RTF WIehlle Avenue Committee Meeting Notes, July 28, 2010, John Lovaas

Meeting was hosted by Mark Looney at the Cooley, et al, corporate offices on 15th floor of Accenture building in RTC.

Attendance continues to grow at these meetings, especially developer community.
This morning, I counted 25 people (typical meetings used to run half that)--12 residents, 2 presenters, 1 DPZ staffer and 10 developers/lawyers.

Co-Chair Bill Penniman mentioned report being drafted by he and co-chair.

Kate Russo made presentation for Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority--the keepers of the W&OD Trail which meanders thru Wiehle area.
-45 miles long, follows former railroad tracks, is a regional park
-Used by pedestrians, bikes and horses, part paved and part gravel, 8-12 feet wide
-Its property is 100 feet wide
-Not only a trail, also route for power lines(permanent easement), a lot of fiber optic, gas and water in some places, especially at crossings.
-Proposed crossings for vehicles must go through lots of legal, regulatory hurdles-can take years and can get denied. Crossings for peds/bikes handled by staff, permitting more easily accomplished but there are criteria--besides design in tune with slopes, etc they want to allow for continued flow of their traffic, esp bikes, so are reluctant to have crossings too close to each other.
Several questions were asked, including,
-Would they be willing to widen paved part of trail in areas serving rail station area. Answer: yes, already doing it elsewhere.
-Would you be interested in co-located linear parks by the W&OD? Answer: Yes, but typically with 50 foot buffer for W&OD trail park.
-How about other green space, other amenities alongside trail? Answer: Yes, with buffer and with appropriate design consistent with W&OD.
-Do you have wishlist for places to be improved? Answer: Yes, Wiehle Ave heads list--a dangerous mess; Isaac Newton crossing also has some problems.

Some issues noted in some more urban areas, like parts of Vienna, Herndon, where there has been some encroachment, use of the park area for dumping, industrial storage, etc. Wiehle becoming a more urban setting, so watch this one.
Impression left that W&OD important to Wiehle area access and NVRPA willing to work with us...though trickier where multiple crossings are sought.

Penniman asked for suggestions from committee members for open space in Wiehle Ave. area.
-Mark Looney noted FC Park Authority requiring standard for urban parks, acres to residents and workers. He says they will sort of take care of this in normal project review/approval processes. Noted desirability according to FCPA of having a larger central green area. Looney sees only G3-, G-3 land bays big enough for this kind of green. Other smaller ones might be strips alongside W&OD, urban pocket parks in H-1, 2 and I-1,2.
-Lawyer with Cooley (?) mentioned possibility in Isaac Newton Sq. for larger green.
-Dick Kennedy--how about some attractive green, maybe a ballfield or playfields for kids, walkway along toll road from Reston Parkway, rooftop playfields? Maybe a rec center with athletic fields to serve office complexes?
-Penniman--how about active green central areas or active plazas perhaps ringed with restaurants, perhaps in G-3, G-4? Play areas also needed.
-Pew--walking park, trail to connect from Sunset Hills to Lake Fairfax Park?

Co-chairs collecting ideas, will try to put together for later discussion or in draft report?

Co-Chair handed out 6-page document with 5 color-coded maps to provide a framework for discussion, he said. [Hope this handout is distributed on county website--all need to see this.] The document in bullet items says in its introduction: Location: Build up density between Sunrise Valley and Sunset Hills, prioritizing the parcels within the quarter-mile from Wiehle Ave, while respecting established residential communities south of Sunrise Valley and north of Isaac Newton Square.
High density closer to the station, tapering down as you move away.
--Key Premise: an urban TOD
--Identity: urban mixed use TOD emphasizing residential, education, retail and non-retail attractions.

Then, the document presents "strawman" by 'landbay sub-units; showing current zoning (ranging from 0.35 to 0.5 F.A. R.s); current Comp Plan TOD allowed (ranging from 0.7 to 1.5 F.A.R.); Proposal A -Penniman (ranging from 1.0 to 2.5) and Proposal B-Andy, developer co-chair (ranging from 1.5 to 5.0). The attachments are the colored maps of the station area and they provided focus for some lively conversation. In particular, the map labeled "All Incentives" was displayed on a big color screen laying out the Wiehle area broken down into 17 land units, color coded by FAR. Four land bays are marked 5.0; three are 4.0; six are 3.0; three are 2.0 and one little straggler out in the far southeast woods where the others can't see him is marked 1.5. It makes the RTC folks look like pikers!

Andy introduced the FAR map as the basis for a discussion of what he said were "aspirational FARs". I asked who aspired to such astronomical numbers. He said they reflected what developers/landowners would like to obtain if they could negotiate the right package, i.e., offer the incentives to be accorded those levels of development. He went on to list some of what they might provide if offered such FAR incentives--e.g., street grids, library, high quality design, first design--which he said could be key by offering to come in and build early mixed use and cooperate (?) on infrastructure, minimum levels of open space (?), educational and cultural venues and so on if the FAR price is right!

Questions:
- What about the infrastructure, other requirements to make such dizzying intensity workable? What is the subcommittee assuming about what will be required? Shouldn't those assumptions be spelled out in your report?
I think they agreed they should.
-What about the role of the public sector? Are there no public goods, things and services essential, to modern urban living that the public sector still provides? Is this really all the package deal, developers and the developed as it were?
Bill Penniman noted this was a tougher question... the state of Virginia does nothing in transportation, for example. Unclear how to address that...
-This is not real. Please explain how you will make this function? The road network doesn't function adequately now!
Hard to answer...

Mark Looney said the way it works is these are landowner/developer "expectations" by land bay. We work out what the community would like to see and where that meets the expectations. Then we've got what is wanted; only then can you assess what you need to support it.and make the whole thing work.

-what provision made for workforce, affordable housing? Essential, especially in this community. Don't see it anywhere in outline, or list of what developers would be willing to do in exchange for high density incentives. Bill Penniman--well, there is a county policy. Plan would have to meet that standard. How would it, and is that really adequate for Reston.

This discussion left me with a whole new concept of development planning in Fairfax County. It is a negotiation between skilled attorneys and the community. Doesn't sound right somehow.

Right around here, discussion and time ran out. To be continued.

Next meeting 7:30 AM Wednesday, August 4, likely at new RA offices, but will have to confirm. Agenda: Peter Lawrence Co., owners of Isaac Newton Square will present to Subcommittee, discussion of land bays and FARs.


JLovaas