Target for the day was to review, edit latest Committee report draft in preparation for presentation to the full Reston Task Force on Tuesday, September 28.
In brief public comment, it was noted that objectives section of report listed many worthy actions, but lacked a sense of priorities, most urgent among them. The drafter/s of the report were commended for positive use of incentives above delineated list of standard requirements for developer projects. That is, incentives are proposed for positive, vision furthering actions, not giving up valued community goods such as schools, affordable housing to get developers to build at all.
Draft Report Comments/Changes:
-Multiple ped/bike crossings along Sunset Hills discussed. Paragraph needed to provide rationale for them (i.e., to change character of Sunset Hills to slower urban street, obviate need for safe but some say under-used overpasses). Leave flexibility for grade separated connections, e.g., W & OD on Wiehle.
-Paul Thomas repeated suggestion to include rec center as a possibility for Isaac Newton Square or larger G-7 landbay to east. Developer Raj noted he and another developer considering joining forces to do a rec center near ice rink, Michael Faraday area.
-Long discussion of open space requirement—whether it should be 20 or 25% when defined as publicly accessible (as opposed to private land with use restricted!). They settled on a recommendation for publicly accessible open space in the 20-25% area range.
-Andy VanHorn suggested changing language stating “…Town Center Metro North will contemplate the highest overall levels of development in Reston.” He wanted to include reference to proposed Wiehle east-west “spine” as being close to that. He did not attract a lot of interest and dropped the matter.
-Developer observer (Mike ?) objected to language in para 5. under Office:Residential ratios “New office development should not proceed without concurrent residential development or, at least, in the absence of early construction of infrastructure and enforceable phasing plans to assure desireable mix of uses will be achieved…” He argued that only market god rules this, and county could not enforce such a provision. Bill Penniman pointed out the “or …” clause which he seemed to have overlooked. Andy Van Horn and one other developer jumped in, agreeing with objection.
When Bill Penniman put it to a vote, all three developers voted to delete the paragraph altogether. Only one civilian supported Penniman. Paul Thomas and Judith Pew abstained, thus killing any assurance that residential will be accomplished early—or at all, as 20 years of experience in Town Center suggests.
-Bill Penniman postponed consideration of desired ratios of office to residential GFA, initially to return to after landbay by landbay discussion, then to a future meeting. BPenniman suggested following landbay ratios office to residential: G-3 40:60; G-4 60:40; G-5 40-60; G-6 30-70. To be discussed at next meeting, October 13!
-Under standard development requirements for rezoning, developer promptly suggested weakening “workforce/affordable housing per Fairfax standards”, or leaving option of some financial contribution. Several observers objected—noting this TOD area precisely where workforce housing needed—rather than pushing this income group further from the station and increasing the cost of commute. Comstock rep noted they had proferred to do 19.5% workforce housing rather than County mandated minimum of 12%, and in addition, made contribution to county affordable housing fund! There will be a recommendation for incentives for more workforce/affordable housing either on-site or via contributions to a Comstock-style, county-administered fund.
Comment: Watching this process at the Reston Parkway subcommittee and now at Wiehle is very discouraging if you believe in either Reston founding principles or county policy or if you have a sense of value in a social good such as affordable housing.
Landbay by Landbay changes—few!
-Sudden consensus that green spaces large enough for active recreation such as ball or soccer fields not possible due to lack of adequate land [Comment: questionable at least at ½ mile and beyond]. Like Town Center, Wiehle growth will generate demand for additional fields, but group argues that space should be found elsewhere. It's hard to find soccer/baseball sized field areas in the RCIG given current development and the area's physical constraints. It needs to be looked at from a larger perspective. Comment: Surely, somewhere in the RCIG there is space for athletic fields. Hopefully, the full Task Force will pick up the ball dropped here.
-Group agreed to add language to limit more McDonald’s (or banks??!) type of problems by recommending limit to “auto-oriented uses” [drive-throughs!].
Closing- Bill Penniman proposed again postponing discussion of F.A.R.s. (Task Force Chair Patti Nicoson reminded him they would have to deal with it soon.). Presumably will be discussed at next Wiehle Subcommittee meeting, October 20 or 27.
Someone noted that TC Committee had addressed issue of dog walk/poo areas, but Wiehle has not. Resolved by agreement to leave as offsite amenity. That is, take your dog over to Town Center as needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome and encouraged as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent.