Notes on the Reston Task Force Meeting, November 13, 2012

                                                                       R. Rogers

                                                         14 November 2012 

Notes on the Reston Task Force Meeting, 13 Nov 2012

            The meeting featured an hour and a half of Heidi Merkel answering numerous questions regarding Scenario G.   The “scenario” was not appreciably changed although the concept of possible bonuses for civic uses was introduced and the idea that the plan would have considerable “flexibility” was stressed. Although there were some negative views of the “scenario” there also seemed to be some acceptance. Ms. Merkel noted at the end that at least no one wanted to downgrade density from the “scenario.”

Public comments:

Attorney Andrew Painter representing several property owners briefly made his pitch for more understanding of his clients’ problems. Beyond clients raised in his earlier letters, he added Tishman Speyers, particularly their  property  in A-2 (Woodland Park) near  Herndon-Monroe which is undeveloped.  In scenario G it was downgraded from FAR 2 to FAR 1.5.

            Dick Rogers called the groups attention to the county’s work on alternatives for the Soapstone Connection.  Some of the alternatives imply waiting for redevelopment of specific properties, which would delay the road even more. Joe Stowers called the county’s alternative “reasonable”.  The Task Force will receive a briefing on this at the next meeting.

Scenario G:

Heidi Merkel worked from a presentation and  two generalized non-specific maps (see http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/meetings_2012/meeting_11.13.2012_tf.htm ).  In general, she did not introduce significant changes to the Scenario G FARs and development areas.

            She did have figures on overall job and residential balance under the new scenario as compared to the existing zoning and Scenario E.  Of interest was a modest increase under “G in residential over ”E” but a dramatic increase over existing  zoning and the current plan.

              However, under Scenario G, jobs were laid out as about 25%  lower than allowed under current zoning approvals.  (Note:  Subsequent follow-up today indicates an error may have been made in the presentation.  There may be only one small situation where this is true in the Herndon-Monroe station area.)  This latter triggered several questions about whether landowners would accept this. Heidi noted that the County Attorney has affirmed that the existing development rights cannot be taken away but she hoped that additional residential potential would make a different development pattern possible.  She commented that “residential is now hot” while the market is cool to office.

            One question had to do with areas outside the core “G” station areas.  Heidi said that expectation was that at a latter date a “future planning study” would address these areas. She noted that North Town Center was already a significant exception and that the  county and INOVA” are in discussion” on this area.   (It was not clear if citizen interests are included in this “‘discussion.”)

            Heidi used her talking points to develop the type of points that would be in each sub-section of the plan.  She used H-2—the Vornado property just south of the Wiehle station at the corner of Sunrise Valley Drive—as an example.  During the presentation she introduced the concept of possible bonuses for civic uses (educational and institutional).  She also outlined that the plan would allow for flexibility in sub-unit development to take account of different existing ;levels of development.  In this context she said they hoped that residential would be forthcoming first in some of the sub areas.   She said this meant the new plan would “not be black and white.”

            The TF members seemed intent on absorbing rather than questioning all this. However, Terry Maynard asked “at what point does flexibility become ambiguity?’  Mark Looney commented at length on various issue including a possible rush to the courthouse to claim development rights and the fact that in many areas there are existing properties; in them there will not be tear downs and rebuilds but infill development,   However, he did not seem to oppose the scenario and at one point quipped that “flexibility” meant more work for him.  (There is good reason to be concerned about a “rush to the courthouse”.)

Mark Otteni, Boston Properties, objected.  He said all this would create uncertainty about what you will get and again said the less emphasis on jobs will slow TOD development.  He again questioned basing the scenario on what he views as questionable transportation analysis. 

Next:

             The 27 November meeting will feature an outline of the Soapstone connector alternatives and continued discussion on Scenario G.  Patti Nicoson suggested that it might involve an up or down vote, but Heidi seemed unsure whether this should take place.   She did promise to have a new set of tables on residential and commercial breakdowns in the sub areas.

            Meanwhile, Task Force reps will meet on Wednesday, 14 November, to continue discussion on a task force report.