Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring

Friday, September 17, 2010

Notes from RTF Wiehle Avenue Committee Meeting, September 15, John Lovaas

          What a way to spend the 200th Anniversary of Mexico’s Independence!

          Most of the Subcommittee was present.  Bill Penniman led the meeting.

          The group completed a paragraph by paragraph review of the “Outline of Wiehle Subcommittee Report”.  Last section was land bay recommendations, beginning with land bays north of the Toll Road.

          V Foster, taking a cue from John Carter’s Vision Committee report to the full Task Force the night before, noted the group had not characterized the kind/s of retail they’d like to see in Wiehle area.  Consensus settled on “local” defined as retail businesses serving Wiehle neighborhood and other parts of Reston—as opposed to regional (destination, beyond Reston), neighborhood or convenience only.

          Mark Looney, CoC representative, raised concern of Beacon Properties (he disclosed Beacon is his client) which has a property up for development which is partially outside the ½ mile TOD circle of higher density.  He said they were looking for an exception for the whole property to be allowed higher density, and he wondered if the group “would entertain supporting the request.”  He said he’d stay out of discussion.  Group seemed uncomfortable dealing with specific request for support of an action in process in Task Force context.  Bill Penniman said he thought it would be better to discuss general policy rather than a client’s request for an exception.  In the end, group agreed to a “fuzzy boundaries” approach—recommending that properties right near frontier might be considered for exception IF they made special contribution to TOD and to overall vision for area, including, e.g., especially attractive proffers.

          Note: developers and their lawyers have used this Task Force process to advance the interests of their specific properties frequently, like a feeding frenzy at times, without always disclosing their interests.  This may have been different because it was a request for favorable treatment for a specific project exception, as opposed to new comp plan language.  But, this was disclosed.
          The problem of McDonalds’ restaurant on Wiehle was raised a couple of times in context of “can’t we do something” about the traffic nuisance it creates?  Some thought county should force McDonalds to somehow correct traffic flow into the outlet or move.  Others argued, Fairfax County approved exactly what McDonald's does, so it is the County’s problem to solve.  Wording may be proposed for the report on this subject—sounds like a complaint coming but not a solution.
         
Group discussed language under land bay 5, Isaac Newton Square area, calling for building heights “…tapering [off?] to the golf course.”  Consensus that higher buildings near attractive golf course views were better than
near low-rise housing, as in case of JBG’s seemingly ill-fated Fairways project.  Language will be deleted.

          There was a lengthy discussion about pedestrian/bike crossings of Sunset Hills in particular.  Words like safety and character were used a great deal, and while “cost” was not, surely it is a factor for developers.  Several committee members felt that it was critical for pedestrian/bicyclist safety to have grade separated crossing over/under Sunset Hills at least connecting station to Isaac Newton Square area where dense residential is under consideration.  Mark Looney argued that instead there should be several marked at-grade pedestrian crossings which, taken together, will have the effect of calming traffic and indeed altering the very character of Sunset Hills at least for the stretch from about the proposed Soapstone crossing to down to the skating rink area from 4-lane fast road to a neighborhood street with much slower pace.  [This would also lower developer costs substantially.]  He argued that drivers wouldn’t like the slowed pace which favored pedestrians.  Foster wasn’t sure he wanted to see his body as a traffic calming device.  Bill Penniman will draft language giving options, stressing pedestrian safety top priority, but noting possible benefit of multiple at-grade crossings.
         
          A developer suggested altering draft language for Isaac Newton Square area to change proposed 20:80 office to residential ratio to 30:70.  Questions of these ratios overall and in land bays remain to be resolved at a later session.

          Paul Thomas, RA representative, suggested that Association Drive corner of Land bay 1(western tip of south part of Wiehle area), because of its special character—occupied by associations for which Reston is known and having stands of nice trees (possibly preserving some tree canopy Vision draft report mentioned as important part of Reston)—might be protected.  Co-chair and Mark Looney pointed out that area is within ¼ mile of station where TOD calls for dense mixed-use development.   Agreed to prepare language to add “incorporating woodland feel” vice preserving, and noting associations good character!


          Someone noted that while protecting established residential neighborhood south of Sunrise Valley had been discussed, the draft lacked specific language excepting area from new density.  Language will be added.


          At the end of land bay discussion, Bill Penniman noted issues still to be resolved as noted, including the big one on residential:office space ratios.  Also next time, the group will discuss Mark Looney draft proposal on standards or objectives for parks/green space in various land bays [this has been a huge, contentious problem topic in Town Center subcommittee], a new strawman for the whole area which Bill Penniman will prepare, and Mike Corrigan’s proposal for development over the toll road itself (an area ½ mile around the station and 400 ft wide equaling 49 acres potentially) which was handed out at meeting.  

          It was a day of good progress, but several knotty issues remain to be resolved before Wiehle group delivers final report to Task Force on September 28th—to be accomplished presumably in just one more meeting on September 22nd at RA Offices. 


JLovaas, 9/15/10
         

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comments are welcome and encouraged as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent.