ARCA MEMBERSHIP MEETING DISCUSSION OF VORNADO’S RIVER HOUSE
PROPOSAL
JULY 16, 2015
Discussion of Vornado’s River House Proposal with County Staff Member Anthony Fusarelli
Vornado is currently seeking county permission to build an additional 1084 units and have retail
on the River House property. The plan includes an additional four buildings, one of which is
entirely affordable housing.
As the Crystal City-Pentagon City-Potomac Yard Planning Coordinator, Mr. Fusarelli is the
designated Ambassador to 22202 and a senior member of the planning division staff. His phone
number is 202-228-3548 and his email is afusarelli@arlingtonva.us.
Summary of Mr. Fusarelli’s presentation
GLUP change: Vornado is requesting a change to General Land Use Plan (GLUP) from Medium
Residential to Low Office Apartment Hotel (L-OAH). The GLUP is County Board’s policy for
the use and future of every property in the county. The GLUP legend includes three types of
zoning districts that constitute medium residential: RA 6-15 (37 units per acre), RA7-16 (43
units per acre), and RA-H (72 units per acre).
Process: The County has considered only four other GLUP amendment requests and that the
process is somewhat flexible and staff is still considering the exact process. The Long Range
Planning Commission will have meetings to study – between 2 to 4 meetings generally. Staff
drafts a memorandum to the Planning Commission documenting findings and staff
recommendations. Generally the issues considered at this point are the uses of surrounding
property, as well as how form and massing fit the context and surroundings. The staff and
Planning Commission have not, to this point, examined how a project would affect
neighborhood infrastructure in this process.
Upzoning: The GLUP change alone does not give a property owner the right to build but
concurrently, Vornado is also seeking to upzone the property from RA6-15 to CO-1.5. RA6-15
permits up to 37 units per acre. CO 1.5 would permit 72 residential units per acre, 110 hotel
rooms per acre and offices with a 1.5 floor area ratio. Mr. Fusarelli stated that CO 1.5 zoning
areas almost always use a special exception site plan which the County Board must also approve.
However, this approval and the GLUP change occur at the same County Board meeting.
Timing: Staff will develop the GLUP study process, most likely in coordination with the LRPC
chair on scope/details. The process is not likely to begin until September or October and is
expected to take three to five months. The public is able to attend meetings and make statements
at the end; the meeting schedule will be posted to the Planning Division website page at
The earliest the County Board will vote on the GLUP study results and rezoning could be the end
of 2015 or the beginning of 2016.
ARCA RESIDENT CONCERNS
Residents expressed a variety of concerns with Vornado’s proposal, including:

Inadequate Infrastructure: The most frequently expressed concern related to the extra
stress this development would put on the neighborhood infrastructure that is already
inadequate for existing development. Residents were frustrated by the apparent lack of
any consideration for whether the water, sewer, schools, and transportation network
(roads and metro) could support this level of development. In a neighborhood with few
entrance and egress points, insufficient metro service, heavily used public green space
and parks, overcrowded schools, and which regularly experiences flooding and sewer
backups, residents are concerned that the extra residents, additional underground parking,
and traffic will overwhelm the infrastructure.

Lack of Wholistic, Neighborhood-Level Planning: Several residents urged the County
to conduct a study of the community infrastructure and an examination of all the
development authorized for zip code 22202 so that the pressures on our infrastructure are
viewed in the context of the entire neighborhood and not parcel by parcel. Arthur Fox
reported that ARCA has asked the County to study how much density our neighborhood
can accommodate. Mr. Fusarelli repeated that infrastructure issues generally come up in
the site plan review process rather than the GLUP amendment process, and several
residents expressed concern that these issues need to be addressed much earlier in the
process.

Affordable Housing: Although ARCA understands the critical need for affordable
housing and many residents would support some affordable housing on site, residents
questioned why all of the affordable units had to be concentrated in one building, and
why that building had to be located on the green space closest to the neighborhood and in
front of one of the existing River House buildings. Members also pointed out that the
LCOR buildings (see item 2, above) include affordable housing integrated into the market
rate buildings. One ARCA member reported that Vornado’s assertion that segregating all
of the affordable units in one building is necessary for the funding structure appears to be
true. Several residents questioned why Vornado would receive extra density for building
affordable housing.

Lack of Defined Process and Accountability to Residents: Several residents noted that
without a specific formulation of issues staff must consider in this process, and with no
real defined parameters for the timing and content of the study, there is no guarantee
resident concerns will be accounted for.

Timing: Residents also noted that given the scale of Vornado’s ask, and that a GLUP and
zoning change to such a large parcel appears unprecedented, three to five months is not
an adequate time to study and report on the issues.
2

Residential/Commercial Use Boundary: Several residents reminded Mr. Fusarelli that
the River House parcel was designed to be the transition from the residential to
commercial areas. Several residents questioned whether any proposed upzoning has
placed this much density and commercial zoning directly adjoining a single family home
neighborhood.

Neighborhood Conversation Plan: ARCA’s Neighborhood Conservation Plan, adopted
in September 2013, explicitly calls for the River House zoning and GLUP designation to
remain as it is to maintain the boundary between the commercial area and the residential
area.

Future Uses: Noting Vornado’s history of acquiring and then reselling properties after
obtaining zoning changes, several residents expressed concern that with the upzoning and
change to commercial zoning, a future owner would develop the site more densely and
with more commercial activity.
3