Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arlington board approves site-plan tweaks for Harris Teeter project after neighbors press developer on trees and height
Summary
The County Board unanimously approved a site-plan amendment for phase 2–3 of the Harris Teeter block (SP315), allowing the developer to reconfigure interior floor uses and keep the previously approved building height while removing one residential floor; nearby Hyde Park residents pressed the developer for lower height and replacement landscaping after tree removals.
The Arlington County Board on Nov. 18 approved an amendment to the Harris Teeter site plan (SP315) at 600 North Glebe Road and 520 North Tazewell Street that adjusts interior building configurations in Buildings 2 and 3 and keeps previously approved maximum heights.
The board's action followed a staff presentation and extended public testimony by Hyde Park Condominium residents who said the project's changes have reduced green buffers and would further limit sunlight and views. Resident Daniel Bluestone urged the board to require the developer to lower the new Building 3 by 10 feet, saying, "If they can remove a floor, they can reduce the height by 10 feet" and arguing the one-floor change should yield a shorter elevation for neighbors.
Applicant representative Evan Pritchard told the board the developer removed one residential level from Building 3 but kept the same overall permitted height by increasing floor-to-floor heights to make units marketable and to change the structural system to concrete. Pritchard said rooftop mechanical equipment remains screened and that green-roof commitments will be delivered. He said the project exceeded the tree-coverage requirement and planned to replace three linden trees and add eight serviceberry trees, reporting the site would meet roughly 16.4% tree coverage compared with the 10% minimum.
Neighbors questioned whether trees shown on early plans were reasonably preserved during construction and whether transformer locations required by Dominion Energy forced trees out of the Tazewell Street planting plan. County planning staff (Aaron Schreiber) explained that the approved landscape conditions allow alternatives when unforeseen construction or utility issues prevent planting in the exact plan locations; in those cases, applicants either must pay into the county's tree canopy fund or relocate replacement trees on-site, and the developer said it had coordinated with the urban forester to replant trees in the future public park delivered with the final phase.
Board members pressed applicants on construction timing, tree protection, and whether the changes constituted only interior modifications. Architect Jan Mikovnik said the orientation and structural system evolved through the phased design; Pritchard and the architect described changes to transfer and floor heights required to meet marketable ceiling heights while not exceeding permitted maximum elevation.
After debate, Board Member Maureen Coffey moved approval of the amendment as set out in the Nov. 7 staff report; Vice Chair de Ferrante seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
What happens next: the developer must satisfy the site plan conditions (landscape plan, green-roof installation where required, and public-park delivery); final certificates of occupancy for the phase 2 building remain tied to completion of the public park required by the full site plan.
