Reston 2020 Summary of the RTF Meeting, March 26, 2013

                                                       R. Rogers

                     28 March 2013

Reston Master Planning Task Force Meeting –26 March 2013

Summary: The Wiehle station access issue bubbled up in the prelimi-naries. County DOT discussed its approach to traffic mitigation.  Considerable time was spent by Heidi Merkel responding to comments on the draft DPZ planning text. The most significant issues raised were DPZ modification of the jobs-housing balance and developers pushing for more office density.  Next up on Monday 8 April is the DOT traffic analysis on Scenario G.

Wiehle Station

The introductory session was dominated by issues related to the station.  After briefly summarizing progress on the Silver Line (90% complete) and noting the possible complication of the delay in the Falls Church rail yard, Patty Nicoson reviewed her 15 March letter to Supervisor Hudgins “on behalf of the” RTF.  Patty noted that Hudgins had raised the station issue (Vornado access?) at a recent BOS meeting.  Andy Sigle, RA rep, said the issue was so pressing that the TF should devote 5 minutes at the beginning of every meeting to what progress is being made on access issues.  Basil Rathbone of FC DOT said some access projects are being held up by VDOT and the TF should have Chris Wells, FC pedestrian access person, in to talk.  (Comment:  All this was a good illustration of the impact of the RCA Wiehle access paper.) Patty noted the county Soapstone design consulting team, which has put 6 routing options on the table, may be coming up with two options at the end of April. 

                                                                       

Tiered Approach to Traffic Management

                                                                       

Dan Rathbone, FC Department of Transportation Senior Planner, spoke about how a tiered approach can mitigate traffic problems.  This involves in priority order:

--Low cost options to smooth traffic (signals, restriping, “impedance changes” to restrict speed).

--Medium cost actions, such as turn lanes and additional street grids

--Additional mitigation steps away from the specific intersection (road and bridge construction).

(Comment: Little attention was given to TDM measures. The presentation is not yet on the website, but should be shortly.)

Rathbone noted that DOT will follow up with action after the plan is adopted.  This will involve a refined analysis of the street grid, developers doing a Traffic Impact analysis (TIA), and as part of the zoning process asked to adopt the “tiered approach” to traffic management.

In response to a question re what will happen to the Wiehle station area after the Silver Line is completed to Dulles, Rathbone said this was “a good question” and that there may be a need now for temporary measures.

He noted that the TF needs to determine what is the acceptable level of congestion within the ½-mile range.

John Carter opined that you cannot just increase the flow of traffic in the station areas, but you need to accept slower traffic.  He said shared parking between uses would help and that urban standards requiring bus or pedestrian access should be employed.

Rathbone noted difficulties with VDOT on an urban approach to traffic management and noted that FC DOT has made presentations to the Board about adopting more urban standards.

                                                                       

It was stressed that the 8 April RMPTF meeting will involve DOT presenting their analysis of the traffic implications of Scenario G.

Review of DPZ Draft Plan Text

Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning, noted that DPZ responses to various points raisedearlier were incorporated in the draft on the website.  The DPZ responses in the draft drew little comment. She focused her attention on TF member comments received subsequently to that.

One of the more significant developments was correction of the figures relating to existing job/housing balance.  In response to RCA questions, review of data indicates to DPZ that the balance now is 2.6 jobs to one household.  Perhaps the goal, Heidi said, should be 2.4 to 1.

A number of the comments reflected the view that there should be more office development in the ¼- ½ mile range from the station.  For example, it was questioned why p 14 talks of 75% residential in these areas. There was also concern that proposal for office development in these areas would use up the allocation for office in a broader area. (Comment:  The tone of many of the questions submitted was pro office development.)  In this context, the point was made that office space per worker, which the RTF has assumed should be 300 GSF, is now at 200 GSF and trending lower as companies cut costs and telework and other technologies make office space less needed.

The need for an entity for urban design review was noted. (Comment: The draft makes no mention of the role of RA in the TOD areas.)

Many of the question reflected narrow concerns:

--Under recreation include “tot lots.”

--We need more plazas (Bob Simon)

--Long discussion about whether higher education references should be to public, private or for profit colleges and universities

--Show Reston Station Blvd extending to Plaza America

--Don’t call the Reston TC station a “downtown station;” call it an “urban center station.”

--Robert Goudie again raised the issue of placing more residential at Wiehle and HM so the proportion of residential and commercial could stay the same, but TC could be more office.

(Comment: No clear decision was apparent in response to most of this. Presumably the staff will review the comments in the context of a new draft.)

Summary: Reston Task Force Meeting, March 27, 2012

                                     R. Rogers

                                        28 March 2012

Highlights: 27 March 2012 Reston Master Planning Task Force Meeting

Summary and Comment:  The meeting focused on parks and recreation needs in the RCIG area.  Based on the presentation by parks personnel and comments from the Task Force, much remains to be done.  In particular, the connection of this subject to Phase II of the planning effort was emphasized.

Parks Recreation and Culture

     Several people were involved in the presentation.

     Anna Betley from the FC Parks Authority (FCPA) Staff, the main presenter.

     Sandy Stallman, FCPA head of planning.

     Larry Butler, RA Recreation Director

     Leila Gordon, RCC

(The presentation was a coordinated effort of this group.)

Needs

     An important 11 point table of needs is on the county website and should be reviewed.  In addition, some useful maps show existing facilities, virtually none of which are in the TOD areas.

     The “needs assessment” appeared to be based on FCPA parks standards. (Comment: Some of the Task Force sub-groups, particularly the RTC sub-com, critically questioned the applicability or the standards to the Reston TOD areas.)

     Of note was a call for 54 acres of open space and small park facilities and approximately 60 acres of major play fields. (Comment: None of the sub-committees appear close to meeting the assessed needs and some task force groups have explicitly said that major fields should be outside the TOD areas.)

Major Facilities

     The assessment called for one indoor aquatics facility and an indoor tennis facility.  It also called for an indoor performance center.

     One TF member called for a major recreation facility that might incorporate some of the above, perhaps at a Village Center. John Carter also raised the issue of a how a major university center might fit into the picture.

     Peter Otteni of Boston Properties (BP) said that the 20 acre BP site adjacent to TC station might be considered for a major performance center, but pointedly commented that BP could not be expected to carry this load by itself. John Carter noted the Strathmore facility in MD cost $90 million. Leila Gordon said she was thinking of $50 million.

Connectivity

     The presentation stressed the need for North-South connectivity into adjacent RA facilities and the need for east-west connectivity, particularly on the south side (the WOD trail already provides some on the North side). The presentation map contained  a walkway along Sunrise Valley.  Paul Thomas said a connection along the Dulles Toll road might be more appropriate (his Wiehle subcom had called for using existing parking and landscaped areas along the toll road for such a link).

Phase II

       Bob Simon strongly criticized the presentation for focusing only on the RCIG and not the relationship to the surrounding PRC area.  He called the presentation an“academic analysis.” Comment: Other comments focused on potential Phase II issue such as the relationship of needs to Lake Fairfax Park and the role of RA (FCPA said again it sees obstacles to better park connectivity to Reston) and RA implied that underutilized RA aquatic facilities could play a role). It is difficult to see how the full needs assessment could be fulfilled without reference to the PRC and even adjacent areas to Reston.

Next Steps and Implementation

     The presenter said that the next steps would involve finalizing the list of needs, refining recommendations and the submission of a “memorandum”. Some TF members noted the linkage of park issues to the subject of implementation. The issue of governance was not discussed although Leila Gordon said she presumed the RCIG area would become part of RA. (Comment: There seemed to be a significant disconnect between the needs presentation and what has been developed by the sub-committees.  The presenter said the sub-com reports had been taken into account, but this was not immediately apparent. Whether this can be bridged by plan language remains to be seen.)

Cryptic Comments by the Presenters

• Anna noted that Reston Town Center North offers a “particular opportunity” because so much of it is county land.

• Larry Butler commented that future developments might depend on “where they draw the stable neighborhood lines” in Phase II.

Next TF Meetings

     Heidi Merkel said the next TF meeting on 17 April would focus on the real estate market trends and an update on revised George Mason figures.

     A meeting on 24 April will involve a presentation on the scope and metrics of the transportation study (not the results) and may include a public safety presentation.

Notes on RTF Community Meeting on Phase II--Village Centers & Residential Areas, November 16, 2011

                                      R.Rogers

                                      19 Nov 2011

                              

Reston Task Force Community Meeting

Introduction to Phase 2

16 November 2011

     Summary and Comment: Some comment and interpretations concerning Heidi Merkel’s presentation at the 16 November Reston community meeting on Phase 2 have suggested that there is little possibility of significant change in the Reston PRC areas.  In fact, experienced observers of the Reston Master Planning effort believe that the presentation was carefully crafted to give that impression while leaving many options open for significant re-development.  Of particular interest is the lack of clarity about the process that will be employed to incorporate citizens’ views.  Nothing about planning for Reston's village centers and neighborhoods was foreclosed for Phase 2. 

     Heidi’s presentation was a masterful performance of one hour without a break. Her key talking points are available on the county website and have been given some--albeit somewhat misleading--coverage in local newspapers. This review tries to interpret key points made.

     Heidi said the real work on Phase 2 will not begin until late May or June.  She said this meeting is not a “kickoff” but an informational effort to alert Reston residents to what is coming.  She said, optimistically, that Phase 2 could be completed by late fall of 2012.

PRC Residential Areas

     She keyed her comments on this aspect of the study to the theme that residents want “predictability” (significantly, although she briefly mentioned “stability,” she did not key her presentation to that theme, which has a unique—and undesirable from citizens’ perspective-—meaning in the redevelopment lexicon.) She said DPZ senses a “desire for a structured process for considering redevelopment proposals.”  She noted that many areas were not built up to the density of the existing plan.  Medium density areas (mostly townhouses) could be garden style apartments. High density areas are mostly garden apartments rather than the high rises that could have been put there.

     Heidi said there may be utility in redefining some of these areas in accord with what is actually there.  The land use plan “could use more definition.”

     She also noted that the county has existing guidelines) for community redevelopment (an apparent reference to Appendix 8 of the Master Plan).  It requires a high degree of property owner concurrence to make changes.  There is also a need to ensure compatibility of any changes with adjacent areas.

     (Comment: Although she did not explicitly say so, she seemed to be implying that townhouse clusters could turn themselves over to re-developers in certain situations.  She did not mention to the role of the Reston Deed, RA, or the Design Review Board in this process.)

     Important Comment: A version of the Reston “planning principles” was handed out.  It did not include the note appended to the principles approved by the RMPTF concerning the residential areas.  That note, appended by the development community, said the future of the residential areas will be revisited as Part of Phase II.)

Village Centers

     Village Centers will be another focal point of Phase 2.  Heidi noted that Lake Anne contained Robert Simon’s vision of what a village center should be but it has not prospered. She said they could stay as commercial strips or become community gathering places—or conceivably something else.

     She stressed that any changes must be sought by and be initiated by the center’s property owner; but it is not clear what their vision is. She stressed that it will be the property owners who will bring about change. 

     DPZ posted maps of the village centers and Heidi noted that there are some residential areas within these boundaries.  She noted that there are also some residential areas adjacent of village centers and that they “by and large” should be stable.

     She said the village centers could be the subject of a “charrette” bringing in outside design experts to confer with community and property owners. The mention of “charrettes” brought groans from the audience.  Tall Oaks might be a particularly useful subject for this.

     She said the at other commercial areas—the “convenience” and the Home Depot–Trader Joe area will be included in the review but that consideration may well be given to keeping them as they are for the future.

     Population Cap: Early in her presentation, Heidi noted that DPZ will be looking at a 20-year horizon for population change and that in the TOD-Metro station areas--which are outside the PRC--there might be a growth of 35,000 residents. Later in response to a question, she deferred putting forth specific current figures of both population and the cap, saying they will be on the county website.

     She noted, however, that Phase 2 will be looking at options for development that exceed the current cap.  One possibility would be to raise the cap.  Another would be to keep the current 13 people per acre density but evaluate specific areas on a case by case basis.  She said DPZ anticipated a focused community meeting to discuss population levels.  A member of the audience asked what the point was of having a cap if we just keep raising it. 

     Golf Courses: In response to a question at the end of the meeting on Reston National, Heidi said maybe we should think about future development of the golf courses (specifically including Hidden Creek too). (Comment: this was a new idea in the planning process. The Wiehle TOD sub-committee in particular has emphasized the importance of the Golf Courses as a buffer between the TOD and PRC areas.)

     Fairway Apartments and Colvin Run Woods: In response to a question, Heidi said Fairway Apartments will not be left in abeyance until Phase 2 planning is completed since the property owner has existing rights under current zoning.   Colvin Woods, however, may be included in the study.

Phase II Process

     Heidi left open how Phase 2 might proceed.  She said it would be either a Task Force of an “advisory group.”  She implied that the current planning Task Force was a somewhat unwieldy group.

     She said composition of any group is under consideration and no chair was designated. She said the groups would include member of Reston organizations and property owners.   She left unclear what role this group might have in drafting or approving a plan.  However, as noted above, she did speak of some specific community meetings.

     She noted the process may involve some revisions and updates of the existing planning maps to reflect what has happened over the last 40 years and to revise “outdated” concepts.   The transportation map may be revised since it now reflects only roadways and the land use and community facilities map may be combined.

Notes from the Reston Task Force Meeting, March 15, 2011, Dick Rogers

                                      R. ROGERS

                                      16 March 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE MEETING: 15 MARCH

Summary: The Task Force approved the Vision and Planning Principles statement!  But only after considerable debate on the sections on the environment and re-development around the Village Centers.

Admin Items:

Summary Approval:  The Task Force (TF) approved the summary of its February 22, 2011, meeting without discussion.

Letter to MWAA re Air Rights:  A draft follow-up TF letter to MWAA on air rights is on hold because of developer concern that the $34 million involved is too expensive and could hold up Phase 2 of Metro.  On the other hand, the same developer argued that the $64 million cost for delaying a decision would be a drop in the bucket compared with the billion dollar development that would be involved.  A member of the TF noted that the TF needed to highlight the importance of air rights to MWAA in Reston’s TOD effort.  Another noted that the TF would probably “only get one shot at this” and urged it be sent forward. Patti Nicoson said she would review the draft. 

           Visitability has been raised with the TF.  Heidi Merkel, County DPZ staff, will look into county policies on this accessibility issue.

           Chairman Patti Nicoson noted that Terry Maynard at Reston 2020 had asked that his analysis of various levels of proposed density be put on the county website.  However, since some assumptions are not clear, Heidi will go back and work with Terry to get more clarity before putting it on the web.

Public comments:

Affordable Housing:  Tom Loftus, Equitable Housing Institute of Northern Virginia, urged the TF to promote a good balance between residential and office in the TOD areas. His organization advocates 1 housing unit for each 1.5 jobs. He also noted that a good economic balance was needed in the type of housing offered. He said his organization had sent a letter on this to the TF on this topic.

RA Letter on Environment:  Freya de la Cola, a spokesperson for RA’s Environmental Advisory Committee, noted that the EAC has prepared and the RA Board had approved a letter sent to the TF calling for the strengthening of the Vision & Planning Principles statement on protecting Reston’s natural resources. 

Vision Committee (VC) Report

John Carter presented an overview on the VC report (available on county website). Reaction was notably mute with the exception of endorsements for a memorial garden and additional crossings of the DTR.  (The full VC report is available here on the Reston 2020 blog.)

Vision & Planning Principles Statement

           A one hour and 20 minute discussion was held (the agenda had allowed 15 minutes!). Two issues dominated—environment and village centers/protection of residential neighborhoods. Robert Goudie’s amendments were the centerpiece of this discussion (his was the only alternative language graphically presented to the group).

           On Planning Principle #2 concerning the environment, the discussion went two ways. Goudie and developers proposed softening the statement that natural areas will be “protected and restored.”  RA, whose spokesperson Freya de la Cola spoke earlier, proposed additional wording that added the word “remedied” to adverse impact on the environment and protected Reston’s tree canopy as of environmental significance.  The Task Force split the difference by adopting both proposals!

             On the neighborhoods section of Planning Principle #4, Goudie proposed wording protecting existing residential areas “outside the Town Center, rail corridor, and Village Centers, inferentially including these areas--especially the Village Centers—as potentially “targeted” for additional development and density. Concern was expressed about how this would affect existing neighborhoods in the VCs. Heidi Merkel added to this by noting that the boundaries of the VCs sometimes included residential areas beyond the existing shopping areas, even including single family houses. It was noted that some areas around the village centers include garden apartments which provide affordable housing. Initially the TF was going to defer on all this but later Goudie suggested deleting his language that “target” the village centers for redevelopment.  This leaves somewhat ambiguous what will happen around the VCs. This was approved by a vote that was not clear.

            Other points inserted by Goudie were added but some of his excessive verbiage dropped.  An attempt to remove the label “highest priority” from additional DTR crossings was successful but his attempt to delete “abundant” open space was replaced by “high quality publicly accessible open space”.

The overall principles were approved, apparently by a 17 to 2 vote.

            Comment: The procedures used during these votes were highly unorthodox, if not misleading.  No roll was taken at the beginning of the meeting, no effort made to establish the credentials particularly of alternates (some sat out the vote even though only about ¾ of the regular TF members were present). The wording being voted on was not always apparent to the members.  Discussion was truncated and disorganized.  Opposing votes were not counted, and voting results were left unclear.

Steering Committee Update

            In the last 15 minutes Heidi presented an overview of the work of the Steering Committee in determining station “character,” including brief summaries the SC developed for the “character” of each station.  There was no time for discussion — and no one was interested in discussion as the clock approached 10 PM. Heidi noted she may propose these character statements for a vote at the next TF meeting.

Next meetings: 

• Steering Committee. The SC will meet next Wednesday, March 23, at 8AM, at the North County Govt Center. It will look at “massing” of buildings and continue discussion on mix of uses.

• Next TF meeting: April 5, 7 PM, place to be determined.

    

Summary: Reston Task Force Meeting, May 11, 2010, Terry Maynard

Notes on Reston Task Force Meeting, May 11, 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

Summary: Reston Town Center Committee, May 4, 2010

TC 5-4-10 Meeting Summary

Unofficial Summary: Reston Task Force Meeting, April 27, 2010

Highlights

• Planning Principles remain in editorial limbo.
• A DPZ staffer presented on the environment but judging by the questions of TF members had virtually nothing to offer directly relevant to Reston and the planning exercise.
• Several developers presented their ideas on the North and South Town Center station areas.
• The TF broke into sub-groups to discuss the station areas. Street grids and Town Center density in both areas were the consensus.
• Various ideas on how to proceed from here were discussed. Apparently this will be left up to the Process Committee to work out.

Public Comments

Joe Stowers noted that the Airports Authority is going ahead with a study of air rights development over the Toll Road. Patty confirmed a $150,000 contract with Parson Brinkerhoff. She expected work to be completed in 6 weeks. She said it would only cover the Town Center station area. Rob Whitfield said that no money has been appropriated yet and the study may take more like 4-6 months (see below for developer comments on air rights).

Admin Announcements

A community seminar featuring John Carter and Arlington Planning Division Chief Bob Brosnan will be held 15 May at 9 AM. Ms. Hudgins, the Dulles Corridor Rail Association, and RA are co-hosting this.

Heidi and the staff are still trying to arrange a bus tour around Reston.

Work continues on the planning principles document prepared by John Carter. It is “in the county staff in box.” Patti said she edited it but will need to send it for further editing.

The earlier Process Committee meeting was mentioned. As a result of that discussion, the meeting tonight featured small group discussions with facilitation by the DPZ staff.

The 25 May TF meeting will feature urban marketing expert Shyam Kannan of the Robert Charles Lesser Co. He is an expert in the demographics of marketing.

Robert Goudie spoke briefly about the work of the Reston Town Center sub-committee, which had its fourth meeting on 27 April. He said the committee was now “into the meat and potatoes” of North Town Center, with a strawman draft plan presented by INOVA. The committee hopes to complete work on a street grid for the area and then turn to heights, FARs and density. He pointedly noted that these meetings were public and publicized on the 2020 blog. (Comment: See separate blog entries on this meeting.)

Patty noted that she was getting so many emails from some people she was organizing them by giving each person a file.

Patty commented that Bill Penniman was preparing an outline of how a report might look (Comment: This was cryptic and unclear).

Minutes were approved.

The Environmental Issue

Noel Kaplan, senior environmental planner in the DPZ spoke for about 15 minutes. Since his presentation will be on the website it is only highlighted here. He noted that he was open to any question 703 324-1369.

His presentation covered general county environmental policy including:
• Low impact development.
• Curbing water runoff, including getting water back into the ground.
• Noise levels.
• Green buildings.
He noted that standards in this area are rapidly changing and said that in many instances the county did not have firm guidelines

Questions: Several members including John Carter, Robert Simon, Jerry Volloy and Nick Bauer asked a series of question about how county policies related to Reston. Essentially, the answer was that no particular standards existed specific to Reston and that Kaplan had not focused on specific Reston issues. Bob Simon, for example, noted that a county overview map presented by Kaplan was “far too casual” and did not reflect the potential high density areas of Reston in detail. (Comment: The TF questioning was the most energetic, critical and aggressive on any issue to date.)

A Reston PZ member noted that there was a problem for developers with the county policy of creating an escrow account to ensure compliance with LEED standards. It was noted that a plan might be approved now for development but that by the projects completion in several years the standards it will be judged by may have changed, Kaplan said he did not know the answer to this problem and is studying it.

Developers Presentations

Peter Otteni of Boston Properties discussed potential plans for the key “Gateway site” abreast the TC station in area D-4. BP has 22 acres including two existing buildings in the area and has 1,000,000 sq feet of development potential by right. He also noted BP Properties owns 10 acres in D-2 (the Town Center) and additional property in D-5. The latter is a relatively new suburban style property not suitable for re-development now.

He thought the D-4 Gateway site particularly ripe for re-development.

A key issue is getting from the station to the Town Center. BP is thinking of a raised pedestrian bridge over Sunset Hills. This site could be re-developed as a mixed use commercial, residential and, hotel area. He commented that BP is not in the residential business so would be thinking of some partnership or relationship with an experienced residential developer.

BP was thinking that this property should be very urban in scale, matching the height and density of the property to the North. Considering the ½ mile walk to sections of the Town Center, BP was thinking that some sort of bus shuttle loop will be needed.

He noted a 25 foot drop down Sunset Hills from East to West at the site. They were thinking of a possible plaza that would greet approaching Sunset Hills traffic from the east. This would feature fountains and green space atop any garage. The plaza would be surrounded by retail at the base of the buildings.

At several points during his presentation, he noted that re-development on this scale this will be “risky” proposition for BP.

Robert Goudie was asked to speak, apparently on behalf of TC residents. He said the residents appreciated the urbanity of the TC and the improvements evident since 1998. He said residents appreciate that the station will become part of the TC and that it was important to think of the whole TC area in terms of connectivity. He noted the need for a dedicated trolley or circulator service. He noted that residents thought there was more need for pedestrian and bike crossings and that the design of the station should be world class, not a cookie cutter station.

(Comment: There was no mention of TC resident concern stated in earlier WATCH papers about too much population growth in TC.)

Patty then invited Brian Berry of Tishman Speyers to speak. TS owns extensive property in E-4 on the south side of the station. He noted that some of their property will be used for a kiss and ride drop off, 8-7 taxi stands and 6 bus bays. Sprint Nextel is there now with a lease till 2014. He noted that the master plan calls for a tunnel under the toll road in their area but noted this is a 25 year old proposal and that it might be dropped to reconfigure the entrance to the station. He thought the property lent itself more to commercial than residential development. He said height limits of 140 ft need to be lifted to up to 240 feet, noting that the existing Reston International Center is 275 feet. Height is needed to compensate for open space and plazas.

Patty then asked Andy Van Horn of JBG to discuss his company’s property. He noted that JBG owns Reston Heights (the old Sheraton area). He briefly noted that JBG was thinking of a grid of streets, urbanity and Metro oriented densities. There was a need to make it more walkable.

Patty then asked Daniel Perrington of Brookfield was the asked to speak. He noted that they have 36 acres in E-5. He noted that they are experienced with mixed use development in Rosslyn. He said that Brookfield has submitted a plan for the area involving three commercial office buildings but that this is now on hold.

An RPZ person asked about cooperation between developers on the south side. The answer was vague but there was a mention of a meeting in May.

Arthur Hill of the RPZ noted the importance of knowing what is on the ground now and what is planned. He said he knew of 12 plans but only 2 were going forward. Patti asked Arthur to type up his list and circulate it rather than reading it now.

Air rights development: There was a vigorous discussion of air rights development potential. The developers virtually unanimously said that right now Reston was not suitable for this type of development. Land values were too low relative to other urban areas to justify such development commercially. Various technical issues were also raised such as vibrations, security, issues with the station platform.

Dick Kennedy noted the importance of planning in advance for air rights development (i.e. installing footings etc now before station development impedes this).

(Comment: The solicitude shown developer “stakeholders”—even non-task force members—during this period was noteworthy in view of the wariness with which Reston residents' contributions have been treated.)

Reston Parkway Exercise

The last hour of the session was devoted the group exercise on the Reston Town Center station mentioned earlier.

The TF was broken up into four groups. The staff carefully assigned people to groups, apparently to get a mix of people in each.

The group I sat in on spent most time drawing up a potential grid, particularly on the south side. Joe Stowers was a strong proponent of better pedestrian crossings of Reston Parkway and Sunset Hills. There was a general consensus that Town Center should be extended to the south side, with densities tapering off near Sunrise Valley. This group would create active urban open space with adjacent buildings as the first impression of the Town Center at the Metro station instead of parking areas and “kiss n’Ride” areas as presently proposed. In addition, this group created a parallel bikeway along Sunrise Valley Drive with connections to the W&OD Trail as part of an extensive bikeway and trail system that would connect each of the future Metro stations to the Reston systems.

The groups briefly presented their findings (presumably these will be made available by the county). John Carter presented his group’s plan. They proposed plazas on either side of the station as a welcoming to Reston site. His group would remove or reduce the kiss and ride slots.

All of he groups seemed to include a grid of streets on both sides of the station and Town Center density on both sides. One noted that the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, owner of the WO&D, needs to be brought into the discussion.

One group noted that there was a lot of re-development opportunity on the south side including the area west of the USGS (the tech park) that was just outside the ½-mile circle.

(Comment: Only one group mentioned the USGS property noting that it is the “900 lb elephant in the room.”. It was noted that USGS is in a 30 year old building; where will it be in 20-30 years? When I raised the USGS issue in the group I sat in on, the reaction was, in effect, that it is a foreign country and in no way related to Reston planning issues.)

What Next

The meeting concluded with a disjointed discussion of what to do next. This was triggered by a request from Heidi for an evaluation of the exercise. One comment was that more time was needed for the groups.

There was discussion about the utility of having 2-3 members follow up this work to develop the ideas presented.

Robert Goudie said maybe all this should be should be folded into the Reston Town Center sub-group, which could turn to it after the North Town Center is completed. Goudie also raised the possibility of a separate committee for the south side

Mark Looney suggested turning to the property owners for some sort of concept. One suggestion was to hear more from the south side property owners at the next meeting. Looney noted that any plan might take well more than 2 weeks to develop. He also raised the artificiality of the land units, which have been created largely by property ownership. He suggested developing new ones

Patty suggested turning to another station in the meantime. There was interest from the TF, however, in finishing what had been started. Jerry Volloy noted the importance of figuring out how to move from the discussion they just had to putting down planning text.

Heidi noted that the next meeting was already filled with important briefings including affordable housing, parks and recreation.

The general consensus that emerged seemed to be that the Process Committee should meet again and determine how to move forward.


Prepared by Dick Rogers, Reston 2020 Committee