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:
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.
