Developer plots Reston’s tallest building, Washington Post Capital Business, February 26, 2012

By Jonathan O'Connell, Published: February 26

Reston Town Center is primed to get a new gateway in the form of a 23-story mixed-use project being planned for Reston Parkway by RTC Partnership LLC.

The proposed building’s height has already been approved by the county and would be taller than anything currently in Reston Town Center. The project would replace an existing 61,000-square-foot office building at 1760 Reston Pkwy., often known as the Town Center Office Building.

Though the overall project still requires review by the Reston Association of homeowners and the Fairfax County Planning Commission, RTC already has approval for a 418,000-square-foot office and retail building. Richard Whealen, managing partner of the ownership group, said the building’s distinctiveness should set it apart from other offices nearby, some starving for tenants.

Courtesy of Fairfax County - A rendering of RTC Partnership’s planned 23-story mixed-use project at 1760 Reston Pkwy. in Reston.

 For the rest of this article, click here.

The article fails to mention the strong local opposition to this out-sized, mis-allocated space by RCA's Reston 2020 Committee, the Association of Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH), and the Reston Town Center Sub-committee of the Reston Master Plan Task Force, among others.

Agenda: Reston Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting, February 27, 2012

THE RESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Monday, February 27, 2012 – 7:30 pm

Community Room

North County Government Center

12000 Bowman Towne Drive, Reston

1.                  Sunrise Valley Elementary School Renovations (PRC-C-377): Fairfax County Public Schools has filed an application for the renovation of Sunrise Valley Elementary School – 10824 Cross School Road, Reston, VA 20191.  The renovations consist of constructing several small additions (administration suite, main entrance and cafeteria) at the front of the school to meet program requirements and at the rear of the school a library addition and a large single story classroom addition to replace the existing modular classroom structure.  Site upgrades will include an expanded bus drop-off area, a new kiss and ride access, additional parking and a new ADA access to the upper play fields.  The property is located at Tax Map 27-1((3)) Parcel 2.  A Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for March 29^th.

2.                  RTC Partnership, LLC has filed a PRC Plan to remove the current office building known as the "Town Center Office Building" at 1760 Reston Parkway, and redevelop a 23 story, Class A mixed use office and retail building.  The building will consist of a maximum of approximately 413,700 square feet of office uses and a minimum of approximately 5,200 square feet of retail and restaurant uses, at a Floor Area Ratio of 4.08.  Parking for the proposed building will feature both below and above grade parking spaces.  The above ground portion of the parking garage will sit atop retail uses and will be screened with a context sensitive façade treatment that will be harmoniously integrated into the office structure.  Structured parking will total approximately 1084 spaces and the surface parking will total 24 spaces.  It is anticipated that the office building will achieve LEED Silver design for energy efficiency.  This application was previously heard by P&Z at our November meeting.  A Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for March 14^th.

3.                  A brief overview of the P&Z online email list provided by Jim Traylor.

4.                  Committee discussion of any other business, new or old, and approval of previous meeting minutes.

5.                  Approve next meeting date (March 19) and adjourn.

Agenda is subject to change without notice by order of the Chairman, David Vanell, (703) 904-9299, or Michael Romeo, Vice Chairman, (703) 579-7525.

February 13, 2012

Prepared Reston P&Z Committee Testimony of Robert Goudie, Co-Chair, Town Center Committee, RTF, on Redeveloping Town Center Office Building, November 21, 2011

Testimony of Robert Goudie

To the P&Z Committee, 11/21/11

RE:  Proposed redevelopment of the so-called Town Center Office Building Site

I appear tonight and am speaking from my perspective as Co-Chair of the Town Center Committee of the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force.

At the outset, I want to thank Rick Whealen and his team, who generously offered to meet with me not once but twice to provide background on their proposal.  That proposal has elements that should be lauded and I do not wish to minimize those – including the green rooftop space, the concealed parking, the likely gold LEEDS achievement, and the earnest attempt to create a world-class design.  The proposal, however, is materially inconsistent with the Town Center Committee recommendations:

1.      The lack of any residential component is at odds with the Committee recommendation that every zoning application be at least 1:1 SF res:office (and, outside the urban core, which this site is, a ratio even more favorably balanced toward residential should be encouraged):  This 1:1 requirement has received a good deal of attention and I’ve talked about it at a prior P&Z meeting.  It is at the heart of the Town Center Committee’s vision for a greater mix of uses with a stronger residential component to continue Town Center’s build-out as both Reston’s downtown and a regional destination.  Worth noting:

a.      The Committee unanimously rejected a Whealen Team request to be exempted from the residential requirement.  Page 31 of the report speaks to the “form[ation of] an important and essentially residential collar around the extended urban core (with supporting retail),” adding that in these areas “development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending . . . should be encouraged.”  In response to a Whealen Team request the Committee very specifically and unanimously declined to exempt the Office Building Site from this approach:

“We include within this reference the so-called Reston Office Building parcel that abuts Reston Parkway and is otherwise surrounded by the Spectrum parcel.  This parcel is not currently within the Town Center District boundary.  We think that parcel should be allowed to redevelop in ways that are consistent with and complement the approved Spectrum concept plan (if/as it may be amended) and the Committee’s recommendations for an essentially residential collar (with supporting retail) around the extended urban core.”  (emphases added)

Simply put, this proposal is not consistent with that recommendation.

b.      The Committee extended the 1:1 or better requirement to all “zoning applications,” thus providing smaller sites a partnering opportunity to achieve the desired balancing.  The Committee felt strongly that the residential requirement must extend to all lots consistent with a philosophy that “we are all in this together” and that all new development must share in the responsibility of bringing better residential:office balance to Town Center.  It recognized, however, that this could create challenges, especially for smaller lots with existing and profitable commercial buildings or development rights.  The Committee also heard from County Staff about compulsory joint zoning as a method used in some other areas in the County.  The Committee had concerns that compulsory collaborative zoning might hurt first movers.  Thus we recommended a different approach:  the 1:1 or better requirement would extend to “any zoning application.”  This essentially incents a collaborative or partnering approach if owners feel individual lots could not easily meet the balancing requirement or that shifting the balancing over a broader area (and thus permitting some single or near-single uses on individual lots) could produce better outcomes. 

That opportunity clearly exists here, most obviously with the adjacent Lerner (Spectrum) property.  (Indeed, with both Lerner and Whealen spending money now on concept plans, the first mover challenge some see with compulsory joint zoning is not extant.)  And if a Whealen-Lerner partnership is not possible for business or other reasons, there are other sites nearby (including the Inova site in Town Center North) that provide partnering opportunities.

Enforcement of this strong encouragement to partner could have powerful benefits for the community.  Not only does it ensure that all lot owners are part of the residential balancing vision, but it also opens the door to more creative and powerful concept plans.  Taking off my Committee hat and speaking now personally, a number of Town Center residents are not enthusiastic about the proposed Spectrum concept plan.  We feel the original Lerner proposal – with a central boulevard bisecting that lot around which retail, open space, residential, and office could be clustered – was a much more interesting outcome than what has been approved.  But that proposal would implicate the Whealen parcel, requiring collaboration between the two land owners.  Although that outcome could not be forced under the Committee approach there would be consequences to going it alone:  neither would be able to get out from under the residential requirement (and the Spectrum proposal I believe meets the test with something like a 1.3 or 1.4:1 res:office ratio).  The proposal before you has no residential component and will, therefore, materially dilute and make more difficult the overall balancing the Committee report contemplates.  Simply put, that would not be allowed under the Committee approach which, if strongly enforced, would change development behavior over time.

2.      The proposal is inconsistent with the tapering of heights and densities the Committee recommends:  The Committee unanimously recommends tapering building heights and densities moving north away from the envisioned Metro Station:

“These areas [to the north outside the urban core] are currently zoned at 50 dwelling units per acre.  Residential development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending for Metro North should be encouraged.  Among other incentives the County should consider are permitting density increments above those currently allowed (staying within the tapered approach we are recommending, with highest densities adjacent to the Metro Station and gradually tapering off as one moves north).  Any such incremental increases should be used primarily to encourage additional residential (with supporting retail as needed) to continue to shrink the current disparity between available jobs and resident potential workers.” (p. 31 of the Committee Report, emphases added)  The Committee then added that building heights should not be static in particular areas, providing a variegated look and feel. 

Very specific guidance was given for Town Center North, which is on the same longitudinal plane as the Office Building Site:  “consistent with our view that TCN should be a transitional space (not an extension of the Town Center urban core), a consensus emerged that building heights across TCN should not be permitted to exceed 200’ above grade.”  (p. 36)

I think there is a material question as to whether the current proposal is proportional to its surroundings (it is materially higher than anything in the proposed Spectrum redevelopment).  And at 23 stories and a 4.08 FAR this would I think exceed the height and massing the Committee recommends for this area.

3.      The proposal undermines TOD (transit-oriented development) objectives the Town Center Committee sought to emphasize:  All data the Task Force has seen emphasizes that the number of people willing to walk to a job from a transit station dramatically declines for jobs located outside the station’s ¼ mile radius, and declines again when one moves outside the ½ mile radius (as the Office Building site is).  This was among the principal reasons that the Committee recommended congregating the greatest office densities nearest to the station and increasing the residential component in the collar surrounding the extended urban core – to encourage greater TOD.  The proposal before you argues for putting +/- 2,000 jobs in an essentially single-use (non-residential) development outside the ½ mile radius.  The impacts to traffic and the overall balancing goals for Town Center are meaningful.

Worth adding here is that the Whealen Team noted in its meetings with me that this lot was originally envisioned as the “gateway” site into Town Center.  Whatever may have been the vision in the 1970’s, a material change in conditions has emerged – the arrival of Metro at Town Center.  There is no question but that the center of gravity in Town Center over the next 25 years will shift toward the Metro Station.  And this is an essential goal of the Town Center Committee report.  The Committee specifically notes that Parcel D4, as the gateway or touchdown point north of the Metro, “will be of special significance” (page 3), adding later that the “key to realizing a vision of an extended urban core will be the development of D4” (page 19).   On page 18 the Committee emphasized the essential priority thusly:  “The focus first and foremost should be on successfully extending the urban core south to the Metro station.  Good things will follow from that.”   

Whatever may have been the original vision for the Office Building Site that vision has been materially altered with the pending arrival of Metro.  I do not want to be misunderstood:  I absolutely believe that redevelopment of the Office Building Site is and should remain an important goal for Town Center’s future and the Whealen Team should be congratulated for thinking boldly about that future.  But that vision should be consistent with and complementary to the Town Center North area and the TOD and other goals we wish for Town Center’s dynamic future.

Conclusion

I return where I started:  there is much about this proposal that should be lauded.  Rick Whealen, very much to his credit, has put together a terrific team of world-class professionals who are thinking boldly about this site and have offered some really important pieces that advance community priorities (the green space, the concealed parking, retail, the LEEDS emphasis, and the bold design among them).  But the fundamental thrust remains inconsistent with the visions for Town Center that our Committee put together.  (Of course the County would always have flexibility to adopt proposals that depart from the Comprehensive Plan vision if the proposal serves compelling public needs, a judgment for others to make here.)

To be sure our Committee recommendations have not yet been adopted by the Task Force let alone become law.  Some recommendations are still very much in flux (for example, the density recommendations).  But the big-picture concepts I have talked about tonight are, in material respects, likely to become part of the revised Comprehensive Plan. 

I also understand that certain development opportunities may exist by-right on the Office Building Site.  That said, there are strong community interests at stake here as well and material changes in conditions (Metro) that it seems to me have to be accounted for.  My hope is that a thoughtful conversation be had, respectful of whatever property rights might already exist and perhaps involving neighboring owners, whereby an outcome that better complements the goals I’ve talked about tonight could be achieved. 

I will be sending the entire Town Center Committee a copy of these remarks.  I will encourage any of my Committee colleagues who feels these remarks do not accurately summarize the Committee recommendations to offer his/her own comments to the P&Z Committee.  Thank you for your consideration of the Committee’s work.

 

Agenda: Reston Planning & Zoning Committee, November 21, 2011

UPDATE (November 13, 2011):   The first agenda item--expanding the childcare center--has been dropped from this month's agenda.  Here is the text of a brief message from Arthur Hill, Vice Chairman, RP&Z, on the matter:

Item #1 on the November meeting agenda has been removed.

Item #2 concerning the RTC application will be the only item on the agenda.

Note:  This month's agenda includes consideration of a proposal to replace the Town Center Office  Building at the corner of Reston Parkway and Bowman Towne Drive with a 23-story, Class A office and retail building.  Check the agenda below for additional details. 

THE RESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Monday, November 21, 2011 – 7:30 pm

Community Room

North County Government Center

12000 Bowman Towne Drive, Reston

1.      Luis and Carla Marty of 1307 Deep Run Lane, Reston, have filed a Special Exception application (SE 2011-HM-010) to increase the number of children in their childcare operation from seven (7) to ten (10) children. The property is located at Tax map 012-3((04)) (6) 0046. The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for December 15, 25011@8:15 p.m.

2.       RTC Partnership, LLC has filed a Planned Residential Community (PRC) Plan to remove the current office building known as the “Town Center Office  Building” at 1760 Reston Parkway, and redevelop a 23 story, Class A mixed use office and retail building. The building will consist of approximately 413,700 square feet of office uses and approximately 5,200 square feet retail and restaurant use, with a Floor Area Ratio of 4.08. Parking for the proposed building will feature both below and above grade parking spaces. The above ground portion of the parking garage will sit atop retail uses and will be screened with a context sensitive façade treatment that will be harmoniously in the office structure.
Structured parking would be 1084 and 24 surface spaces
The office building will have a LEEDS silver design for energy efficiency.

3.      Committee discussion of any other business, new or old, and approval of previous meeting minutes.
                      

4.      Approve next meeting date and adjourn.

Agenda subject to change without notice by order of the Chairman, David Vanell, (703) 904-9299, or Arthur S. Hill, Vice Chairman, (703) 264-1178.

October 30, 2011

Minutes: Reston P&Z Committee Meeting, July 18, 2011

RESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

JULY 18, 2011 MEETING NOTES

Members Present:  Bruce, Cerny, Cupina, Donohue, Hill, Kennedy, Muhammad, Straits, Vanell, Walker, Weber, Weissburg, and Wynands

Members Absent: Eckhardt, Murphy, Romeo, and Traylor

Agenda Item:  Reston Spectrum LLLP submitted PRC Plans for the redevelopment of the Spectrum Center located north of New Dominion Parkway, east of Fountain Drive, west of Reston Parkway and south of Baron Cameron Avenue (PRC 86-C-121-04).  The PRC Plan implements the Town Center Concept Plan approved by Fairfax County in 2008.  The project is divided into three Land Bays (A through C). Land Bay A (north of New Dominion Parkway, south of Bowman Towne Drive, west of Reston Parkway and east of Fountain Drive) is planned for up to 546 dwelling units, 255 hotel rooms, 172,000 square feet of office space and 62,500 square feet of retail uses within buildings of up to 180 feet. Land Bays B and C are bounded by Baron Cameron Avenue to the north, Bowman Towne Drive to the south, Reston Parkway to the east and Fountain Drive to the west. Land Bay B is planned for up to 643 dwelling units, 270 hotel rooms and 48,650 square feet of retail uses. Land Bay C is planned for up to 237 residential uses and 134,896 square feet or retail and bank uses. Approximately 84,000 square feet of this retail space currently exists within the Harris Teeter store and will be retained.  Building heights of up to 120 feet are proposed in Land Bays B and C.

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 pm.

Mark Looney of Cooley LLP represented Reston Spectrum.  Approximately 275,000 square feet of retail space currently occupies Land Bays A through C.  In 2008, Fairfax County approved a Town Center Concept Plan for this area.  Under that plan, Fountain Drive would become a north-south urban core axis extending from New Dominion Drive on the south to Baron Cameron on the north.  Fountain Drive would be the “orienting feature” of the redevelopment project.

The Concept Plan included 579,000 square feet of office space, 246,000 square feet of retail, and 1,426 residential units. 

The PRC plan is very similar to the Concept Plan, but provides more detail.  Some revisions were made.  Residential units have been reduced by 25.  On Land Bay B, an office building has been replaced by a hotel.  Adjacent to the hotel, a drop-off lane was added along with a small plaza near Fountain Drive.  Slight revisions were made to the design of the residential building on Land Bay B.

Land Bay A Building Heights:  The office building opposite the Paramount will have a height of 165 feet, which is less than the 180 feet maximum.  The building to the north of it will have heights of 120 and 80 feet respectively, both of which are below the allowable maximums.  

Fountain Drive Streetscape:  Developer envisions converting two of the existing four lanes to parking during off-peak periods to foster a pedestrian-oriented environment.

Shuttle Service to Metro Station:  Details not yet determined.

“Reston Times” Building:  Although a redevelopment proposal to develop an 18-story building on the site was recently withdrawn, it is anticipated that it will be revised and resubmitted.  The withdrawn plan did not include a “cut-through” street adjacent to the site that is envisioned by the Reston Spectrum developers.  The same architect is working on both projects and the two plans will be “married-up” as details are finalized.  VDOT will not allow construction of the cut-through street unless the existing curb cut on Reston Parkway is eliminated.     

Retail:  Specific retailers have yet to be identified.  Existing leases range from 5 to 15 years.  Retail space along Fountain Drive will be located in 2-level stores.  There will be less retail space in Land Unit A than now exists.  After it is fully redeveloped, the total amount of retail space in Spectrum will decline by about 30,000 square feet.  Approximately 75% of the frontage along Fountain Drive will be retail.

Residential Units:  Unit sizes will average between 900 and 1100 Square feet.  None of the residential buildings will be “stick-built.”  A mix of ownership and rental is envisioned.  Plans currently call for 55 work force units. County officials may seek to increase. A set-aside of 12% would yield approximately 174 units.

FAR:  Slightly above 2.0.

Construction Phasing:  Phasing will depend upon on the extent to which existing leases can be renegotiated.  If existing leases cannot be renegotiated, redevelopment cannot proceed until they expire.  Because of this, the first phase of redevelopment may not occur on Land Bay A. Market factors will also play a role.

LEED Certification:  Offices buildings will probably meet “Silver” requirements.  Residential buildings will meet a lower LEED standard.

Parking Spaces:  Approximately 100 more spaces than required will be provided.  Bicycle parking will also be provided.  Office buildings will provide shower facilities, lockers, etc.

Audience Comments:  Mary Ellen Craig, representing Paramount residents, expressed concern that increased traffic on Fountain Drive will impede vehicular ingress and egress from the property.  She also noted that the current street environment is not pedestrian-friendly.  Nick Stillson criticized the lack of “openness” in the design of the project. 

Town Center North Master Plan Task Force Planning:  The Task Force is using the Concept Plan as a “starting point.”  When recommendations are made, they are not expected to conflict with the Concept Plan or PRC plan.

Town Center DRB Approvals:  Approvals will be sought on a building by building basis, not for the project as a whole. 

Minutes of the May 16, 2011 P&Z meeting:  Vanell motioned for approval; Cerny seconded.  The minutes were approved by unanimous vote. 

No other business was discussed.

The meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm. 

Next P&Z meeting:  Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:30 pm, North County Government Center.

Spectrum Center is Principal Agenda Item, Reston P&Z Committee Meeting, July 18, 2011, 7:30 PM, North County Govt. Center

         Reston Spectrum LLLP has submitted PRC Plans for the redevelopment of the Spectrum Center located north of New Dominion Parkway, east of Fountain Drive, west of Reston Parkway and south of Baron Cameron Avenue (PRC 86-C-121-04).  The PRC Plan implements the Town Center Concept Plan approved by Fairfax County in 2008.  The project is divided into three Land Bays (A through C).

         Land Bay A (north of New Dominion Parkway, south of Bowman Towne Drive, west of Reston Parkway and east of Fountain Drive) is planned for up to 546 dwelling units, 255 hotel rooms, 172,000 square feet of office space and 62,500 square feet of retail uses within buildings of up to 180 feet.

         Land Bays B and C are bounded by Baron Cameron Avenue to the north, Bowman Towne Drive to the south, Reston Parkway to the east and Fountain Drive to the west.  Land Bay B is planned for up to 643 dwelling units, 270 hotel rooms and 48,650 square feet of retail uses. Land Bay C is planned for up to 237 residential uses and 134,896 square feet or retail and bank uses. Approximately 84,000 square feet of this retail space is currently existing within the Harris Teeter store and will be retained.  Building heights of up to 120 feet are proposed in Land Bays B and C. 

 There will be at least one additional meeting on this matter with a proposed date of  September 19^th.  An FCPC date of September 28^th has been scheduled.

Presenter: Atty. Mark Looney, Cooley LLP.