Notes on RTF Town Center Committee Meeting, September 21, 2020, Dick Rogers

Process: The Committee will meet at least one more time on 28 September to complete the draft.  Robert Goudie, Co-Chair, hopes to get it around to the Task Force prior to the scheduled 12 October presentation.

 

Maynard comments: I called these to the attention of the Committee.   A few had read them.  They were dismissed as inaccurate and disconnected from what the Committee was trying to achieve.  Some thought the tone was personally  offensive.  One member later cautioned me that at times tone of some 2020 comments was counterproductive.

 

Town Center office Building: The reps were back and again tried to get the Committee to address their property, which is lost amid the Spectrum development. They apparently want blessing for a denser, Spectrum compatible mixed-use redevelopment.

 

Incentives for residential development.  An extensive discussion took place on Mark Looney's proposals of how costs could be reduced to encourage "pioneering" development of residential areas on the Southside. Mark has proposed loosening requirements on parking, work force housing as well as not requiring proffers for schools, parks or public facilities for some initial developers.  There was vigorous pro and con discussion with some of the politically sensitive issues (work force housing) meriting particular controversy.  Eventually some compromise wording was introduced to allow for the possibility of such incentives in certain circumstances. (Comment: I am in the 2020 minority in thinking this proposal should be considered seriously.  The existing property owners are mostly commercial developers who in my view are of scared of the implications of residential--having to co-partner with others, for example, means giving up $. Fathomer, tenants are going to be hard to lure to an area with limited amenities initially. However, it is unclear what the limits of any relaxation would be--discussion has ranged from the initial development and a specific number of units to periods as long as 7 years).

 

    Roads: The character of surrounding roads was discussed.  The consensus seemed to be that Baron Cameron, Reston Parkway and Sunrise Valley should be kept as conveyor streets (some suggested "urban conveyors")--that while more pedestrian friendly, they would not have parking.  Interior streets could be viewed as more urban in character.  (Comment: This would appear to make Sunrise Valley not compatible with what is being proposed on either side.)

 

    Draft: The Committee began a page-by-page view review of the draft. Some issues:

•  Will try to clarify what is viewed as "functional" open space in the way of sidewalks
•  Extended discussion of how to get owners on the south side to contribute to a central green.    Decision made to consult Heidi M on wording.
• Residential collar: wording will be qualified to accommodate diverse uses such as the Hospital area.
• INOVA rep was worried that wording might tie them down to 2,000 residential units. Wants more flexibility, apparently to avoid impeding commercial development.

    Governance: Robert Goudie cited view of RTCA residents that NTC should be in RTCA. Concern was that FCPA would not maintain any common ground and that this should be RTCA responsibility. No discussion of an RA role.