DRAFT TCN Vision Statement (Revised)
Comments on NTC Vision--Dick Rogers
Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label RTC Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RTC Committee. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Summary: Reston Task Force Process Comm. Meeting, May 7, 2010, John Lovaas
This second Task Force Process meeting, held Friday morning at the Supervisor’s police station, had a much smaller attendance. Only six Task Force members were present, including Chairperson Patty Nicoson, M. Looney, J. Stowers, A. Hill, V. Foster and B. Penniman. Heidi and Richard Lambert were there from the county.
While their agenda had 4 items, most of the time was spent on bantering back and forth about whether or not to establish subcommittees along the lines of the Reston Town Center (North) subcommittee and when, and what should be on the agendas for the upcoming Task Force meetings on May 11, May 25 and the special one June 1 as well as the Community Meeting May 22. A draft table of contents for the Task Force final report prepared by Foster and Penniman was handed out but not discussed. (NOTE: The draft outline is here.) It starts an idea of where they think they are going.
While the repetitive discussion on whether and when to create two subcommittees, one for the Wiehle station area and one for Herndon Monroe, was going on, a couple of troubling themes kept coming up from 2 development folks. Mark Looney agreed stressed his theme of keeping TF discussions at a general level, not get into detail of land uses, F.A.R.’s which should be left to landowners. County staffer Merkel sometimes seemed to back this, while Joe Stowers insisted that comp plans should “be about options”. Looking to realize land areas’ “development potential” was stressed often. Note: I found this troubling because it sounds like the objective is to fill land with buildings, not necessarily to create a thing of beauty, that stresses community, liveability and mobility. Open space, natural areas and infrastructure such as schools are not mentioned. Transportation improvements for pedestrians and bikes in addition to roads are given modest lip service but are not the focus.
There was apparent unanimity to create the two new subcommittees with an RTC type mandate. Mentioned but not resolved, I think, was the question of extending the RTC Subcommittee mandate to include all of TC north and particularly south of the station—the latter being of particular concern because there has been so little conversation of “development potential” on that side—including connecting eastward to JBG Land.
As I understood it, the plan is as follows:
At the May 11 Meeting:
-County staff presentations on: Transportation—“situation in current transportation Hpatterns, changes likely with advent of transit.”
-County staff on Park Authority role, changes in way they plan park space. [Arthur Hill of P & Z said he thought “park stuff” was peripheral; TF’s focus is on commercial, industrial ? and residential development!]
-On affordable housing. (after suggestions that this be dropped—it was retained, I think.)
-Update on Process meeting!
-Update by RTC subcommittee—and possible discussion of extending their mandate to the south side, encouraged by lawyer Looney.
-Discussion of Planning Principles maybe. (Remember them?)
May 22 Community Meeting:
-Special presentation by a high-powered real estate market consultant; TOD discussion; breakout groups to discuss Herndon-Monroe station
May 25 TF Meeting:
-Wiehle Station breakout groups
-formation of Wiehle subcommittee—to report by end of June; announce and begin formation of Herndon-Monroe subcommittee
-Report with recommendations of Reston Town Center Committee—although this likely to slip to June 1 meeting with addition of southside mandate.
June 1 TF Meeting: Possible report of Reston 2020 Parks/facilities group pressed on chair by Leila Gordon. Led to discussion of opening to presentations by 4 other Reston 2020 groups—Environment, Transportation, RUDL and ?X?; possibly RA committees, others. Possibly report of RTC subcommittee, formal kickoff of H-M Subcommittee. (delayed after it was pointed out that the TF would be wise to give Polo Fields neighbors a lot of advance notice or there could be “political trouble”.
The latter led to expanded concern about the need to make the communities and community aware of changes to meetings schedules, changes to agendas in upcoming meetings, getting word to groups who might be invited to make presentations including Reston 2020 groups and any others, like RA committees, possibly ARCH, etc. Comment: While Chairman Nicoson has been more receptive than the norm to community input, she is under pressure from several TF members and the calendar to move on and leave the community aside. I fear an attempt to line up all possible groups, give them 10 minutes each, check that block as “community participation” done and move on without any real effort to incorporate important substantive work done by 2020 work groups in particular.
Opinion: The Process group again failed to see the forest while being led by the nose into the trees. The TF still has adopted NO guiding principles as they go piece by piece looking for development potential NOT community potential. In the first place, they should have adopted an overall vision for Reston (while there has been talk of at least doing so for the corridor, there is no vision at that level either.) from which would have flowed the planning principles to guide their analysis and discussions of the 3 station areas, Town Center and the village centers (and other areas?) to follow.
Instead, the TF is building up the maximum “development potential” in discussions increasingly led by landowners and their lawyers with no overall vision. So, the group maximizes what can be done at Wiehle, then Town Center and then Herndon-Monroe before moving on to do the same for each of the 5 village centers—and then maybe the connecting, all-enveloping high density “sinews”. You get the idea.
OK, so what does it matter what order they go in? It matters because as we get down the pike, or at the end, we’ll find we have a residential capacity for 150-160,000 people and commercial development greatly surpassing the new, but now revised downward, 85 million square feet at Tysons Corner. And, we’ll find we have no schools for this 150% increase in population, nowhere near civilized amounts and quality of open and natural spaces, and pathetically inadequate pedestrian, bicycle and even vehicular transport infrastructure. Only a couple of people on the Task Force, especially John Carter, recognizes this. What will it take for the sheep to stop being led and starting to approach a master plan at the community level.
The current approach is backwards and marches us towards a Tysons outcome NOT a Reston outcome.
John Lovaas
While their agenda had 4 items, most of the time was spent on bantering back and forth about whether or not to establish subcommittees along the lines of the Reston Town Center (North) subcommittee and when, and what should be on the agendas for the upcoming Task Force meetings on May 11, May 25 and the special one June 1 as well as the Community Meeting May 22. A draft table of contents for the Task Force final report prepared by Foster and Penniman was handed out but not discussed. (NOTE: The draft outline is here.) It starts an idea of where they think they are going.
While the repetitive discussion on whether and when to create two subcommittees, one for the Wiehle station area and one for Herndon Monroe, was going on, a couple of troubling themes kept coming up from 2 development folks. Mark Looney agreed stressed his theme of keeping TF discussions at a general level, not get into detail of land uses, F.A.R.’s which should be left to landowners. County staffer Merkel sometimes seemed to back this, while Joe Stowers insisted that comp plans should “be about options”. Looking to realize land areas’ “development potential” was stressed often. Note: I found this troubling because it sounds like the objective is to fill land with buildings, not necessarily to create a thing of beauty, that stresses community, liveability and mobility. Open space, natural areas and infrastructure such as schools are not mentioned. Transportation improvements for pedestrians and bikes in addition to roads are given modest lip service but are not the focus.
There was apparent unanimity to create the two new subcommittees with an RTC type mandate. Mentioned but not resolved, I think, was the question of extending the RTC Subcommittee mandate to include all of TC north and particularly south of the station—the latter being of particular concern because there has been so little conversation of “development potential” on that side—including connecting eastward to JBG Land.
As I understood it, the plan is as follows:
At the May 11 Meeting:
-County staff presentations on: Transportation—“situation in current transportation Hpatterns, changes likely with advent of transit.”
-County staff on Park Authority role, changes in way they plan park space. [Arthur Hill of P & Z said he thought “park stuff” was peripheral; TF’s focus is on commercial, industrial ? and residential development!]
-On affordable housing. (after suggestions that this be dropped—it was retained, I think.)
-Update on Process meeting!
-Update by RTC subcommittee—and possible discussion of extending their mandate to the south side, encouraged by lawyer Looney.
-Discussion of Planning Principles maybe. (Remember them?)
May 22 Community Meeting:
-Special presentation by a high-powered real estate market consultant; TOD discussion; breakout groups to discuss Herndon-Monroe station
May 25 TF Meeting:
-Wiehle Station breakout groups
-formation of Wiehle subcommittee—to report by end of June; announce and begin formation of Herndon-Monroe subcommittee
-Report with recommendations of Reston Town Center Committee—although this likely to slip to June 1 meeting with addition of southside mandate.
June 1 TF Meeting: Possible report of Reston 2020 Parks/facilities group pressed on chair by Leila Gordon. Led to discussion of opening to presentations by 4 other Reston 2020 groups—Environment, Transportation, RUDL and ?X?; possibly RA committees, others. Possibly report of RTC subcommittee, formal kickoff of H-M Subcommittee. (delayed after it was pointed out that the TF would be wise to give Polo Fields neighbors a lot of advance notice or there could be “political trouble”.
The latter led to expanded concern about the need to make the communities and community aware of changes to meetings schedules, changes to agendas in upcoming meetings, getting word to groups who might be invited to make presentations including Reston 2020 groups and any others, like RA committees, possibly ARCH, etc. Comment: While Chairman Nicoson has been more receptive than the norm to community input, she is under pressure from several TF members and the calendar to move on and leave the community aside. I fear an attempt to line up all possible groups, give them 10 minutes each, check that block as “community participation” done and move on without any real effort to incorporate important substantive work done by 2020 work groups in particular.
Opinion: The Process group again failed to see the forest while being led by the nose into the trees. The TF still has adopted NO guiding principles as they go piece by piece looking for development potential NOT community potential. In the first place, they should have adopted an overall vision for Reston (while there has been talk of at least doing so for the corridor, there is no vision at that level either.) from which would have flowed the planning principles to guide their analysis and discussions of the 3 station areas, Town Center and the village centers (and other areas?) to follow.
Instead, the TF is building up the maximum “development potential” in discussions increasingly led by landowners and their lawyers with no overall vision. So, the group maximizes what can be done at Wiehle, then Town Center and then Herndon-Monroe before moving on to do the same for each of the 5 village centers—and then maybe the connecting, all-enveloping high density “sinews”. You get the idea.
OK, so what does it matter what order they go in? It matters because as we get down the pike, or at the end, we’ll find we have a residential capacity for 150-160,000 people and commercial development greatly surpassing the new, but now revised downward, 85 million square feet at Tysons Corner. And, we’ll find we have no schools for this 150% increase in population, nowhere near civilized amounts and quality of open and natural spaces, and pathetically inadequate pedestrian, bicycle and even vehicular transport infrastructure. Only a couple of people on the Task Force, especially John Carter, recognizes this. What will it take for the sheep to stop being led and starting to approach a master plan at the community level.
The current approach is backwards and marches us towards a Tysons outcome NOT a Reston outcome.
John Lovaas
Friday, May 7, 2010
Draft Agenda: Reston Task Force, May 11, 2010
DRAFT
RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
TASK FORCE
May 11, 2010
Task Force Meeting
Reston Community Center at Lake Anne
DRAFT AGENDA
7:00 p.m. Public Comment Period
7:15 p.m. Administrative Items - Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair
7:30 p.m. Briefing: Planning for Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Sandy Stallman, Fairfax County Park Authority
• Larry Butler, Reston Association Director of Parks and
Recreation
8:00 p.m. Briefing: Macro view of Transportation Network
• Staff, Department of Transportation
8:30 p.m. Briefing: Fairfax County Affordable Housing Policy
• Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning
8:40 p.m. Update: Town Center Committee of the Task Force
• Committee Representatives
8:50 p.m. Update: Process Committee of the Task Force
• Mark Looney, Committee Representative
9:10 p.m. Update: Draft Planning Principles
• Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair
9:25 p.m. Upcoming Meetings -
Saturday May 15th – Community Forum re: Transit-Oriented Development (South Lakes High School cafeteria)
Saturday May 22nd – Reston Town Center north Community Meeting (Langston Hughes Middle School)
Tuesday May 25th – Task Force Small Group exercise re: Wiehle Avenue (RCC at Lake Anne)
9:30 p.m. Adjourn - Patty Nicoson
RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
TASK FORCE
May 11, 2010
Task Force Meeting
Reston Community Center at Lake Anne
DRAFT AGENDA
7:00 p.m. Public Comment Period
7:15 p.m. Administrative Items - Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair
7:30 p.m. Briefing: Planning for Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Sandy Stallman, Fairfax County Park Authority
• Larry Butler, Reston Association Director of Parks and
Recreation
8:00 p.m. Briefing: Macro view of Transportation Network
• Staff, Department of Transportation
8:30 p.m. Briefing: Fairfax County Affordable Housing Policy
• Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning
8:40 p.m. Update: Town Center Committee of the Task Force
• Committee Representatives
8:50 p.m. Update: Process Committee of the Task Force
• Mark Looney, Committee Representative
9:10 p.m. Update: Draft Planning Principles
• Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair
9:25 p.m. Upcoming Meetings -
Saturday May 15th – Community Forum re: Transit-Oriented Development (South Lakes High School cafeteria)
Saturday May 22nd – Reston Town Center north Community Meeting (Langston Hughes Middle School)
Tuesday May 25th – Task Force Small Group exercise re: Wiehle Avenue (RCC at Lake Anne)
9:30 p.m. Adjourn - Patty Nicoson
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Charter: Reston Town Center Committee, Reston Task Force
Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force:
Town Center Committee
Committee Members: Pete Otteni (Co-Chair), Robert Goudie (Co-Chair), Phil Tobey, Mark Looney, Rae Noritake, Bill Keefe, Susan Mockenhaupt, Terri Phillips, Joe Stowers. Heidi Merkel (staff).
Committee Mission Statement: The Committee will look at what if any changes should be made to the County planning documents to accommodate Town Center’s future growth, including the following:
1. Consider if north and south Town Center need to be better integrated. Some considerations:
a. Should a north-south, pedestrian-friendly connector through the extended urban core be defined (much as Market St. connects east with west through the core)?
b. To what extent, if at all, does New Dominion Parkway interfere with realizing this goal?
2. Consider goals for the possible future development of the North County Government and INOVA parcels.
a. What additional public and community facilities are needed and could be accommodated?
b. Are public-private partnership opportunities available to encourage development of such parcels and needed facilities?
c. How can expansion of the library and police station best be incorporated into the plan?
3. Consider future residential density amounts and concentration.
4. Review the grid and consider what updates based on projected future development are warranted, with a goal of ensuring the free flow of especially pedestrian and bicycle but also vehicular traffic from the Town Center Metro station to the north end of the Spectrum lot and everywhere in between.
a. Review the Reston Metrorail Access Group (RMAG) recommendations for Town Center.
b. Review conclusions/recommendations generated at prior bike/ped “summits” and whether any additional bike and ped improvements should be recommended.
c. Consider whether improved pedestrian crossings are warranted and, if so, which ones -- especially across the main arteries framing the urban core (Reston Parkway, Bluemont, Town Center Parkway, and New Dominion).
d. Does an internal Town Center bus, trolley, or other circulation service make sense?
5. Consider what infrastructure improvements beyond those affecting the grid should be recommended.
a. How can open space be encouraged and protected?
b. How should public parking needs be addressed and where should such parking be located to ensure both commercial success and an urban core free of vehicular congestion?
6. Consider key urban design issues to further build upon Town Center’s unique identity.
a. This might include signage, street plans, and landscape treatments.
b. Consider incorporating a plan for public art and art galleries (using IPAR as a resource) that enhances Town Center’s position as a locus for the arts.
Timetable for deliverables: The Committee will seek to have recommendations prepared for presentation to the Task Force at the Task Force meeting to discuss Town Center.
General Requirements
Committee members will be appointed by the Task Force Chair from among the Task Force’s members. The Committee will report to the Task Force and be accountable under the County FOIA and regular Task Force order, assisted by County Staff. Non-voting expertise could be sought if the Committee deems that appropriate.
- end -
Town Center Committee
Committee Members: Pete Otteni (Co-Chair), Robert Goudie (Co-Chair), Phil Tobey, Mark Looney, Rae Noritake, Bill Keefe, Susan Mockenhaupt, Terri Phillips, Joe Stowers. Heidi Merkel (staff).
Committee Mission Statement: The Committee will look at what if any changes should be made to the County planning documents to accommodate Town Center’s future growth, including the following:
1. Consider if north and south Town Center need to be better integrated. Some considerations:
a. Should a north-south, pedestrian-friendly connector through the extended urban core be defined (much as Market St. connects east with west through the core)?
b. To what extent, if at all, does New Dominion Parkway interfere with realizing this goal?
2. Consider goals for the possible future development of the North County Government and INOVA parcels.
a. What additional public and community facilities are needed and could be accommodated?
b. Are public-private partnership opportunities available to encourage development of such parcels and needed facilities?
c. How can expansion of the library and police station best be incorporated into the plan?
3. Consider future residential density amounts and concentration.
4. Review the grid and consider what updates based on projected future development are warranted, with a goal of ensuring the free flow of especially pedestrian and bicycle but also vehicular traffic from the Town Center Metro station to the north end of the Spectrum lot and everywhere in between.
a. Review the Reston Metrorail Access Group (RMAG) recommendations for Town Center.
b. Review conclusions/recommendations generated at prior bike/ped “summits” and whether any additional bike and ped improvements should be recommended.
c. Consider whether improved pedestrian crossings are warranted and, if so, which ones -- especially across the main arteries framing the urban core (Reston Parkway, Bluemont, Town Center Parkway, and New Dominion).
d. Does an internal Town Center bus, trolley, or other circulation service make sense?
5. Consider what infrastructure improvements beyond those affecting the grid should be recommended.
a. How can open space be encouraged and protected?
b. How should public parking needs be addressed and where should such parking be located to ensure both commercial success and an urban core free of vehicular congestion?
6. Consider key urban design issues to further build upon Town Center’s unique identity.
a. This might include signage, street plans, and landscape treatments.
b. Consider incorporating a plan for public art and art galleries (using IPAR as a resource) that enhances Town Center’s position as a locus for the arts.
Timetable for deliverables: The Committee will seek to have recommendations prepared for presentation to the Task Force at the Task Force meeting to discuss Town Center.
General Requirements
Committee members will be appointed by the Task Force Chair from among the Task Force’s members. The Committee will report to the Task Force and be accountable under the County FOIA and regular Task Force order, assisted by County Staff. Non-voting expertise could be sought if the Committee deems that appropriate.
- end -
Monday, May 3, 2010
Agenda: Reston Town Center Committee Meeting, May 4, 2010
Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force:
Town Center Committee
Committee Members: Pete Otteni (Co-Chair), Robert Goudie (Co-Chair), Phil Tobey, Mark Looney, Rae Noritake, Bill Keefe, Susan Mockenhaupt, Terri Phillips, Joe Stowers. Heidi Merkel (staff).
Committee Mission Statement: The Committee will look at what if any changes should be made to the County planning documents to accommodate Town Center’s future growth, including the following:
1. Consider if north and south Town Center need to be better integrated. Some considerations:
a. Should a north-south, pedestrian-friendly connector through the extended urban core be defined (much as Market St. connects east with west through the core)?
b. To what extent, if at all, does New Dominion Parkway interfere with realizing this goal?
2. Consider goals for the possible future development of the North County Government and INOVA parcels.
a. What additional public and community facilities are needed and could be accommodated?
b. Are public-private partnership opportunities available to encourage development of such parcels and needed facilities?
c. How can expansion of the library and police station best be incorporated into the plan?
3. Consider future residential density amounts and concentration.
4. Review the grid and consider what updates based on projected future development are warranted, with a goal of ensuring the free flow of especially pedestrian and bicycle but also vehicular traffic from the Town Center Metro station to the north end of the Spectrum lot and everywhere in between.
a. Review the Reston Metrorail Access Group (RMAG) recommendations for Town Center.
b. Review conclusions/recommendations generated at prior bike/ped “summits” and whether any additional bike and ped improvements should be recommended.
c. Consider whether improved pedestrian crossings are warranted and, if so, which ones -- especially across the main arteries framing the urban core (Reston Parkway, Bluemont, Town Center Parkway, and New Dominion).
d. Does an internal Town Center bus, trolley, or other circulation service make sense?
5. Consider what infrastructure improvements beyond those affecting the grid should be recommended.
a. How can open space be encouraged and protected?
b. How should public parking needs be addressed and where should such parking be located to ensure both commercial success and an urban core free of vehicular congestion?
6. Consider key urban design issues to further build upon Town Center’s unique identity.
a. This might include signage, street plans, and landscape treatments.
b. Consider incorporating a plan for public art and art galleries (using IPAR as a resource) that enhances Town Center’s position as a locus for the arts.
Timetable for deliverables: The Committee will seek to have recommendations prepared for presentation to the Task Force at the Task Force meeting to discuss Town Center.
General Requirements
Committee members will be appointed by the Task Force Chair from among the Task Force’s members. The Committee will report to the Task Force and be accountable under the County FOIA and regular Task Force order, assisted by County Staff. Non-voting expertise could be sought if the Committee deems that appropriate.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Summary with Presentations: Reston Town Center Committee Meeting, April 27, 2010
TOWN CENTER COMMITTEE
AGENDA - 4/27/10
Interlineations in italics reflect action taken
Administrative
• Today’s objective: begin discussion on a possible grid for North Town Center
• Will almost surely take more than one meeting
• Could present more than one option to the Task Force
• Want to start with seeking to accommodate the police station parameters as we know them; if material concerns remain, then consider alternatives
• Other public facility/open space pieces: County offices and Supervisor’s office; library; 5 acre PA site and possible exchange; tot lot; adult open space; science center; art
• Open Forum at close rather than beginning of meeting – will allow community to truly be part of the dialogue and give Committee time it needs to vet the straw man
I. INOVA Straw Man (15 minutes, presentation by Dave Sittler and Tim Sampson)
See attached outline of INOVA presentation and slides showing the draft grid. Key takeaways:
- Consensus agreement this is a very good beginning point. INOVA received appropriate thanks for taking the laboring oar in creating this draft and making the good-faith effort to balance the various interests that had been articulated in our first three meetings – police and other County needs; open space; creating a more vibrant use of this series of parcels; and optimizing chances for commercial success.
- As to latter point, Mark Looney (in response to a question on the subject) said while he could not speak for Lerner he thought this concept offered reasonable prospects for realizing the vision of a more animated Fountain Drive that was a key driver in the County’s thinking when it approved the revised Spectrum concept plan.
- On open space, there was a good deal of discussion about extending the proposed park/green across Bowman Towne Drive through the current Library and Library Park lots (to New Dominion). This would create an @ 5 acre park site (equivalent in size to the current PA lot) but be a much more functional/usable space that could serve diverse interests.
- There remains meaningful concern about the police station design/location. Consistent with the stated goal of having the initial concept make a good-faith effort of accommodating the parameters of what the County has been internally discussing with the police for the past year or more, the INOVA draft locates the police station in Parcel H (on the draft) with a natural buffer along the north and west perimeters. No high-rise commercial buildings are proposed adjacent the lot (also meeting a police request). Still, concerns about the design and space requirement for the new station remain (the police preference being no more than a two-story building with its own parking; the chief committee concern being this is more of a suburban rather than urban style design).
- Perhaps even greater concerns were expressed about having a fuel depot in this area. There is deep concern whether this is appropriate long-term.
- There was a suggestion and some favorable comment that Parcel E might be better utilized as a civic lot at the end of the long public green (assuming extension of that green south to New Dominion). It was noted that the proposed parcel designations were just that, proposed. The thought was less (for the moment) the parcel designations (which might change over time) and more the conceptual layout. That said, the discussion made plain the multiple possibilities for the various lots.
- There was also discussion about whether a north-south corridor through Library Park and all the way to Baron Cameron made sense. INOVA felt that was not likely achievable due to anticipated VDOT concerns with turning requirements etc.
- There was wide agreement that a ped/bike overlay for the layout is needed to ensure that what is created here is easily accessed and used by foot and bike.
- There was appreciation for the traffic calming nature of the smaller park that was included, and discussion about whether additional traffic claming approaches should be reflected.
- Noted with some enthusiasm is the ability to phase aspects of this proposal, including the police station (which could have parking temporarily on the northwest corner of Parcel G until the Cameron Glen facility is razed).
- There seemed to be a consensus emerging that the committee now needs to look at the bigger picture – how this kind of re-imagining on North Town Center could be tied into a new vision that includes the metro station – that we need to look at a full north-south footprint that completes a vision from Baron Cameron at least to the metro station (if not further to the south to the USGS site). There was some sense that should perhaps be the committee’s next focus – looking at a vision for the sites closest to the metro station and then knitting this together.
II. Committee Q&A/Input on Straw Man (60 minutes)
See above.
Open Forum (15 minutes)
Several residents spoke with the following items raised:
- Concern that we should be starting with the metro station and then working north and south, not starting at North Town Center and working our way back to the metro station.
- Deep concern about the design and size of the police station, and the location of the fuel depot. One suggestion was the fuel depot should be relocated to the RA storage lot across from Target.
- Continuing input about the need to protect ped/bike travel as a priority.
- General compliments for the effort and thought that went into the straw man as a starting point; very constructive.
- A caution that if there is going to be any future air right development at the TC metro station then steps need to be taken fairly quickly to protect that in the planning.
- The notion of extending the park space through to New Dominion was generally positively received, although there was at least one who felt a north-south connector through that area may still make the most sense.
- We cannot ignore south of the metro station, and the hope is that the committee will look at this in an integrated way.
INOVA Presentation to Subcommittee 4-27-2010
INOVA Draft Grid for North Reston Town Center 4-27-10
AGENDA - 4/27/10
Interlineations in italics reflect action taken
Administrative
• Today’s objective: begin discussion on a possible grid for North Town Center
• Will almost surely take more than one meeting
• Could present more than one option to the Task Force
• Want to start with seeking to accommodate the police station parameters as we know them; if material concerns remain, then consider alternatives
• Other public facility/open space pieces: County offices and Supervisor’s office; library; 5 acre PA site and possible exchange; tot lot; adult open space; science center; art
• Open Forum at close rather than beginning of meeting – will allow community to truly be part of the dialogue and give Committee time it needs to vet the straw man
I. INOVA Straw Man (15 minutes, presentation by Dave Sittler and Tim Sampson)
See attached outline of INOVA presentation and slides showing the draft grid. Key takeaways:
- Consensus agreement this is a very good beginning point. INOVA received appropriate thanks for taking the laboring oar in creating this draft and making the good-faith effort to balance the various interests that had been articulated in our first three meetings – police and other County needs; open space; creating a more vibrant use of this series of parcels; and optimizing chances for commercial success.
- As to latter point, Mark Looney (in response to a question on the subject) said while he could not speak for Lerner he thought this concept offered reasonable prospects for realizing the vision of a more animated Fountain Drive that was a key driver in the County’s thinking when it approved the revised Spectrum concept plan.
- On open space, there was a good deal of discussion about extending the proposed park/green across Bowman Towne Drive through the current Library and Library Park lots (to New Dominion). This would create an @ 5 acre park site (equivalent in size to the current PA lot) but be a much more functional/usable space that could serve diverse interests.
- There remains meaningful concern about the police station design/location. Consistent with the stated goal of having the initial concept make a good-faith effort of accommodating the parameters of what the County has been internally discussing with the police for the past year or more, the INOVA draft locates the police station in Parcel H (on the draft) with a natural buffer along the north and west perimeters. No high-rise commercial buildings are proposed adjacent the lot (also meeting a police request). Still, concerns about the design and space requirement for the new station remain (the police preference being no more than a two-story building with its own parking; the chief committee concern being this is more of a suburban rather than urban style design).
- Perhaps even greater concerns were expressed about having a fuel depot in this area. There is deep concern whether this is appropriate long-term.
- There was a suggestion and some favorable comment that Parcel E might be better utilized as a civic lot at the end of the long public green (assuming extension of that green south to New Dominion). It was noted that the proposed parcel designations were just that, proposed. The thought was less (for the moment) the parcel designations (which might change over time) and more the conceptual layout. That said, the discussion made plain the multiple possibilities for the various lots.
- There was also discussion about whether a north-south corridor through Library Park and all the way to Baron Cameron made sense. INOVA felt that was not likely achievable due to anticipated VDOT concerns with turning requirements etc.
- There was wide agreement that a ped/bike overlay for the layout is needed to ensure that what is created here is easily accessed and used by foot and bike.
- There was appreciation for the traffic calming nature of the smaller park that was included, and discussion about whether additional traffic claming approaches should be reflected.
- Noted with some enthusiasm is the ability to phase aspects of this proposal, including the police station (which could have parking temporarily on the northwest corner of Parcel G until the Cameron Glen facility is razed).
- There seemed to be a consensus emerging that the committee now needs to look at the bigger picture – how this kind of re-imagining on North Town Center could be tied into a new vision that includes the metro station – that we need to look at a full north-south footprint that completes a vision from Baron Cameron at least to the metro station (if not further to the south to the USGS site). There was some sense that should perhaps be the committee’s next focus – looking at a vision for the sites closest to the metro station and then knitting this together.
II. Committee Q&A/Input on Straw Man (60 minutes)
See above.
Open Forum (15 minutes)
Several residents spoke with the following items raised:
- Concern that we should be starting with the metro station and then working north and south, not starting at North Town Center and working our way back to the metro station.
- Deep concern about the design and size of the police station, and the location of the fuel depot. One suggestion was the fuel depot should be relocated to the RA storage lot across from Target.
- Continuing input about the need to protect ped/bike travel as a priority.
- General compliments for the effort and thought that went into the straw man as a starting point; very constructive.
- A caution that if there is going to be any future air right development at the TC metro station then steps need to be taken fairly quickly to protect that in the planning.
- The notion of extending the park space through to New Dominion was generally positively received, although there was at least one who felt a north-south connector through that area may still make the most sense.
- We cannot ignore south of the metro station, and the hope is that the committee will look at this in an integrated way.
INOVA Presentation to Subcommittee 4-27-2010
INOVA Draft Grid for North Reston Town Center 4-27-10
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Background Info on North Reston Town Center
The pages below provide background information on the stakeholders, as-built condition, regulatory (use) conditions, and ownership of the land comprising north Reston Town Center. It was presented to the RTC Committee this week.
North Reston Town Center Information
North Reston Town Center Information
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Agenda: Reston Town Center Meeting, April 20, 2010
Open forum
Administrative
I. Presentation from Dave Marshall on what County stakeholders are considering
II. Presentation from Bill Bouie on thoughts Parks Authority has for its parcel west of Fountain (Bill Keefe to ask Bill if he can join us)
III. Presentation of Rick Stevens on RMAG for Town Center (Robert will contact Rick)
IV. Open discussion among the group based on what we’ve learned on identifying goals/priorities for public facilities and open space in North TC
Administrative
I. Presentation from Dave Marshall on what County stakeholders are considering
II. Presentation from Bill Bouie on thoughts Parks Authority has for its parcel west of Fountain (Bill Keefe to ask Bill if he can join us)
III. Presentation of Rick Stevens on RMAG for Town Center (Robert will contact Rick)
IV. Open discussion among the group based on what we’ve learned on identifying goals/priorities for public facilities and open space in North TC
Monday, April 5, 2010
Draft Agenda: Reston Town Center Committee Meeting, April 6, 2010
The meeting is scheduled from 8-9:30 AM, Tuesday morning, April 6, 2010, at West Market Clubhouse, 1901 Logan Manor Drive, Reston, VA.
I. Organizational Issues (20 minutes)
a. FOIA: do we need minutes? A pre-meeting agenda? Anything else?
b. What is it that we as a committee want to produce: just text for the Comp Plan or some kind of map (ala Sasaki or amended Master Conceptual Plan)? If latter, how do we do that resource wise?
c. Set future meeting schedule so it can be published
II. Discussion on residential density issue (45 minutes)
a. Essential issue: TC is subject to the 13 people per acre Reston PRC cap, which yields a total population cap for the PRC at +/- 83,000. Current estimates suggest Reston is at about 65,000, which includes about +/- 5,000 TC residents. It is conceivable that the remaining +/- 20,000 residential density slots could all end up in Town Center, resulting in a total TC residential population of +/- 25,000. Questions:
i. Do we care?
ii. Should it be less (i.e., should there essentially be a TC cap within the overall cap)?
iii. Should it be more (i.e., should TC even remain subject to the 13 people per acre cap)?
III. Begin discussion on goals for the North County lot (25 minutes)
a. Heidi to present overview of current County thinking on police station move and related issues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)