Working Group Meeting Access and Open Space Connectivity November - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Working Group Meeting

Access and Open Space Connectivity Subarea C & D

November 2, 2017 Parks Operations Bldg

2

Agenda

7:00pm Welcome 7:05pm Follow-up from Previous Meeting(s) County Board Action on Shirlington Road Properties 7:20pm Presentation: Stream Access & Open Space Connectivity Working Group Discussion / Feedback 8:00pm Presentation: Subareas C & D Considerations Working Group Discussion / Feedback 8:45pm Public Comment 9:00pm Adjournment

3

Stream Access & Open Space Connectivity

4

Big Ideas Community Forum:

• Create better public access to the Run
• “Promenade” along the Run
• Increase transportation safety (ped / bike)

Visioning Workshop:

• Create walkway along the Run
• Improve access for pedestrians and cyclists

Existing Connectivity Network

Existing & Proposed Network

Designed or Planned Bridge Improvements

Potential Promenade Concept

Idea:

• Desire for exposure

/connection to nature

• Alternate route
• Connection between

and thru Barcroft and Jennie Dean Parks Issues:

• Potential RPA impacts
• Cost
• Access / ROW
• Conflict with Shirlington

Dog Park

7

Proposed Walkway Along Stream (Promenade)

9Potential Promenade Location DMV Barcroft Park

10

Potential Promenade Location

Existing Path; No public easement

11

Potential Promenade Location

Existing Path; No public easement

Thoughts: Long-term idea

• Study how/whether a promenade can be

implemented

• Environmental impact
• Cost
• Assess potential impact on parking / circulation –

redevelopment unlikely

• Work with the community and property owners on

design

• Over time, work with property owners to

create access

12

Existing Overlooks / Access / Trail Network

Proposed Overlooks / Access / Trail Improvements

Proposed Overlooks / Access / Trail Improvements

Proposed Overlooks / Access / Trail Improvements

Proposed Overlooks / Access / Trail Improvements

Existing Trail Hierarchy and Materials

Proposed Trail Hierarchy and Materials

Proposed Trail Hierarchy and Materials

Questions?

22

Potential Future Land Uses:

Area Plan Concepts

Subareas C & D

23

Working Group Feedback

Concerns:

• Potential loss of industrial uses
• Why residential? / Too much residential
• Too tall, too intense for this area / Not enough open spaces
• What about the Nauck Branch?
• Traffic impact?

Area Plan Concept 1: Retention & Adaptive Reuse

24

draft

Preserve Existing Uses Existing & Arts Oriented Uses Greater Scale and Broader Uses Allie S. Freed Park & Natural Area Lomax A. M.E. Zion Church Transition Area

Area Plan Concept 2: Moderate Change

25

draft

Preserve Existing Uses Existing & Arts Oriented Uses Greater Scale and Broader Uses Allie S. Freed Park & Natural Area Lomax A. M.E. Zion Church Transition Area

26

Existing Zoning

27

Existing Zoning, Key Provisions

• RA-H: This classification of land use provides for apartment houses or

townhouses, or hotel with special approval.

• Height: 35’ max, or 125’ max with special exception
• Lot coverage: 50% max.
• M-1, M-2: Allow a broader array of uses than Limited Industrial (CM), which

has the following purpose: to provide areas for light manufacturing, wholesale businesses and distribution centers and other uses inappropriate to residential

• r service business areas.
• Height: 75 feet max
• FAR: 1.5 max
• C-2: The purpose of this classification is to provide locations for commercial

development where the variety in retail, service and office uses is intended to serve a broad-based community. C-2 Districts should be developed as linear commercial and be located primarily along principal arterial streets.

• Height: 45’ max
• FAR: 1.5 max
• 10% of the site is required to be landscaped open space

28

Evaluating Existing Zoning

Subareas C & D: Existing Conditions

By- Right Development Constraints:

• Height / density
• Parking
• Site setbacks / lot coverage

29

Evaluating Existing Zoning

Subareas C & D: Existing Conditions

M-1 RA-H C-2

RA 7-16

30

Evaluating Existing Zoning

Subareas C & D: Examples of potential development under existing zoning

M-1

Height: 75’ max FAR: 1.5

RA-H

Height: 35’ max. Lot coverage: 50% max.

C-2

Height: 45’ max FAR: 1.5 10% open space

31

Finding a Balance

Maximum Potential

Too Dense / Too Tall Traffic Impacts

Plan Recommendation

By- Right Potential

Single Use Uncoordinated

32

Potential Area Plan Recommendations

• Provide guidance for future development
• Effective if providing incentive over by-right

development

• Achieve planning goals (“good planning principles”)
• Use / use mix
• Transportation
• Urban design
• Environmental / open space
• Underlying zoning unchanged / existing uses and by-right
• ptions would still be permitted

33

Planning Goals

(”good planning principles”)

• Appropriate height / density – existing context
• Use / use mix - retain industrial potential
• Transportation – break up superblock
• Accommodate all modes
• Pedestrian access
• Alternate vehicular routes
• Urban design
• Building placement / architecture
• Streetscape
• Environmental – Nauck Branch

34

Page from Nauck Village Center Action Plan

Height Recommendations?

35

Potential for Change Over Time

Shirlington Rd

Key Land Holdings

36

Potential for Change Over Time

Shirlington Rd

Potential Road Network – Suggested in Nauck Revitalization Plan

Nauck Branch

38

Massing Models

• Massing models are used to examine scale
• Market analysis - assumptions are made about likely

development scenarios

• Using realistic building types / footprints
• Near term vs. long term challenge
• What would work today?
• How could the real estate market change over

time?

• “Good planning principles” are applied

39

Subarea D: Concept 2, Moderate Change

June 2017 draft

Studying Alternatives: June 2017 Concept

Shirlington Rd

1 2 3 5 4

Potential for Change Over Time

Subarea C: Potential future development

Potential for Change Over Time

Shirlington Rd

Subarea C: Option for greater height along highway

Questions?