23 July 2011
R. Rogers
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING: 19 July 2011
Summary: The Committee continued to discuss the DPZ proposal for a “test” framework for transportation analysis of the TOD areas. Concern was evident, particularly from the development community, that the “test” proposal:
- may become a permanent feature of the new master plan.
- does not include development before 2030 outside the immediate station areas.
- does not provide sufficient density, particularly at the Town Center station.
Attendance: Fair. Eight members present. No one representing Wiehle sub-committee. Also no Reston Association representative at the table; the RA alternate and RA president both were in the audience, but neither participated. Notable in audience was Frank de la Fe as well as Goldie Harrison.
Announcements:
Patty Nicoson mentioned continuing Lahood silver line discussions (see 2020 blog for more recent Loudoun info).
Patty Nicoson also mentioned recent Herndon Town Council discussions on consultant’s station development proposals. Still calling for 4.5 FAR along Dulles Toll Road near station tapering down to 3.5 and 1.5. Mixed use envisioned. Consultants argued that increased infrastructure costs would be met by increased tax returns. Council asked Patty Nicoson for FC projections on Herndon-Monroe side, which she noted were far more modest. Mark Looney is obviously on top of all the details.
Patti Nicsoson noted both RCA President Marion Stillson’s letter calling for greater structure for Task Force decision making and the recent 2020 memo on density and balance, but other than a statement that no decisions would be made at this meeting, there no discussion of either submission.
Process
Attorney Greg Riegle requested clarification of the process—when will anything get done? Task force needs a schedule and deadline, in his view.
Heidi Merkel said the hope is to get a final steering committee “test proposal” to the TF by mid-September so that it can then go to the transportation analysts.
Substance
DPZ put forth a new map and tables (“Scenario E”) for transportation testing which again focused 2030 development in areas immediate to the stations. These are the “dark blue” areas (the new map and supporting tables are not yet on county website). FARS, particularly for Town Center areas, remain lower than proposed by TC sub-com; even the Boston Properties site again goes back to 3.5.
The map triggered a long, rambling discussion before DPZ could even start its presentation that included several themes:
Confusion over whether this is a “test proposal” or one that will result in the final plan. There were various descriptions of the SC’s discussions and activities by Heidi and others. Robert Goudie gave several assurances that this is only a test and not the final version. Since these explanations have not been reduced to writing nor formally adopted (the Steering Com. long ago discontinued preparing meeting summaries), this remains a potential concern for property owners and the public.
The development community is particularly troubled by the idea of leaving the “light blue areas” outside the immediate stations untouched in the near-term (in fact there was even some discussion about “down planning” some areas in the current plan). Mark Looney and Greg Reigle both said that this was triggering growls from property owners in the light blue areas that their interests are being ignored. Heidi again defended the DPZ approach saying it is designed to provide greater incentives for owners near the stations to come in first with re-development proposals. Heidi also said the next version of the map would extend development to various “edge” areas. She also said that it might be possible for developers to transfer unused development from the dark plan station areas to the light blue outer areas.
John Carter said that there may be a need to put in certain essential uses in the light blue areas including residential and R&D facilities.
Some SC members thought density in the TC area in particular needs to be increased. Robert Goudie in particular argued for the case for E-5, Brookfield, which under the DPZ plan is assigned only a 1.5 FAR. He said Brookfield will not redevelop its extensive parcel at this level. He also said he stood by the TC sub-com’s extensive 5 FAR proposals.
This led to another discussion about transferring some of the proposed density from either Herndon Monroe or North Town Center to the TC area for testing purposes. There was some discussion about confining any proposed increased density at Herndon-Monroe to area A-2 and leaving the immediate HM station and Sprint areas alone. Others argued that some development in the HM station area be left in the test. John Carter asked if the substantial development being suggested for the Herndon Town side would be added to the test. Heidi indicated that Herndon planning staff will be providing data for Fairfax County’s transportation analysis.
There seemed to be some consensus on transferring 3 million sq. ft. of development from North Town Center (NTC) to the station area. Robert Goudie volunteered himself and Peter Otteni to work with Heidi to come up with some proposals for the SC on this.
(Comment: In the revised Scenario E map, NTC is listed as 45% commercial, 40% residential and 15% “institutional.” Since this area is now almost 100% “institutional” it leaves unclear if NTC would still be the civic heart of Reston. This needs clarification.)
2030 vs 2050: The conflicting time horizons also created confusion and uncertainty. Some members such as Goudie talked of protecting the TC sub com proposals by including them as a 2050 vision in the final plan.
Looney noted that some property owners are comparing this process unfavorably to the Tysons’ plan which apparently envisions a build out to 2050. (NOTE: The Tysons plan language provides specific guidance to 2030 and a vision—much like Reston’s sub-committees’—of development to 2050.)
Comment: This meeting seemed more confused and disjointed than normal. At least 5 committee members indicated this in various ways and this author certainly joins them. Kohann Williams noted, that in view of the confusion, it may be difficult to have the transportation analysts discuss this “test” with the full Task Force and suggested that they come to the more focused SC instead. Heidi responded that, in light of the SC’s mandate, she believed that the information should be presented to the full task force first, but that a subsequent meeting could be scheduled with the SC.)
DPZ Tables
The discussion finally turned to the new DPZ tables explaining how the map allocates density in the station areas. As usual, there was considerable confusion and not always clear explanations about what the figures represented and how they were determined. Peter Otteni suggested going back to the GMU demand plus 20% residential figures as the “test” numbers. He also noted concern that the numbers suggested for FC DOT analysis will be regarded as permanent.
Next Meeting
Heidi indicated that FC DOT transportation analysts will come and have a general discussion with the whole TF on 26 July. She noted that she had already given them the work of the Vision Committee about possible transportation improvements to chew on.
She tentatively proposed that that the Steering Committee meet on 2 August. It was uncertain if the transportation people would be available to talk directly with the SC on that date or soon thereafter, and there were conflicts with SC vacation schedules. Thus the schedule remains uncertain. Watch the DPZ web site and Friday email updates.
