Potomac Yard, while providing greatly improved access for the
new development from Monroe Avenue, relative to the plan without a straightened bridge.
The existing neighborhood streets--Nelson, Alexandria, Luray and Glendale Avenues--could
be extended eastward through the project, connecting to Main Street. Because these existing
streets are quite narrow, new north-south streets connecting to Monroe Avenue would be
designed to carry the majority of traffic from the new development, minimizing impact on
the existing neighborhoods.
As previously discussed, staff recommended the shift of a playfield from Potomac Greens to
the area immediately south of the Monroe Avenue bridge, where it would be immediately
adjacent to the other proposed playfield and share parking located under the bridge with
that playfied. Another benefit to the City in general, and the community in particular, under
the bridge straightening alternative is that the reconfiguration allows the two proposed
playfields at Monroe Avenue Bridge to be located on the west side of Route 1 in an expanded
Simpson Field. As currently proposed, the fields at the Monroe Avenue bridge, although
directly across Route 1 from the Simpson Field recreational complex, is neither visible nor
accessible from Simpson Field. The expanded Simpson Field complex also could provide
a potential location for a future school site, should the city need one in this area.
The question for the city is whether the benefits of straightening the bridge are substantial
enough to warrant the estimated additional cost of $12-$15 million over what the applicant
has proposed for transportation and infrastructure improvements. According to the
applicant, they will spend about $100 million dollars on infrastructure for the Potomac Yard
project as they have designed it; this includes construction of the spine road, Route 1
improvements, and other street improvements; utilities; and open spaces. CAP has indicated
that if the straightening of Route 1 was cost-neutral and development program-neutral, they
would not object to the reconfigured street system and land uses. However, the change is
not cost-neutral, and the applicant asserts that they simply cannot afford these additional
costs; if they are required to absorb them, they will not proceed with the plan.
Staff believes that the land use benefits to the City are substantial, and therefore have begun
to explore potential funding sources to offset the additional costs associated with the
straightened Route 1 proposal. Because it is not possible to resolve the funding issues
immediately, and because staff wishes to move the plan forward, staff is recommending that
the approval of the CDD move forward with a two-tier approval for the southern portion of
the site. This approach would approve the staff proposed concept plan--without the bridge
straightening, with a condition that would allow the alternative plan, with a straightened
bridge, to be "triggered" by the City, thereby becoming the operative concept plan. The
"trigger" involves the City assessing, in detail, the costs associated with the straightening
of the bridge and committing to funding these additional costs associated with the
straightening. This approach effectively makes the approval of a portion of the plan
(generally south of Howell Avenue) contingent on a finding by the City in the future;
however, the applicant has agreed that this is acceptable, since they will most likely
concentrate development in other portions of the Yard over the next few years.
Office Concentration
Regardless of whether or not the bridge is straightened, staff believes the amount of office
within this area should be decreased. The applicant proposes the highest concentration of
office--673,000 sq.ft.--at this difficult location, arguing that it is the most Metro accessible
area within the Yard. While it is true that this site is physically the closest to Metrorail, it
is still 1,500-2,500 ft. walk from the station to the location of the proposed office uses. And
more significantly, this site has the worst vehicular access of any area in the Yard, unless
the bridge is straightened. And, if the bridge is straightened, high levels of office use
become somewhat less appropriate because of the increased connectedness to the adjoining
low scale residential neighborhoods. Therefore, staff is recommending that office uses be
shifted from this area under either scenario. If the bridge is straightened, at least 200,000
sq.ft. of office should be shifted from this area to the Town Center to enhance that center of
development. The applicant has indicated that they would prefer to eliminate all office uses
from this landbay if the staff's concept plan (without the bridge straightening) is approved,
shifting them to the Town Center and throughout Landbays "H", "I", and "J". With the
second playfield located in this area under that scenario, the applicant feels that insufficient
space is available to create a true office center. Development within this landbay would then
become all residential use, with a small amount of retail, which staff supports and finds a
more plausible use for this area than office.
Heights
Staff is recommending that heights in this area be decreased from the 110' maximum
proposed by the applicant to a maximum of 82', with the majority of heights less than 60'
and reducing as the lower neighborhoods to the west are approached. Staff does not
support the increase from the 77' now permitted by the master plan for this area, which is
predominately low scale in nature. A minor increase to 82' is reasonable to allow retail uses
on the first floor; this is the height of office buildings on Duke Street and at the King Street
Metro.
Braddock Road Turn Around
One small change strongly recommended by Staff and agreed to by the applicant is moving
the Main Street turn-around near Braddock Road closer to Braddock Road. The turn-around is intended to be the terminus of the project serving shuttle bus to the Braddock Road
Metro. However, as currently proposed it is approximately 675' from Braddock Road and
even farther to the Metro station itself. The applicant has indicated that they believe they can
move the turn around much closer to Braddock Road if the school agrees a land swap to
accommodate the change. Staff is supportive of moving the turn around as close as possible
to the street which will increase the likelihood that people will use the shuttle bus to get to
the Metro, especially if the bus runs frequently. In addition, short-term parallel parking
along this street is desirable to serve the adjacent recreation fields.
Open Space
Most of the proposed open spaces have been described and discussed in the preceding sections as
each landbay has been analyzed. This section provides a summary of the proposed open spaces within
the project, provides an overview of the open space issues, and provides some additional staff analysis
on more comprehensive open space issues.
The plan provides for a variety of open spaces linked by a system of trails and sidewalks both to each
other and to the regional trail system. About 58 acres of common open space is planned, and all
except the smallest neighborhood parks are proposed to be dedicated to the City as public open
space. The open spaces include playfields and other active recreational facilities as well as passive
spaces, and range in size from large two large 20+ acre spaces to small neighborhood-oriented open
spaces of less than half an acre.
The table below shows all of the open spaces proposed by CAP within Potomac Yard. All of the
spaces, except for the neighborhood parks, are proposed to be public parks, dedicated to and
maintained by the City.
|
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PARKS AT POTOMAC YARD | ||
| Open Space Name | Description | Land Area |
| Potomac Yard Park | Linear Park on west of the railroad tracks providing open space link between Four Mile Run and Braddock Road. Includes trails, courts (tennis, basketball, volleyball), a multi-purpose lawn area, playgrounds and fitness course. | 24.2 acres |
| Braddock Field | Soccer field located primarily on George Washington Middle School property to be rebuilt as regulation-sized field utilizing a portion of Potomac Yard land area. | 2.0 acres |
| Monroe Field | Soccer field located on the north side of the Monroe Avenue bridge with parking provided underneath the bridge. | Area included in Potomac Yard Park area. |
| Potomac Greens Park | Passive recreation and nature area, with trails, including interpretive trails, through the wetlands and picnic area and playground. | 20 acres |
| Potomac Greens Field | Soccer field/multi-purpose area located adjacent to passive recreation area. | Area included in Potomac Greens Park area. |
| Potomac Plaza | Area located within parcel created by east and west bound Slaters Lane proposed to include landscaped areas and neighborhood park, with potential playground. | 1.5 acres |
| Rail Park | Linear park located between the Metrorail lines and the main line railroad tracks accessed at-grade from the south at Old Town Greens. Additional pedestrian connections into the park proposed include two low pedestrian footbridges from Potomac Greens and a pedestrian bridge from the main body of the Yard. Area proposed to include tennis courts, community gardens and a dog-run area. | 4.2 acres |
| Four Mile Run Park | Area including Four Mile Run, the bridges over Four Mile Run, and a narrow strip along the southern embankment proposed for general "waterfront opportunities." | 4.4 acres |
| Howell Park | Neighborhood park located along extension of Howell Avenue; primarily open, landscaped space. | 0.7 acres |
| Finger Parks | Linear neighborhood parks located at extension of Custis and Swann Avenues, primarily green space with sidewalk. | 0.8 acres |
| Neighborhood Parks | Small parks located throughout project providing seating areas, dog runs, tot lots and landscaped green space. | 3.6 acres |
| Total Land Area in Parks | 61.4 acres | |
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Some of staff's most significant recommended changes to the plan relate to open space. Overall, a substantial amount of open space--an estimated 50% of the developable site (excluding Four Mile Run, the Railroad tracks and streets)--has been provided, and staff believes the spaces will generally serve the project well. While it is true that nearly half of the open space proposed is on sites CAP cannot develop, i.e. the Rail Park, the wetlands and Four Mile Run Park, the proposed open spaces do form a network of spaces incorporating a broad range of uses which will serve the residents of the project. Only a few of the spaces are likely to be of interest to the public who do not occupy the site.
One key open space issue is staff's proposed relocation of one proposed playfield from Potomac Greens to the area just south of the Monroe Avenue bridge, or with the straightened bridge alternative, adjacent to Simpson Field. This issue has been discussed in more detail in the analysis on Landbay A.
Aside from the proposal to shift the playfield, the key issue related to open space is the extent to which the proposed open spaces should be public. The applicant proposes that 57.8 acres (94%) of the total 61.4 acres of open space be dedicated for public open space, leaving only 3.6 acres (6%) in private open space throughout the entire development. In theory, the idea of the city receiving extensive new public open spaces is an appealing idea. But, in fact, for almost 100% of the open space in the project to be public is unprecedented, and not entirely positive because it will result in spaces which are largely for the use of the immediate project residents being maintained by public funds. A typical residential development is required to have approximately 30-40% open space, either on individual lots or in the case of some developments, in common area which is privately maintained. The townhomes and stacked townhomes in this project, totaling two-thirds of the residential units in the development, have no open space on the individual lots and rely entirely on nearby parks.
In addition, some of the proposed spaces, although theoretically potentially usable open spaces, are marginal in quality, in staff's opinion, and therefore are not appropriate for public acquisition and maintenance.
Staff believes only five of the spaces--the 2 playfields and a portion of land for a third at George Washington Middle School, the large linear Potomac Yard Park and a portion of the Rail park--have benefits to the greater City and should be dedicated to the city for public use and public maintenance.
Proposed Public Parks
Three playfields are proposed in conjunction with the development: one at the Monroe Avenue Bridge, another primarily on land owned by the school at George Washington Middle School, and the third, proposed at Potomac Greens and proposed by staff to also be relocated to near the Monroe Avenue Bridge. (Or in the case of the straightened bridge scenario, the two Monroe Bridge fields become adjacent to Simpson Field.) Staff believes the playfields are the open spaces most likely to be utilized by the public.
Potomac Yard Park stretches the entire length of the site adjacent to the railroad corridor. It covers approximately 24 acres including about 5 acres where a playfield at the Monroe Avenue bridge is located, and provides bike trail connections to the north and south and to the east, via a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks. The park is intended to provide a mix of active and passive uses. Proposed active uses include tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, trails, a lawn area sufficient in size to serve as an informal playfield, a fitness trail and children's playgrounds. The remainder of the area will be well landscaped, with trails and seating areas.
The final space recommended for dedication to the City is the southern end of the space known as "Rail Park," which is the land left over between the Metrorail tracks and the main line tracks, with access to the south at grade to Old Town Greens, to the east to Potomac Greens via a low footbridge over the Metrorail tracks and to the west to the Potomac Yard Park via a pedestrian bridge. The applicant has proposed a variety of uses for this park, including tennis courts, a dog run and community gardens. Staff finds this space problematic, in large part because of its shape (very linear) and its location (between two railroad tracks) and sees little value to the City in accepting the space for public use, requiring public maintenance. The Police Department expressed concern about their ability to maintain surveillance of the area. The Director of Recreation expressed concern about the utility of so long and inaccessible an area, but did believe that a portion of the Park might be of value as a large dog-run area on the southern, most accessible, portion of the site if provided with fencing, benches, water and a gravel surface. Therefore, staff is recommending that this area become public. The remainder of the site could be developed as open space for the residents of Potomac Greens and Old Town Greens, or, alternatively, could be left unutilized as planted green area.
Four Mile Run Park
One park which has not previously been discussed is Four Mile Run park, which consists primarily of the bridges over Four Mile Run and a thin strip of land on the south side of the Run (as well as a small area of land within the City north of Four Mile Run). The applicant has not clearly defined potential use of this space as a park, but has indicated a desire for some "waterfront related activities" and for the space to be dedicated to the City. Because this site is somewhat isolated from the remainder of the development (aside from the shopping center) and relates more to the development at Arlington at this time, staff has some doubts about its utility to the residents within the Alexandria portion of the project; it is more likely to be of interest to the Arlington County portion of Potomac Yard. Staff also has concerns about accepting the dedication of this space to the City because of potential future maintenance costs related to the bridges. Staff has proposed that the applicant market these bridges for commercial recreational use, although it is not clear to staff whether such uses would be truly viable. If the space cannot be commercially developed for recreation, staff is recommending that the applicant return with a plan for this space in the future.
Other Parks
Staff recommends that the remaining open spaces--the resource protection area on Potomac
Greens, the open space at Slaters Lane, the remainder of the Rail Park and all of the finger
parks and neighborhood parks, be maintained as privately owned common open space for
the use of all residents of the project. Staff does not believe that the proposed spaces are
of major benefit to the remainder of the City, and does not support their dedication as public
open spaces, because of the costs associated with maintaining such spaces.
Street Design
As part of the concept plan approval, the applicant has proposed the general location for major
arterial streets; Route 1, Potomac Avenue, Main Street and the east-west through streets of East
Glebe, Swann, Custis and Howell provide the framework of the Yard plan. Proposed street sections
are provided in the Design Guidelines for all streets and alleys within the project, and include some
deviation from City standards. All streets are proposed to be public; only alleys would be private.
Potomac Avenue is the proposed spine road through the project, connecting at the Monroe Avenue
Bridge near the existing intersection of Route 1 and Slater's Lane, and over Four Mile Run into
Arlington County. Potomac Avenue is proposed to have four travel lanes, two in each direction,
separated by a 15' median and a row of parallel parking on the western (southbound) side.
The applicant proposes to maintain Route 1 as four through lanes, with a 15' median/turn lane area
in the center, similar to the improvements already constructed on Route 1 in conjunction with
construction of the Potomac Yard Shopping Center. In addition, the applicant proposes to build an
access road along the eastern edge of Route 1 in front of the project. The access road would be
separated from Route 1 by a landscaped median and would provide one travel lane and one parking
lane.
Main Street runs through the center of the project connecting the entire development together from
the Retail Center to the Braddock Road turn-around. The street is proposed to have one traffic lane
in either direction and parking on both sides of the street, except below the Monroe Avenue Bridge,
where Main Street provides the only access. At this location, Main Street would have two traffic
lanes in each direction, with parking permitted on the street only in off-peak periods.
East-west streets and the residential streets within the development would have two lanes of traffic,
one in either direction, and parking on both sides of the street. Four east-west streets are proposed
to connect across Route 1 from the project: East Glebe, Swann, Howell and Custis.
The applicant has also proposed a type of street called a yield street. The street would permit two
way traffic and parking on both sides, but would not easily accommodate two-way traffic, therefore
requiring one car to yield to another. There is no City street standard equivalent to this street type.
One-way streets, measuring 20' wide with one travel lane and one lane for parking, would be located
around neighborhood parks.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The street network provides not only the means for traffic movement within the project, but
also provides a key organizing element for the neighborhoods. Although staff does have
some issues with the proposed street sections, in general staff believes the streets are very
well developed and will serve, almost more than any other feature of the plan, to create a
character within the development which is consistent with Old Town and Del Ray.
Street Design
All of the streets are proposed to be public, and all of the street rights-of-way, except the
proposed yield and one-way streets, are about as wide or wider than the typical Old Town
Street (60'-85' versus 66'). All streets have street-trees on both sides. All but a few streets
have sidewalks on both sides, and the exceptions, where sidewalks are provided only on one
side, are appropriately located, i.e. next to parks where trails provide walkways. Most of the
streets have on-street parking on both sides, the remainder have parking on at least one side.
It is these characteristics which will distinguish this proposed development from other
projects the City has seen over the past decade. With the exception of Carlyle, other projects
generally have narrower streets without street trees and with little on-street parking. For
example, except for the two public streets through the project (Cameron Station Boulevard
and Brennan Park Drive), Cameron Station streets are typically 26' in width, with sidewalks
on only one side and little on-street parking.
Staff does have concerns about two of the proposed street sections, those for "one-way" and
"yield" streets. The "one-way" street issue is easily resolved by adding some width to bring
it up to City standards. The "yield" street is modeled, according to the applicant's design
team, after some of the more narrow Del Ray Streets, where two-way traffic and parking on
both sides of the street is permitted, but the width does not adequately accommodate all of
this movement and parking. Hence the name "yield," because in order to pass, traffic
moving in opposing directions must pull over to allow oncoming traffic to pass. While the
applicant proposes to utilize this type of street in only limited locations, the Director of
T&ES does not believe the design is safe or adequate for any location, and it clearly does
not meet City standards. Therefore, staff is recommending elimination of the "yield" street
to be replaced with typical two-way streets.
Parking
As part of their application for concept plan approval, the applicant has indicated that they will seek
reductions below the required levels of parking for uses within the development. The table below
shows the levels of parking proposed by the applicant, along with the zoning ordinance requirements
for parking.
| Land Use | Applicant's Proposal | Zoning Ordinance Requirement |
| Townhouse | 1 to 2 spaces per unit | 2 spaces per unit |
| Stacked Townhouse | 1 to 2 spaces per unit | 1.3 spaces per 1/bedroom unit
1.75 spaces per 2/bedroom unit 2.2 spaces per 3+/bedroom unit |
| Multi-Family Residential | 1 space/bedroom,
maximum 2 per unit |
1.3 spaces per 1/bedroom unit
1.75 spaces per 2/bedroom unit 2.2 spaces per 3+/bedroom unit |
| Commercial Office | 2 spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. | 2 per 1,000 net sq.ft. |
| Hotel | 0.5 spaces per room | 1.15 spaces per room |
| Town Center Retail | 3 spaces per 1,000 leaseable sq.ft. | 4.4 to 5 spaces per 1,000 net sq. ft. |
| Other Retail | None | 4.4 to 5 spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. |
Any actual parking reductions for the project would have to be approved in conjunction with the submission of preliminary development plans for actual buildings, but the proposed parking levels contained in the concept plan establish the City's policy toward parking in the project.
Staff believes that it may be reasonable to request some parking reductions for commercial uses, particularly the hotel use and some retail uses. However, rather than establish the appropriate parking levels at this time within the concept plan, staff believes that decisions are best made when additional information is provided in conjunction with specific development plans. Therefore, staff has added a condition to the concept plan approval which indicates that parking reductions for commercial uses may be requested and shall be considered in conjunction with development plans.
Staff believes there is no basis for granting any reductions to residential parking in this project and recommends that such a policy be set within this concept plan by including a condition that disallows any parking reductions for residential units. Had a metrorail station been provided within this project there may have been some basis for small parking reductions in the Town Center, but as proposed, the residential neighborhoods planned for this area are no different from other urban residential neighborhoods in the City, which are required to provide full parking.
In addition to the proposed reductions in the number of parking spaces provided, the applicant has indicated that they may wish to satisfy parking requirements by providing some of the parking spaces for residential units on the public streets. Staff also does not support this proposal. Within the residential areas, the on-street parking will provide visitor parking for all of the open spaces (except the playfields, which have their own parking). (In the commercial areas, the on-street spaces may provide some of the critical parking for the retail uses.) Information provided by the applicant suggests that as much as 20-25% visitor parking might be available on the streets. It is true that 20-25% parking exceeds the parking that has typically been required by the City, but staff believes it is not an excessive level, particularly in a project where a fair amount of the parking provided is likely to be located in tandem parking. Tandem parking is somewhat less likely to be used, because people will tend to park on the street. For example, at Cameron Station, 15% visitor parking has been provided throughout the development, yet questions have been raised about the adequacy of the level of visitor parking. Therefore, staff also does not support allowing the on-street spaces on the public street to be counted for required parking for residential units, and has included this restriction as a condition of the concept plan.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES Phasing
The CDD concept plan application proposes that the development be phased by landbay, with a
separate preliminary development plan submitted for each landbay, but also includes language that
would allow the applicant to bring in a development plan for a much smaller section of development,
as small as a single building. The application also requests that the order in which landbays be
developed be left unspecified.
Staff believes that it will be necessary to review at least the basic elements of a development plan for
an area no smaller than a landbay in order to achieve coordinated development by effectively
assessing compliance with the applicant's proposed design guidelines. The design guidelines provide
development criteria for each landbay, including the number of units, the range of heights, the level
of open space and other criteria guiding the development of that landbay. On the other hand, staff
understands the applicants reluctance to be held to a preliminary development plan for an entire
landbay. Such an approach may be difficult in some instances, because the detailed information
typically required for preliminary development plan approval will not likely be known for each
building within the landbay at the onset.
As a solution, staff proposes a preliminary development plan review process for individual buildings
which incorporates approval of a more general plan for the entire landbay. As proposed, the
applicant would be required to submit a generalized preliminary development plan covering the entire
land area within a landbay for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction
with their request for approval of the initial building in each landbay. This generalized plan would
show all proposed streets (except alleys) and open spaces required by the design guidelines, as well
as any other basic infrastructure required by the City. Rather than showing detailed building
footprints and/or building elevations, the preliminary landbay plan would show a general allocation
of the permitted land uses, floor area and heights within the landbay. Along with the design
guidelines and other elements of the approved concept plan, this preliminary development plan would
establish the permitted framework for development within the landbay. Thereafter, smaller sections,
or even an individual building, could proceed through the typical preliminary development plan
process, with approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Interim and By-Right Uses
The CDD provisions of the zoning ordinance allow the land within a CDD to be utilized for uses
other than those ultimately approved for development under the concept plan for the CDD. Two
such types of uses are allowed: "by-right" uses and "interim uses."
By-Right Uses
"By-right" uses are those uses permitted within the CDD without approval of a concept plan for the
CDD. The GSA warehouse, Avis and the Retail Center were constructed pursuant to the "by-right"
provisions of Potomac Yard's CDD zoning. The CDD provisions allow the "by-right" uses to
continue to be located on the portions of the tract where no preliminary development plan has been
approved, even after approval of a concept plan for the CDD, provided that:
1) the by-right use meets the zoning requirements for that use, including the approval of
a site plan and/or special use permit, where necessary, and
2) does not preclude development consistent with the conceptual design plan.
The potential "by-right" uses on the Potomac Yard include, depending on the portion of the site, uses
listed in the I/Industrial, CSL/Commercial Service Low and RB/Residential Townhouse zones.
Any by-right uses proposed by CAP will be assessed as to whether they interfere with development
under the CDD; if they are determined to do so, they may be disapproved by the City. Otherwise,
they must be permitted, pursuant to the regular site plan or special use permit regulations governing
that use.
Existing "By-Right" Uses on the Site
CAP proposes to allow the existing Retail Center to continue and "to be authorized within the
Conceptual Design Plan submitted with the application." Although CAP has often spoken of the
Retail Center as an interim use, the Retail Center is shown on the concept plan as the ultimate use for
the portions of the tract which they occupy, and staff supports the approach of incorporating the
existing "by-right" approvals under the approved concept plan.
For the other two existing uses, the GSA warehouse and Avis, CAP proposes in their application to
authorize the uses' continuance for the length of the economic life of the buildings or until such time
as CAP proposes to redevelop the two sites in accordance with the CDD. Pursuant to the CDD
zoning provisions, these uses are authorized to continue as "by-right" uses until such time as a
preliminary development plan is approved for the area including the use, unless they preclude
development consistent with the conceptual design plan. It is possible that the City may require some
changes within the footprint of these existing uses, in order to proceed with CDD development or
that the City may require the uses be eliminated if, at some point, they interfere or become
incompatible with the progressing CDD development. For example, to construct the spine road,
changes to the Avis parking lot will likely be required.
At such time as a preliminary development plan is approved for CDD development for the portion
of the site occupied by Avis or the GSA warehouses, these uses would then have to be specifically
authorized as "interim uses" as part of that preliminary plan approval in order to continue operation.
Interim Uses
Once a concept plan has been approved for Potomac Yard, "interim" uses may be approved as part
of a preliminary development plan on a portion of the site, provided that such "interim" uses were
listed in the concept plan approval as potential "interim" uses on the site. The applicant is requesting
that any "by-right" uses which may be in place on the site at the time of application for preliminary
plan approval be permitted to be considered for "interim uses," and staff supports this approach to
interim uses. This approach would allow the applicant to request that an existing "by-right" use be
allowed to continue for some period of time even after development within the landbay proceeds; the
City would have the opportunity at the time of approval of the preliminary development plan approval
for that area to determine whether or not to allow the interim use to continue.
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The previous section has described in detail staff's assessment of the proposed concept plan for
Potomac Yard, along with staff's proposed changes. The following table provides a brief summary
which highlights the differences between the different proposals before the city: the applicant's
proposed concept plan, staff's recommended concept plan and staff's recommended alternative
concept plan. This summary descriptions are followed by an overview of the approval documents
and proposed two-tier approval approach.
| (1)
Applicant's Proposed Concept Plan |
(2)
Staff Proposed Concept Plan |
(3)
Staff Proposed Alternative Concept Plan | |
| Density | about 6 million sq.ft. | Same as (1) | Same as (1) |
| Town Center | Mixed use center, with concentration of office uses (400,000 sq.ft.), higher density residential uses, hotel and retail. | Same as (1), except 1,000,000 sq.ft. of office in Town Center | Same as (1), except 800,000 sq.ft. of office in Town Center. |
| Main Body of the Yard (Landbays H, I and J) | Mix of office, residential and retail uses along Route 1. Concentration of office uses immediately north of the Monroe Avenue bridge (663,000 sq.ft.). Townhouses and stacked townhouses on remainder of the area. | Same as (1) | Same as (1), except slightly less office north of the Monroe Avenue bridge (463,000 sq.ft.) |
| South of the Bridge (Landbay "J") | Mix of office (673,000 sq.ft.) and higher density residential uses | Higher density residential; no office. | Uses same as (1), but slightly less office (473,000 sq.ft.), some townhouse residential, and uses configured differently. |
| Potomac Greens | Townhouses and Stacked Townhouses | Same as (1) | Same as (1) |
| Spine Road | Yes, connecting at the southern foot of the Monroe Avenue Bridge. | Same as (1) | Yes, but north of the realigned Route 1 bridge. |
| Route 1 | Four through-lanes, center landscape median with turn-lanes, access road with one travel and one parking lane along western side. | Same as (1) except access road eliminated and lay-bys permitted; center median widened to allow continuous landscaping. | Same as (2) |
| Streets | All public; all except yield streets and one-way streets meet city standards; on-street parking, sidewalks and street trees provided. | Same as (1) except two street types not meeting city standards (yield and one-way streets) eliminated or modified and minor adjustments to other proposed street sections. | Same as (2) |
| Parking | Reductions in parking requirements permitted. | No reductions permitted for residential uses. | Same as (2) |
| Open Space | 60 acres provided; all but neighborhood parks is public | Same as (1) except portion of Rail Park eliminated as open space, one playfield shifted from Potomac Greens to Monroe Avenue area, active recreation space eliminated from Slaters Lane park, and only about half of the total open space is dedicated for public open space (Playfields, Potomac Yard Park and a small portion of Rail Park) | Same as (2), but location of two playfields at Monroe Avenue shifted adjacent to Simpson Field. |
Approval Documents and Procedures
The changes proposed are reflected in the approval documents for the plan which include, in addition to the staff recommended conditions contained at the front of this report, 1) a plan sheet showing generalized land-use and transportation elements and 2) design guidelines.
The applicant has submitted a set of these two documents, along with other supporting materials, which reflect their version of the proposed plan. Staff has provided "marked-up" versions of these two documents--the concept plan sheet and the design guidelines--for approval as the staff recommended plan, along with the staff conditions. A set of marked-up documents is provided for both the alternative without the straightened bridge (staff's proposed "concept plan") and the alternative with the straightened bridge (staff's proposed "alternative concept plan") so that under either alternative it can be clearly understood exactly what is being approved.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed "concept plan" with a condition which essentially allows for the "alternative concept plan" (the straightened bridge) to be required by the City at some time in the future for the portion of the site south of Howell Avenue. Staff understands that the "two-tiered" approval being recommended for the plan is complex, and unusual, but we believe that the benefits of the straightened bridge alternative for the City are substantial and should be maintained as an alternative for the plan, if at all possible. On the other hand, we do not wish to delay the approval process until such time as the complex costs issues related to the straightened bridge can be completely resolved, because delay could result in abandonment of any coordinated development and the undertaking of by-right development on the site, and staff believes that by-right development would provide much less benefit to the City. The proposed approach, going forward with an approved plan which leaves open the straightening of the bridge as an alternative--with the choice made by City Council at some later date--seems to staff to be the best approach to the plan approval. And it is an approach to which CAP has agreed, although they still prefer approval of their original proposed plan.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City approve staff's proposed "concept plan" which includes future
potential, as described in the staff conditions, for implementation of the "alternative concept plan"
subject to all of the proposed staff conditions. This approval would incorporate all of the changes
reflected on the staff proposed "concept plan sheet," "alternative concept plan sheet," "concept plan
design guidelines," and "alternative concept plan design guidelines."
SECTION 5: CONDITIONS
Introduction -- Findings
F-1. The applicant, Commonwealth Atlantic Properties ("CAP"),(1) has submitted various
documents related to its application for approval of a concept plan for the Potomac
Yard/Potomac Greens Coordinated Development District,(2) less the portion of the district
known as Old Town Greens, which is located on the east side of the Metro rail tracks,
between Slater's Lane and the Potomac Greens site.(3) Two of these documents are considered
to constitute the applicant's Proposed Concept Plan for this CDD: (1) the plan sheet entitled
"Conceptual Design Plan, Overall Plan, Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens Coordinated
Development District," dated "05/99" (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Overall Plan
Sheet"); and (2) the document entitled "Potomac Yard Urban Design Guidelines," dated
March 12, 1999, and reissued April 28, 1999 (referred to as the "Proposed Design
Guidelines").(6)
F-2. The concept plan that is being recommended for approval for the Potomac Yard/Potomac
Greens Coordinated Development District (the "Concept Plan") consists of the following:
(a) the Proposed Overall Plan Sheet, as modified by staff to reflect the changes which
staff is recommending to the applicant's proposal (this modified sheet is referred to
as the "Concept Plan Sheet" and is attached as Attachment A-1);
(b) the Proposed Design Guidelines, as modified by staff to reflect the changes which
staff is recommending to the applicant's proposal (these modified guidelines are
referred to as the "Concept Plan Design Guidelines" and are attached as
Attachment A-2); and
(c) the conditions set out below under the heading, "Plan Conditions" (the "Concept
Plan Conditions").
F-3. In addition, an alternative to the Concept Plan is also being recommended for approval,
although this recommendation, as explained below in paragraph 4, is conditioned upon the
occurrence of certain events in the future. This alternative concept plan is referred to as the
"Alternative Concept Plan." The Alternative Concept Plan consists of the following:
(a) the Concept Plan Sheet, as modified by staff to reflect the changes which this
conditional plan makes to the Concept Plan (this modified sheet is referred to as the
"Alternative Concept Plan Sheet" and is attached as Attachment B-1);
(b) the Concept Plan Design Guidelines, as modified by staff to reflect the changes which
the conditional plan makes to the Concept Plan (these modified guidelines are referred
to as the "Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines" and consist of the Concept
Plan Design Guidelines less the pages of these guidelines which need to be revised to
incorporate changes called for by the conditional plan, plus replacement pages for the
removed pages that contain these changes (the "Replacement Pages" which are
attached as Attachment B-2); and
(c) the conditions set out below under the heading, "Plan Conditions" (the "Alternative
Concept Plan Conditions").(7)
F-4. The major land use distinction between the Concept Plan and the Alternative Concept Plan
involves the portion of the CDD that lies west of the relocated rail lines and generally to the
south of Howell Avenue (extended into the CDD). In this area, the Alternative Concept Plan
primarily differs from the Concept Plan in that it provides: (i) for the elimination of the
current Monroe Avenue bridge and of the current Route 1 roadway between Monroe Avenue
and Howell Avenue; (ii) for the construction of a new road structure that provides a direct
and relatively straight connection between the intersection of Route 1 and Slater's Lane, at
the east end of the current Monroe Avenue bridge, and Route 1 in the vicinity of Howell
Avenue (the "New Route 1 Connector"); (iii) for the realignment of certain streets, including
Monroe Avenue and its tie-in to the New Route 1 Connector; and (iv) for changes in
proposed land uses and proposed areas of open space largely in this portion of the CDD.
Plan Conditions(8)
The Alternative Concept Plan Trigger Condition
1. The Concept Plan shall be the operative concept plan for the CDD, under § 5-604 of the
Zoning Ordinance, unless and until the condition set forth in this paragraph (the "Trigger")
is timely satisfied and written notice of its satisfaction is provided by the City Manager to
CAP, in which case the Alternative Concept Plan shall become and remain the operative
concept plan for the CDD until amended or rescinded by City Council. The Trigger is as
follows:
(a) On or before October 1, 2000, CAP shall prepare, and submit to the City for
its review and approval (which review shall not exceed 60 days), construction
documents, in sufficient detail to obtain construction bids, for both the
infrastructure to be constructed and the related work to be undertaken
pursuant to the "Route 1/Monroe Avenue Bridge/Potomac Avenue
Connection Design -- Concept Plan," and the infrastructure to be constructed
and the related work to be undertaken pursuant to the "Route 1/Monroe
Avenue Bridge/Potomac Avenue Connection Design -- Alternative Concept
Plan." (These two "Connection Designs," which show alternative ways of
connecting the new "spine road," or Potomac Avenue, with Route 1 and,
more generally, the different infrastructure schemes for the portion of the
CDD that lies, generally, between the northern side of Howell Avenue
(extended into the CDD) and the southern side of the Monroe Avenue bridge,
are shown in the document entitled "Route 1/Monroe Avenue
Bridge/Potomac Avenue Connection Concept Design --Two Options," which
is attached as Attachment C.)
(b) After receiving the City's approval of the construction documents, CAP shall
obtain from construction and engineering (and any other appropriate
professional) firms, which are acceptable to the City, estimates of the
construction cost for each of these two Connection Designs and, no later than
90 days after receiving the City's approval of the construction documents,
shall submit the two cost estimates, along with information showing the basis
for the estimates, to the City for its review and approval. The City shall have
90 days from its receipt of the construction cost estimates to review and
determine whether to approve them.
(c) No later than 30 days after its approval of the construction cost estimates (the
"Trigger Deadline"), and based on the estimates, the City shall determine
whether it will assume responsibility for the amount of the difference between
(i) the actual cost of constructing the "Route 1/Monroe Avenue
Bridge/Potomac Avenue Connection Design -- Alternative Concept Design
Plan," using generally the construction documents approved by the City
pursuant to subparagraph (a), and (ii) the "adjusted-estimated cost" of the
"Route 1/Monroe Avenue Bridge/ Potomac Avenue Connection Design --
Concept Plan." The "adjusted-estimated cost" of the Concept Plan's design
shall be the estimated cost of the construction of this design, approved by the
City pursuant to subparagraph (b), multiplied by the fraction which has, as its
numerator, the actual cost of constructing the Alternative Concept Plan's
design for the "Route 1/Monroe Avenue Bridge/Potomac Avenue
Connection" and, as its denominator, the estimated cost of the construction
of that connection, approved by the City pursuant to subparagraph (b).
(d) If the City determines that it will assume responsibility for the amount of the
cost difference described in subparagraph (c), and if it conveys this
determination in writing to CAP on or before the Trigger Deadline, then the
Concept Plan shall no longer be of any force or effect, and shall be replaced
by the Alternative Concept Plan as the operative concept plan, under § 5-604
of the Zoning Ordinance, for the CDD. If the City determines that it will not
assume responsibility for the amount of the cost difference, or if it conveys no
determination to CAP before the Trigger Deadline, then the Concept Plan
shall remain the operative concept plan, under § 5-604 of the Zoning
Ordinance, for the CDD.
(e) If the City determines that it will assume responsibility for the amount of the
cost difference described in subparagraph (c), then it shall exercise that
responsibility either by constructing a portion of Potomac Avenue that has a
construction cost equal to the amount of the subparagraph (c) cost difference,
by contributing the amount of the cost difference toward the CAP's
construction of Potomac Avenue, or by otherwise making funds equal in
amount to the cost difference available for the construction of Potomac
Avenue. Whether the City constructs a portion of Potomac Avenue,
contributes toward the construction of Potomac Avenue or otherwise makes
funds available toward such construction is a determination to be made by the
City in its sole discretion.
General Conditions
2. Any preliminary development plan for the CDD, filed or pursued under § 5-605 of the Zoning
Ordinance, shall be consistent with, and shall meet all requirements which are part of, the
Concept Plan or, if in effect, the Alternative Concept Plan, including the design guidelines
which are part of the operative concept plan; provided, that no preliminary development plan
for any portion of the CDD to the west of the relocated rail lines and to the south of Howell
Avenue (extended into the CDD), and no site plan proposing a permitted or special use in this
portion of the CDD, may be filed or pursued by CAP prior to the Trigger Deadline.
3. CAP may transfer square footage that is approved in the Concept Plan or, if in effect, the
Alternative Concept Plan from one to another landbay, with the approval of the Director of
P&Z, subject to the following limitations:
(a) no transfer shall cause the net square footage of retail use or office use, or the number
of dwelling units, in a landbay (i.e., whether the transferor or transferee landbay) to
increase or decrease by 15% or more from the net retail square footage or the net
office square footage, or the number of dwelling units, approved for that landbay in
the Concept Plan or, if in effect, the Alternative Concept Plan;
(b) no transfer shall cause or result in the transfer of any square footage of retail use from
landbay "G" (the "Town Center"); and
(c) no transfer shall cause or result in a change to any element in or part of the Concept
Plan or, if in effect, the Alternative Concept Plan other than an increase or decrease
in the amount of retail or office use, or in the number of dwelling units, that is
consistent with subparagraph (a).
4. For purposes of these concept plan conditions, "retail" is defined to include retail shopping
establishments, restaurants, personal service establishments, banks, amusement enterprises,
health clubs and any other activity that involves a significant degree of pedestrian activity,
as determined by the Director of P&Z. Within landbay "G," space approved for "retail" use
shall only be occupied by retail use. In landbays other than landbay "G," space approved for
retail use may be utilized for a non-retail use if, after two years of continuous, reasonable
marketing efforts, the space remains vacant.
5. In addition to the preliminary development plan approval that is required for every building
constructed within the CDD pursuant to an approved concept plan, any use locating within
such a building, which is a "special use" under the regulations in effect at the time of this
concept plan approval for the CD, CG or CL zone in the City's Zoning Ordinance, shall obtain
a separate special use permit, pursuant to section 11-500 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Accessory residential units (e.g., Granny Flats) may be constructed within the CDD only if
they are counted as residential units and all required parking is provided.
Open Space Conditions
7. The following open spaces within the CDD shall, upon the completion of their improvements,
be dedicated by CAP to the City:
(a) the portion of Braddock Field, which is within Potomac Yard Park, as described in
the Concept Plan Design Guidelines and the Alternative Concept Plan Design
Guidelines (this portion of the field lies within the CDD and will be combined with
public land adjacent to the CDD to form the field that is to be improved by CAP);
(b) Monroe Field No. 1, which is within Potomac Yard Park, as in the Concept Plan
Design Guidelines and the Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines;
(c) Monroe Field No. 2, which is within Potomac Yard Park (a playfield that staff has
relocated from Potomac Greens to the Yard), as described in the Concept Plan Design
Guidelines and the Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines;
(d) the remainder of Potomac Yard Park (i.e., Potomac Yard Park, less the three fields
identified in subparagraphs (a) through (c); also referred to below as the "Potomac
Yard Linear Park"), as described in the Concept Plan Design Guidelines and the
Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines; and
(e) the portion of CAP's proposed Rail Park that is described in the Concept Plan Design
Guidelines and the Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines;
All improvements to these and other open spaces within the CDD, as described in the
Concept Plan Design Guidelines and the Alternative Concept Plan Design Guidelines,
including the portion of the improvements to Braddock Field that will occur on the public
property which is currently part of George Washington Middle School, shall be designed and
constructed, including with respect to infrastructure and uses, in conformance with the
Concept Plan Design Guidelines or, if in effect, the Alternative Concept Plan Design
Guidelines, and shall be completed in accordance with the schedule in paragraph 15 below.
The improvements to the open spaces identified in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above shall
be completed by CAP, and accepted by the City, prior to the space being dedicated to the
City. All dedicated open space, following its acceptance by the City, shall be maintained by
the City. The remainder of the open spaces in the CDD shall not be owned by the City, and
shall be privately maintained. However, a public access easement shall be provided for any
bike trail located on non-dedicated property within the CDD.
8. Landbay "E" (Four Mile Run) shall be made available by CAP for commercial recreational
uses, such as an ice rink, a tennis facility, a rock-climbing barn or a boating facility,
commencing with approval of this concept plan for the CDD; provided, that, to the extent the
approval of the National Park Service is necessary for such uses of this landbay, its approval
shall be obtained. Landbay "E" shall be made available for these commercial recreational uses
at rates that will attract and support them. If this landbay is not fully utilized in this manner
at the time that 2,000,000 square feet of CDD development, including the retail square
footage in landbay F (the Retail Center), has received final site plan approval, then CAP shall
submit to the City an alternative plan for the landbay which provides for the provision of
recreational amenities directly by CAP. Following final site plan approval for this 2,000,000
square feet of development, no applications for preliminary development approvals within the
CDD will be processed by the City until such an alternative plan for landbay "E" is presented
and approved.
Grading Condition
9. The portion of the CDD to the west of the relocated rail lines and to the south of Howell
Avenue (extended into the CDD), to the district's southern boundary, shall be graded so that
the grades in this part of the CDD are designed in accordance with good engineering practices
and blend gradually, without any abrupt changes, into the existing grades of the adjacent
neighborhoods and the George Washington Middle School.
Parking Conditions
10. No parking reductions shall be requested for any residential uses within the CDD, except for
"Granny Flats" where the requirement may only be reduced to one space per flat.
11. A minimum of 15% visitor parking, which may be on- or off-street, shall be provided for all
residential uses.
Phasing and Preliminary Development Plan Processing Conditions
12. The CDD Landbay, Infrastructure and Open Space Phasing Plan
(a) The very first preliminary development plan application that is filed for the CDD shall
be accompanied by a "CDD Landbay, Infrastructure and Open Space Phasing
Plan" (the "CDD Phasing Plan"), which shall be updated and submitted with each
subsequent preliminary development plan application that seeks approval of one or
more buildings or structures within the CDD. No such preliminary development plan
shall be approved unless the Director of P&Z and the Director of T&ES have
approved the CDD Phasing Plan which accompanies the development plan
application. The initial and each updated CDD Phasing Plan is intended to inform the
City of CAP's projections regarding the timing and nature of landbay, infrastructure
and open space construction activities, and to ensure that the construction of the
infrastructure systems identified below in subparagraph (b)(ii) is pursuant to a
comprehensive plan, covering the entire CDD, that has been approved by the City.
(b) The initial and each subsequent CDD Phasing Plan shall satisfy the following
conditions and requirements.
(i) As to landbays, the plan shall provide, for each landbay within the CDD, a
general outline of the landbay and CAP's most up-to-date projection of the
times when construction of the different land uses (.e., office, retail, hotel and
residential) described in the operative concept plan for the landbay is likely to
commence.
(ii) As to infrastructure, the plan shall provide, for each of the systems of
infrastructure identified below in this subparagraph, (x) the general location
and layout of the major components, or the backbone, of the system (such
components to be determined by the Director of T&ES), and (y) the times
when construction of these major system components is expected to
commence (provided, that the projected times for the commencement of
construction of these components shall be consistent with the schedule in
paragraph 15 below). The systems of infrastructure to be addressed are:
(A) the system of major streets to be constructed within the CDD, which
shall consist of the streets identified below in paragraph 15 and the
four major east-west streets to be constructed within the CDD (East
Glebe, Swann, Custis and Howell);
(B) the sanitary sewer system to be constructed within the CDD, including
the Trunk Sewer (as defined below in paragraph 22);
(C) the stormwater sewer system to be constructed within the CDD; and
(D) the utility systems to be constructed within the CDD (e.g., electricity,
water, gas, phone/communications and cable).
(iii) As to open spaces, the plan shall provide, as to each open space area
identified in the design guidelines (except neighborhood open spaces) for the
operative concept plan, (x) the general location of the open space, and (y) the
time when construction of the improvements to the open space is expected to
commence (provided, that the projected times for the commencement of
construction of the improvements shall be consistent with the schedule in
paragraph 15 below).
13. The Landbay Preliminary Infrastructure, Open Space and Use Plan
(a) The first preliminary development plan that proposes the construction of a building
or structure within a landbay in the CDD shall be accompanied by a "Landbay
Preliminary Infrastructure, Open Space and Use Plan" (the "Landbay Preliminary
Plan"). This plan shall (i) show, at a level of detail defined by the Director of T&ES,
all streets and sidewalks, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and utilities (e.g., electricity,
water, gas, phone/communications and cable), and any other infrastructure items
identified by the Director, that will be constructed within or otherwise to serve the
landbay, (ii) show all the open spaces within the landbay, whether public or private,
that are described in the operative concept plan, and (iii) show the general locations
within the landbay of the other uses identified for the landbay in the operative concept
plan. It is anticipated that the Director of T&ES will require the Landbay Preliminary
Plan at least to contain preliminary plans and profiles for the streets and sidewalks,
sanitary sewers, storm sewers and utilities to be constructed within or otherwise to
serve the landbay. The Landbay Preliminary Plan that accompanies the first
preliminary development plan for a landbay shall be submitted to City Council along
with the development plan, and shall be approved by Council in conjunction with its
approval of the development plan.
(b) Any subsequent preliminary development plan for the same landbay that requires or
involves modifications (including additions) to the previously approved Landbay
Preliminary Plan shall be accompanied by a new Preliminary Plan which includes all
such modifications and complies with subparagraph (a). This new plan shall be
submitted to City Council along with the preliminary development plan, and shall be
approved by Council in conjunction with its approval of the development plan.
(c) Within 60 days of the approval of any preliminary development plan for a landbay, the
Director of T&ES shall identify the components of the landbay's streets and
sidewalks, sanitary sewers, storm sewers and utilities (and other infrastructure items
identified by the Director under subparagraph (a)) that are shown in the approved
Landbay Preliminary Plan, and the components of the landbay's open spaces that are
shown in that Preliminary Plan, for which final engineering plans, profiles and, where
applicable, calculations shall be submitted along with the final site plan for the landbay
development that has just received development plan approval. No final site plan for
a building or structure within a landbay shall be released unless the Director of T&ES
has received as part of the final site plan submission, and has approved, the
engineering plans, profiles and calculations for the infrastructure and open space
components which the Director had identified.
14. The Directors of T&ES and P&Z may require that infrastructure, open spaces, land uses and
other matters located outside of the landbay that is the subject of a preliminary development
plan application also be shown and addressed in the application, if they deemed it necessary
to properly assess the proposed development plan.
15. Construction of the infrastructure and open space improvements identified in the schedule
below shall be commenced or completed in accordance with the dates or events in the
schedule, unless a variation from the schedule is approved by City Council in conjunction with
the approval of a preliminary development plan for the CDD. Following the completion of
their construction, the new streets and the improvements to existing streets, which are
identified in the schedule, shall be dedicated by CAP to the City.
Infrastructure Improvement Commencement or Completion
Date/Event
Streets
(a) Potomac Avenue (Spine Road) --------- Construction shall be completed before the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
earliest of the following:(9) (i) 800,000 square
feet of new office development in the portion
of the CDD west of the relocated rail lines
(including office development consisting of
interim, permitted and special uses), for which
final site plan approval is given after the date
of concept plan approval; (ii) for 1,750,000
square feet of any new development in this
portion of the CDD (including development
consisting of interim, permitted and special
uses, but excluding hotel uses), for which final
site plan approval is given after the date of
concept plan approval; or (iii) for 2,000,000
square feet of any new development in this
portion of the CDD and/or in the Arlington
County portion of the Potomac Yard
(including development consisting of interim,
permitted and special uses, but excluding hotel
uses), for which final site plan approval is
given after the date of concept plan approval
(b) Main Street ------------------------------- Construction shall occur in phases with each
landbay, and such construction shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for the landbay
(c) Route 1 Improvements(10) ------------------ Construction shall commence within 30 days
of final site plan approval for 250,000 square
feet of new development in the portion of the
CDD west of the relocated rail lines (including
development consisting of interim, permitted
and special uses), for which final site plan
approval has been given after the date of
concept plan approval, and shall thereafter be
diligently pursued to completion; provided,
that no construction shall occur between
Monroe Avenue and Windsor Avenue until
after the Trigger Deadline, and then only if the
Concept Plan remains the operative concept
plan following the deadline
(d) Monroe Avenue Bridge removal, ------ Demolition of the current bridge,
New Route 1 Connector and construction of the new connector
Monroe Avenue realignment(11) and realignment of Monroe Avenue shall be
completed before the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the earliest of the following:
(i) 800,000 square feet of new office
development in the portion of the CDD west
of the relocated rail lines (including office
development consisting of interim, permitted
and special uses), for which final site plan
approval is given after the date of concept plan
approval; (ii) for 1,750,000 square feet of any
new development in this portion of the CDD
(including development consisting of interim,
permitted and special uses, but excluding hotel
uses), for which final site plan approval is
given after the date of concept plan approval;
or (iii) for 2,000,000 square feet of any new
development in this portion of the CDD and/or
in the Arlington County portion of the
Potomac Yard (including development
consisting of interim, permitted and special
uses, but excluding hotel uses), for which final
site plan approval is given after the date of
concept plan approval
(e) East Glebe Road(12) ------------------------ Construction shall be completed by the date or
event described in the initial preliminary
development plan approval for landbay G
(f) Swann Avenue----------------------------- Construction shall be completed by the date or
event described in the initial preliminary
development plan approval for landbay H
(g) Custis Avenue ---------------------------- Construction shall be completed by the date or
event described in the initial preliminary
development plan approval for landbay I
(h) Howell Avenue --------------------------- Construction shall be completed by the date or
event described in the initial preliminary
development plan approval for landbay J
Sewers
(i) Trunk Sewer(13) (to the wastewater ------ See paragraphs 22 and 23 below
treatment plant operated by the
Alexandria Sanitation Authority)
(j) Collection System(14) ----------------------- See paragraph 24 below
(k) Stormwater sewers ----------------------- See paragraph 26 below
Stormwater Treatment
(l) Master stormwater quality concept----- See paragraph 27 below
plan
Open Space Improvement Commencement or Completion
Date/Event
(m) Braddock Field(15) ------------------------- Construction shall be completed within 12
months of the approval of this concept plan
(n) Monroe Fields (final fields) ------------- Construction shall be completed within 12
months of the Trigger Deadline
(o) Monroe Fields (interim fields)(16) -------- A plan for the construction of these fields shall
be submitted to the City within four months of
concept plan approval; construction shall
commence within three months of City
approval of such plan, and shall thereafter be
diligently pursued to completion
(p) Pedestrian Bridge across rail tracks ---- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "A," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(q) Potomac Yard Linear Park(17) ------------ Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of each landbay which is
adjacent to the Linear Park, and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for the landbay; provided, that
construction of the entire park shall be
completed before the approval by final site
plan of 2.5 million square feet of new
development within the CDD
(r) Rail Park ----------------------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "A," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(s) Potomac Greens Park -------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "A," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(t) Howell Park ------------------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "J," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(u) Swann Finger Park ----------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "H," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(v) Custis Finger Park ----------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "I," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
(w) Neighborhood Parks -------------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of the landbay in which the
particular neighborhood park is located, and
shall be completed by the date or event
described in the initial preliminary
development plan approval for the landbay
(x) Landbay "C" landscaping -------------- Construction shall occur in conjunction with
the development of landbay "A," and shall be
completed by the date or event described in
the initial preliminary development plan
approval for this landbay
16. A separate preliminary development plan shall be submitted by CAP for each of the open
space areas that is to be dedicated to the City (see paragraph 7 above). The plan shall be
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, pursuant to the provisions of
section 5-600 of the Zoning Ordinance.
17. A Potomac Yard Design Advisory Committee (the "PYDAC") shall be established to assist
the city in reviewing applications for preliminary development plan approval.
(a.) The PYDAC shall consist of five members to be appointed by City Council for
staggered terms of no more than two years each. The Committee shall include
representatives of residential neighborhoods and the business community and at least
two qualified professionals skilled in architecture, all from the City at large.
(b) The PYDAC shall be authorized to review applications for preliminary development
plan approvals for compliance with the "Potomac Yard Urban Design Guidelines,"
which are contained within the Concept Plan Design Guidelines or, if in effect, the
Alternative Concept Design Guidelines, and shall send its recommendations to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration.
(c) The Director of P&Z shall send a copy of any proposed preliminary developm