Rosslyn Sector Plan County Board Work Session July 7, 2015 Outline of Presentation

1. Introduction - background 2. Methodology and Public Process (establishment of the view corridors building of the model, the criteria/goals, process panel/subcommittee review) 3. Fly through and fixed views from Observation Deck (including descriptions of the landmarks visible as outlined in the draft plan) 4. Opportunity to navigate model

2 1. INTRODUCTION Project Scope Elements related to Building Height

In 2011, the County Board approved a scope of work for the study to address these issues related to Building Height:

. Whether, and under what circumstances should new buildings be allowed to pierce the current 300 feet maximum in certain places (outside of Central Place)?

. What are the recommended maximum building heights for individual blocks in Rosslyn?

. What policies can be established to balance the sometimes competing interests of view corridors, skyline composition, etc.?

. How can building height help contribute to better conditions on the ground-plane?

. What is the proper balance between prescription and flexibility with regards to all building height issues?

. What strategies can be used to help achieve appropriate transitions between the core of Rosslyn and its edges? 1. INTRODUCTION Existing Planning and Zoning for Height in Rosslyn

Heading into this study, the planning policies and zoning regulations that currently influence building height in Rosslyn include:

. “C-O Rosslyn” Zoning District provisions

. 2002 County Board Resolution on Building Height in Rosslyn

. 2007 County Board Resolution on Central Place

. Central Place Site Plan 335 and its Public Observation Deck 1. INTRODUCTION “C-O Rosslyn” Zoning District

. “C-O Rosslyn” District: Development Parameters (established 1996)

. By-Right Projects Maximum Height: 35 feet

. Special Exception Site Plan (standard site plan) Maximum Height: 153 feet (office), 180 feet (residential or hotel)

. Special Exception Site Plan (provisions for additional height) Maximum Height: up to 300 feet (or up to 400+/- feet in Central Place) 1. INTRODUCTION 2002 Resolution

2002 Resolution Governing Building Heights in Rosslyn

. Further articulates goals of General Land Use Plan and 1992 Rosslyn Station Area Plan Addendum

– Greatest building heights closest to Metro

– Tapering of building heights further away from Metro

– Consider impact on “view corridors”

– Design of building tops should consider impact on skyline 1. INTRODUCTION 2007 Resolution

2007 Resolution on Urban Design Principles for Rosslyn Central Place

(Prompted by review of development proposals for two Central Place blocks, and associated zoning ordinance amendment)

. Views from any public observation deck within Central Place should be preserved

. Calls for sculpted rooftop designs and significant tapering in height and form

. Reinforced incorporation of significant community benefits with additional density and height 1. INTRODUCTION ProjectCentral Schedule Place – Site Plan 335

Site Plan Amendment approved in May 2007

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

. 377 Residential Units

Office . 570,000 square feet of Office GFA

. 44,500 square feet Retail GFA

. Mid-block Public Plaza

. Public Observation Deck

8 1. INTRODUCTION ProjectCentral Schedule Place – Site Plan 335

Public observation deck included as $14 million community benefit

= 360 degree public view opportunities (to be reflected in corrected inset maps in sector plan)

9 1. INTRODUCTION ProjectSummary Schedule of Introductory Points . When “C-O Rosslyn” first established, no clear guidance for where in the RCRD the 300’ building height would be appropriate

. 2002 Resolution introduced the “Taper Policy”, with tallest buildings at Metro and heights tapering down further from Metro

. 2007 Resolution made note of importance of protecting views from any observation deck within Central Place

. In 2007, County Board approved Central Place site plan, which included public observation deck as major community benefit

. Taper policy has yet to be tested at the edge sites

. With these actions, more clear guidance is needed on how much building height is appropriate for different areas of the RCRD 10 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectMethodology Schedule and Public Process

. Process Panel / Subcommittee review . Planning goals / Evaluation Criteria . Establishment of the view corridors and other Framework guidance . Building of the 3D computer model (including assumptions) . Preliminary modeling demonstrates constraints of Taper Policy . More refined modeling of proposed Peaks and Valleys policy

11 2. METHODS AND PROCESS Project SchedulePublic Process

2013 . Initial round of modeling and public meetings April 2014 . Framework adopted Summer/Fall 2014 . 5 subcommittee meetings to review additional modeling March 2015 . Count Board work session Ongoing meetings with stakeholders

12 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectRosslyn Schedule Plan Framework

Policy Directive: Develop a new building heights policy and regulatory framework for Central Rosslyn that incorporates varied building heights across the district and advances the following principles more effectively than the current general taper policy: . Sensitive edge transitions . Observation deck view corridors . Ground level view corridors . Sun/shade . Great public open spaces . Marketable buildings

13 2. METHODS AND PROCESS PrioritizingProject ScheduleObservation Deck View Corridors

Board content from October 2013 workshop 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ObservationProject Deck Schedule View Corridors and Edge Transitions 2. METHODS AND PROCESS Project ScheduleBlock Structure

16 2. METHODS AND PROCESS Project Schedule Building the 3D Computer Model (Assumptions)

Overview . Framework Plan . Policy directives . View corridors and edge transitions . Street and open space network . Potential densities based on full site area (land parcels) . Work with best available information on airspace/FAA . Model building shapes and sizes that can work for the market . Assume below-grade parking, in estimating density yields . Target an FAR minimum of 8.0, ideally between 9.0 and 10.0 FAR

17 2. METHODS AND PROCESS BuildingProject the ModelSchedule – SketchUp and County Data

. County GIS . Planimetric data . Topographic data . Parcel data . Sketchup 3D modeling . Existing/approved sites

Existing buildings likely to redevelop Existing buildings likely to remain Approved buildings

18 2. METHODS AND PROCESS Building theProject Model Schedule – Densities based on full site area

• Key Point: Lower height does not necessarily mean lower density

Maximum Ground floor footprint Site area per land parcel(s)

1901 N. Moore St. 1400 Wilson Blvd. Ground floor: Site area = 100% Ground floor: Site area = 61% Modeled FAR: 10± Modeled FAR: 9.0± Height: 260’ Height: 260’

19 2. METHODS AND PROCESS BuildingProject the Model Schedule – Airspace/FAA Considerations ASSUMPTION: . Explore potential heights in the RCRD up to a maximum of 470’ above sea level (asl)

– Same elevation as tops of Central Place Office and 1812 N Moore

– Understood as upper building limits relating to FAA and TERPS

– No known precedent of FAA “approving” any building above 470’ ASL in RCRD

– FAA consideration of including OEI into standard reviews is pending

20 2. METHODS AND PROCESS BuildingProject the Schedule Model – Marketable Buildings

ASSUMPTION:

. Floorplates that work for their intended uses – Office: 20,000sf-30,000sf 100-120’ wide, (deeper w/ atrium); 13’ high floors – Housing/hotel: 8,000sf min.10,000sf+ preferred 60’ -70’ deep (up to 100-110’ possible) 10’-11’ high floors . Maximize opportunity for views out . Separate towers at least 60’ . Incorporate diverse use and form . Multiple program options

21 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectBuilding Schedule the Model – Parking

ASSUMPTION: . County generally promotes below-grade parking near Metro

. Bedrock conditions in eastern Rosslyn have resulted in some above grade parking in some instances

. Studies and models assumed all parking provided below grade, to estimate density yields consistently

22 2. METHODS AND PROCESS BuildingProject the Model Schedule – Target density at/near 10 FAR

ASSUMPTION: . Densities generally approaching 9-10 FAR may be most effective in incentivizing redevelopment . Exact FAR needed to build a “C-O Rosslyn” site plan will depend on a number of factors

23 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectFindings: Schedule Drawbacks of Taper Policy

. As modeled, average FAR of future development sites is approximately 7.5 FAR . Constrains FAR at edge sites, limiting project feasibility . Could yield broad, boxy buildings One Example of the Modeled Taper Policy . Less opportunities for open space and space between towers 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectFindings: Schedule Drawbacks of Taper Policy Wilson Blvd. sections looking north Minimizing height to achieve real taper (with Rosslyn’s slope) may reduce density to Scenario: height a point of stalling or tapered; FAR reduced to fit precluding redevelopment

Maximizing development potential while applying current taper policy would yield broad, boxy buildings – Scenario: height minimized; FAR in some cases with maximized (FAR 10) unmarketable floor plates

A Peaks and Valleys alternative with varied height could optimize overall Scenario: height varies performance of building form higher/lower; FAR maximized (FAR 8-10) 25 2525 2. METHODS AND PROCESS How areProject “Peak” Schedule and “Valley” areas determined

PEAKS, general influences . Areas outside of priority obs. deck view corridors . Areas away from edge transitions . Sites that need additional height due to accommodation of streets and/or public spaces . Central Place block as a foundational peak

VALLEYS, general influences . Areas within priority obs. deck view corridors . Areas close to edge transitions . Sites that need relatively less height due to building on most/all of their sites

OTHER FACTORS . Valleys needed to create contrast among peaks and preserve priority view corridors . Aim for minimum 30’-40’ height difference between

peaks and valleys for legibility 26 2. METHODS AND PROCESS More RefinedProject Modeling Schedule of Peaks and Valleys options Reviewed with and evaluated by Process Panel Subcommittee on Building Height and Form

SCENARIO A (9.5 FAR avg) SCENARIO B (9.5 FAR avg) SCENARIO C (8.8 FAR avg) • Least height variation • Moderate height variation • Most height variation • Most sites at 470’ ASL • Fewer sites at 470’ ASL • Fewest sites at 470’ ASL • Variation through multiple • Variation through height • Greater height contrast tower sites contrasts on nearby sites among nearby sites

Key Comments Key Comments Key Comments • Perpetuates status quo • Form and massing better • Form and massing preferred • 10 FAR not to be assumed • 10 FAR not to be assumed over A & B on all sites on all sites • Skyline better, not great • FARs promising for • FARs promising for • FARs too low for projects, redevelopment redevelopment • Sites treated differently

27 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProposedProject Schedule Peaks and Valleys Scenario

Balances variety of goals and criteria

• Achieves considerable height variation

• Supports FARs at levels that should encourage redevelopment

• Establishes several peaks across RCRD (outside of priority view corridors)

• Pattern of greater and lesser heights help achieve benefits of Peaks and Valleys

28 2. METHODS AND PROCESS More RefinedProject Modeling Schedule of Peaks and Valleys options Criteria A B C Proposed Ground level view corridors

Observation deck priority views Good views from all buildings

Good daylight access to buildings Sensitive edge transitions (neighborhood, park, river) Sun/shade opportunities Varied building heights / skyline Great open space and additional circulation opportunities Marketable sites, multiple-use options Land use mix

Composite 29 2. METHODS AND PROCESS ProjectProposed Schedule Scenario: FAR • 70% of redevelopment sites modeled at 9 FAR or above in the illustrative model for Peaks and Valleys • Average of 9.2 FAR density yield modeled across redevelopment sites in RCRD • Most sites below 9 FAR challenged by distinctive site conditions

Estimated Density Yield by Site, as modeled

8.0-9.0

FAR Range FAR 9.0-9.5

9.5-10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30 DevelopmentProject Characteristics Schedule and Land Use

Potential Illustrative Development Characteristics (square feet) Rosslyn Sector Plan Land Use – Ultimate Build Out Building Use Existing Existing/Approved New Construction Build Out Office 8,107,000 9,582,000 7,294,000 11,859,000 Retail 426,000 576,000 468,000 698,000 Residential 635,000 1,971,000 4,193,000 5,867,000 Hotel 681,000 740,000 590,000 852,000 Other 119,000 100,000 0 30,000 TOTAL 9,968,000 12,969,000 12,545,000 19,306,000

Existing, 2015, RCRD

4% 1% 4% 1% 4% 4% 6% 7% 15% 6% 44% 29% 81% 74% 49% 62% 5% 4% 31 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project3. ScheduleObservation Deck Views

32 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

33 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ProjectProposed Schedule Building Height Limits

34 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ProjectObservation Schedule Deck Guidance

. Modeled views from various vantage points in the Observation Deck, with key landmarks labeled . Includes text description of views and landmarks . Should be used as guidance for evaluating future site plan proposals to ensure views are preserved

35 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

View east towards Monumental Core Foreground landmarks that should remain visible from the northeast quadrant of the public observation deck include: [1] Land along the east bank of the from 1 the southernmost building 1 1 of the Watergate 2 2 2 Complex south to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge.

Foreground landmarks that should remain visible from the southeast quadrant of the public observation deck include: [2] The east bank of the Potomac River, an unbroken Recent balloon photo from observation deck level (image Courtesy JBG Companies) line of treetops along the (Approximated view, for illustrative purposes only) eastern edge of Theodore Roosevelt Island, and intervening portion of the Potomac River, south of the . 36 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

View east towards Monumental Core Key landmarks to remain visible from along the eastern edge of the observation deck include: 5 4 [1] The southernmost 3 7 building of the Watergate 6 2 8 Complex (600 New 1 Hampshire Avenue, NW) [2] Kennedy Center [3] Old Post Office [4] US Capitol Building [5] [6] [7] [8] Arlington Memorial Bridge

Recent balloon photo from observation deck level (image Courtesy JBG Companies) (Approximated view, for illustrative purposes only)

37 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project Schedule Observation Deck Views (ESE toward Monumental Core)

Estimated view from observation deck at ±354’ building height (±437’ asl)

5 3 4 7 6 2 8

38 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project Schedule Observation Deck Views (east toward DC)

Estimated view from observation deck at ±354’ building height (±437’ asl)

5

3 4

6 2

1

39 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

View south towards Iwo Jima, Cemetery, other

Key landmarks to remain visible from along the southern edge of the 3 4 observation deck include: 1 [1] Pentagon [2] National Marine Corps Memorial (“Iwo Jima”) 2 [3] Air Force Memorial [4] Custis Mansion environs

Recent balloon photo from observation deck level (image Courtesy JBG Companies) (Approximated view, for illustrative purposes only)

40 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project Schedule Observation Deck Views (south toward Cemetery)

Estimated view from observation deck at ±354’ building height (±437’ asl)

1 3

4

2

41 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

View north towards Cathedral Key landmarks to remain visible from the northwestern quadrant of the public observation deck include: [1] The National Cathedral [2] Healy Hall at [3] The Potomac River 1 [4] Portions of Gateway Park, Rosslyn Circle and the George Washington Memorial Parkway 2

6 Key landmarks to remain visible from the northeastern quadrant of the public observation deck include: 5 [1] The National Cathedral 3 [5] The Francis Scott Key Bridge [6] Former Car Barn at north End of Francis 4 Scott Key Bridge (currently occupied by 4 Georgetown University) [3] The Potomac River [4] Portions of the George Washington Memorial Parkway

Recent balloon photo from observation deck level (image Courtesy JBG Companies) (Approximated view, for illustrative purposes only)

42 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project Schedule Observation Deck Views (north toward Georgetown/Lynn)

Estimated view from observation deck at ±354’ building height (±437’ asl)

1

6

3 5

4

43 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS Project Schedule Observation Deck Views (north toward Georgetown/Ft. Myer)

Estimated view from observation deck at ±354’ building height (±437’ asl)

1

2

3

4

44 3. OBSERVATION DECK VIEWS ObservationProject Schedule Deck Priority View Corridors

View northwest towards Potomac River Gorge

Potomac River Gorge

(Approximated view, for illustrative purposes only) 45 4. NAVIGATE 3D MODEL ProjectNavigating Schedule the 3D Model

46 4. NAVIGATE 3D MODEL Project ScheduleDISCUSSION

(image Courtesy JBG Companies)

47