Pentagon City Study – Issues with the Draft plan

The following are comments on the first draft of the Pentagon City Planning Study released in July.

Flexibility Vs Vagueness

Overall, a theme of the PDSP is to allow a great deal of flexibility for developers. This means things like sidewalk and road widths, parking ratios, etc are provided with goals that will be hard to compare to an actual site plan once presented. While developers have asked for more ability to shape their sites to changing markets over the years, and ideally this would result in more creative and interesting properties, this also has the potential to create real conflict between community expectations and what developers eventually propose. It also makes it fairly difficult to react to the overall draft plan.

One option to consider is to have additional site-specific PDSPs for River House, the Fashion Centre and Brookfield sites. This would allow the owners of those specific sites to work with the county and community on more specific details and visions that are higher level than a SPRC and at an earlier date. This has helped evaluation of PenPlace and Metropolitan Park, and also is the reasoning for why the Pentagon Centre area is absent from this plan. Additional PDSPs could fill in the holes, such as the details on the future public ways that do not receive specific details in the plan.

Additionally, there is extremely little detail on the Westpost/Simon sites, even compared to the high level information about the others. Presumably this is because development may be some years out. Still, this means that the community will have little to work from compared to other sites. This area particularly would be in the most need of its own PDSP before any development occurs. 

Again, the vagueness of the document makes it difficult to understand what the future will hold. There is a call for “rooms” and for “equality” without specificity or measurement for what these actually mean. What activities for different groups are being met by existing needs and what groups do not have their needs met by current parks and need them met. What purposes will these rooms fill and how will they be different than existing park space? Only the green ribbon receives some level of specificity, though it is unclear whether this is a suggestion or something that will be enforced through the SPRC process. But key elements like sidewalk and road widths, or how bike lane safety will be ensured, are left with key questions unanswered. 

Longer Term Planning and Timeline

The report makes mention of additional planning steps to be taken, such as a Virginia Highland Park master park plan, new school, Hayes street and beyond. However, it is not clear when and how these studies will occur, or what circumstances will prompt them. The site-specific community benefits identified in the study are very limited, primarily to open space and transportation improvements, leaving other community needs potentially unfunded without county intervention. Any community improvement that is anticipated to be funded by the county or other sources should be clearly summarized in one section of the PDSP. The summary should identify, additionally, what county planning documents, such as components of the Comprehensive Plan, will be updated as a result.

Preferably, this section should identify which items in the PDSP will be actually determined in the future. For example, the draft includes an image depicting a new gateway to VHP, replacing existing parking. This, presumably, would be determined through the park master planning process, as indicated by the label, but it would be better if indicated more specifically in the narrative.

In presentations, the county has presented what a phased approach, based on current developer expectations, to implementing the added density in the PDSP, would look like over time. Similarly, the PDSP should include a timeline in narrative form, beyond the appendix, that addresses when additional planning efforts will happen, as well as community improvements identified throughout the plan. 

County Investments

In the above timeline and in its own section in the report, the PDSP must make clear what community improvements and public realm additions are tied to specific development projects as a community benefit in-exchange for the density, and which ones will be undertaken by the county as either part of normal funding cycles or as part of the CIP. Currently, it partly accomplishes the former, but does not address the later. This request has been made repeatedly without clear response as to whether it will happen. For example, there are a number of street improvements around sites that have recently developed or are not expected to redevelop in the near future. We must understand if the county will take on these improvements and when, or if additional planning is required to know these details. While there is some logic in flexibility for developers, considering the county is developing the PDSP, we would expect detail on what it is committing to for the neighborhood. 

Impact of Increased Density on Existing Facilities

The PDSP alludes to potential new facilities, such as expanding VHP, a potential new school, potential low level transportation improvements, etc. But it does not contain a clear analysis about how many people would be expected to join the neighborhood under different development scenarios and timelines, how those new residents could impact the capacity of existing public facilities and how the county will ensure standards and services are met. The PDSP should include this discussion, including a review of what facilities currently serve the area in key sectors, like schools, recreation, sewers, etc, and what their current use capacity is and how the county will respond to new development scenarios by increasing those services. For example, while it’s positive that a new school is mentioned, though at a very high level, there is not detail about what level of new students would trigger its creation. Yes, separate processes exist for these decisions, but this should be a holistic planning document.

Green Ribbon

The green ribbon is a good and desired feature of the PDSP, given that a network of green pathways has been a priority for the Livability 22202 initiative. Such a pathway will be a valuable community amenity that encourages pedestrian travel and creates a biophilic experience. The PDSP should be clear about what the Ribbon is and isn’t. For example, the Ribbon is not open space or park space, or for the most part, a destination for public use.  Nor does it replace those needs. Because it is primarily focused on a pleasant pedestrian experience, beyond the general elements mentioned, it should have a clear symbol or branding that can be visibly seen to encourage way-finding and desirability. Similarly, given that the draft notes elements of Arlington’s Green Cities application, the ribbon should also incorporate educational, such as historical or natural information, elements and signage. The PDSP should also address safety in the green ribbon, beyond lighting. Given this will be a pathway potentially lined by thick greenery, users must feel safe at all hours. 

As previously mentioned, the Green Ribbon design guidelines should address seasonality of plantings. It should also discuss identification of which entities will maintain the plantings and other elements.

The Green Ribbon at the Brookfield site is a pedestrian pathway, rather than a park or plaza and should not be counted as such in total acreage, nor should other parts of the Ribbon. Pedestrian pathways are important and valuable to the community, but they are not parks and it would be concerning if the county planning process began counting them as such. A recent example, for example, is the recently approved Crystal Plaza 1 project. JBG successfully included a pedestrian passageway as a community benefit, despite skepticism from the community. However, this passageway explicitly did not count towards park space identified in the CCSP. We should not shift towards such areas being seen as substitutes for true publicly usable space.   

Park Space

The PDSP does not explain why it is beneficial to relocate GMHP and combine it with VHP. While a park master plan process would determine its use, the PDSP doesn’t even provide a vision or path to this effect, leaving the neighborhood unclear as to its purpose. This change creates a new, awkwardly winding Joyce street, rather than improving on the existing GMHP. The plaza or otherwise activated space on the existing southern portion of GMHP is very vague, giving the developer a lot of latitude for what it could be. There is a significant difference to the community between a library and retail restaurants. It would be better to improve and expand GMHP, creating a connection of green, usable spaces that extend through the growing River House complex, rather than simply further concentrate the limited open space in one park. 

The clearer connection to Prospect Hill Park north of River House, with more than a pedestrian pathway but some actual park space, is an improvement on previous drafts, and does speak more to that interconnection of parks. 

Overall, the county should also contemplate whether purchasing land is appropriate when community benefits will not meet the expected need for parks and other community space. It should not limit itself to only the land that developers are willing to provide in exchange for density.

Mode Shift

The plan acknowledges that we must shift the number of people using cars in our neighborhood if future development is to be feasible. Yet there are few bold plans for actually making that happen. There is only one vague reference to a new entrance to the Metro, the most likely non-car mode for many in the neighborhood, and the big east-west street right next to the existing entrance, 12th, will not have bike lanes. We should be much more aggressive in achieving a neighborhood that decenters cars and significantly invests in public transportation, micromobility, bikes and pedestrians.

The plan envisions monitoring but makes no clear commitments for how and when monitoring will happen. The civic association has struggled for years to achieve the associated traffic study with this plan and should not need to struggle again for followup on this PDSP. The county should commit specifically to how and when transportation and traffic analysis will occur to ensure the neighborhood understands what to expect. 

Density

While it’s appreciated that the plan includes step back density in River House from the existing neighborhoods, the plan may result in still large buildings that impact, via shadows and viewsheds, existing houses in both the lower density Highlands and the existing highrises on the Ridge. The county should consider evaluating development in this area using more traditional bulk plane angle methods to minimize these impacts. In addition, it is unclear why the draft uses FAR for density in other portions of the area, but uses units per acre, which is much harder for comparisons, for River House. The final product should have a FAR set for different (south, middle, north) portions of that property. 

For Brookfield, the 55% maximum building coverage over 5 stories seems restrictive. This is an area of the neighborhood where building heights can be maximized. If Brookfield is better able to accomplish community improvements with a higher height coverage scenario, given they have indicated achieving the green ribbon will be a challenge, that should be considered, as long as there is also variation in building heights and minimized shadow impacts on public areas. 

Land Use Mix

The draft says, “Where office building(s) are proposed, at least one additional building with a significant residential, hotel or weekend/ evening destination use should be already present or proposed on same block.” While not objecting to this framework, PenPlace as proposed does not comply with this concept. The document will not be trustworthy from the start if it is proposing concepts that are in direct conflict with plans already likely to be approved. This reflects criticism from the community about that site’s campus-like feel.

Community Benefits

The PDSP’s listed community benefits should clearly be listed as not fully inclusive of what a site plan’s benefits actually end up being. A developer should not see the PDSP’s suggestions here as a maximum to be pointed to and fulfilled, but rather a minimum to be built on. 

Site Coverage

It is confusing that half the 10/15% planting minimums can be achieved above grade, particularly because the alternative planting option appears to also meet this requirement. There should be a clear minimum at grade plantings standard, with anything else in the other category. It would be helpful to also understand what this could look like by seeing examples of what the percentage is on existing sites, to understand what the proposed rates would achieve in comparison.

Tour Buses

Based on comments in the focus groups and community hours, a lot of deference is being given to the owners of the giant tour buses that take up valuable curb space in our neighborhood that could be dedicated to more locally oriented uses, as well as to those that benefit from them. These are public spaces that are essentially being ceded to private use for those who do not live here. Both of these elements should be added as clear directions for the future.

Pick Up Drop Off

The PDSP identifies this as an area for further study, without elaborating why. Instead, if further study is required, the final document should at leasts make clear PUDO principles that prioritize bikes and pedestrians over vehicles. PenPlace’s proposed model of having a designated off-street PUDO area could be a good model for other sites, for example. 

Sustainable Design

While stormwater management is mentioned in the opening paragraph in this section, it does not have a bullet point. The final draft should include, in addition to the other important elements listed, the need for projects to identify stormwater mitigation. 

Affordable Housing

While affordable housing contributions are mentioned, the plan does little to address the issue of housing in 22202. Cash contributions instead of on-site units should be directed to address housing sustainability in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, it would be good if the concept could envision some portion of River House being used for supportive or otherwise unmet housing needs for specific populations. The desire for 3 bedroom, accessible and potential to own units is a positive inclusion.

Upper Floor Public Realm Encroachment

The Livability Housing report recommended that new housing should encourage community, in part by the use of balconies, stoops, porches and other semi-private areas that encourage neighborly interaction. New development with larger balconies that meet these goals could go beyond the two feet proposed. In addition, separately from the upper realm, when retail is not envisioned in residential projects, porches and individual entrances, appropriately set back from the sidewalk, should be considered.

Southampton 

I’ll note that when I shared the proposed plan with residents of Southampton on our facebook group, the primary reaction was concern that maps show the green ribbon going through our property. There are no plans for Southampton to spend its limited funds on implementing the green ribbon and there is no desire to encourage the public to walk through this private property. The rendering of public ways through Southampton should be eliminated.

Category: Uncategorized