Comments on: Board Defers Decision on Former Post Office Property

By: ARL-VA

ARL-VA — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:27:05 +0000

They’re only delaying the approval process by one month. In any case, it’s going to be a while before the boarded-up building is torn down and the new building constructed. Probably at least a few years.

By: ARL-VA

ARL-VA — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:25:21 +0000

The proposed pool, as seen in the planning documents, is pretty small. More like an oversized bathtub. If a resident in that building really wants to do more than just lounge around in water and actually swim, he/she will go to the (future) Long Bridge Park pool. Or a local private pool.

By: fedworker

fedworker — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:15:33 +0000

How about a MOMs or Whole Foods with a pool? Then it’ll be aight

By: fedworker

fedworker — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:12:33 +0000

It’s complicated

By: Virginia Squared

Virginia Squared — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:02:05 +0000

This project will be built on a pretty tiny parcel, and there is no way that Kettler could’ve included a pool at ground level – so this isn’t a question of “if we don’t get the height exception, we have to put the pool on the ground.” Kettler knew that it would exceed the height limit, but didn’t want to forego the rent from an entire floor of units – it looks like Kettler gambled that the Board would approve it, it didn’t pan out, and Kettler now has to come up with some kind of solution.

I do think you’re right about how pool placement affects the streetscape. The pool at Virginia Square Condominiums sits in a courtyard that is in shade for the VAST majority of the day. It takes what could have been an amazing amenity (rooftop pool, gathering space with monument views) and turns it into a higher condo fee for the benefit of a handful of residents. The building was probably built before the rooftop pool trend, but we should avoid sandwiching pools in between high-rise buildings wherever feasible. The area could have been much more retail-oriented without the gym and meeting rooms on the ground floor (as opposed to on the roof level with a pool).

By: Lee-n-Glebe

Lee-n-Glebe — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:20:51 +0000

*Sigh*. Yes, really. According to the above article:

“Under the current plan, buildings are allowed a maximum height of 110 feet; the rooftop pool would put the proposed building over the limit by four feet.”

“As a whole, the Board agreed that the only remaining issue is the rooftop pool.”

By: Lee-n-Glebe

Lee-n-Glebe — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:18:02 +0000

Exactly. The present abandoned post office is awesome. Let’s keep arguing about 4′.

By: Lee-n-Glebe

Lee-n-Glebe — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:16:36 +0000

The way I read it (and I could be wrong). the pool level itself is the additional 4′. They wouldn’t get another floor, or single square foot, of rentable space.

By: Oz

Oz — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:55:50 +0000

Meh. Every apartment complex has a pool around there. This project is a small boutique building, something like 100 apartments. Definitely not a big impact to Long Branch.

By: Oz

Oz — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:53:43 +0000

Then the next developer will want 118 ft. “Hey, it’s only four feet and you changed everything for Kettler!”