Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Reston Town Center Committee Meeting Agenda and Revised Draft Report, September 18, 2010

RTC Committee co-chair sent the following e-mail and attachments to the committee and the community on September 18, 2010, in preparation for Tuesday's 7:30 AM meeting of the committee at the West Market Clubhouse. 


All,

We will focus Tuesday on the new edits to the draft report and straw man map (both attached).  I have done my best to try to capture the essence of the items we’ve agreed to the last couple of weeks.  Pete and I want to thank all for working through these issues, and the excellent input we’ve gotten from 2020, other residents, and the landowners.  It has all improved the work product.

I used the last version (dated a/o Aug. 30) as a clean draft and then redlined off of that.  I’m sure I haven’t gotten all of it.  Among the new “stuff” I’ve added some new descriptions on street improvements.  This grew out of late discussions at the last meeting.  I think we ought to discuss to what extent, if at all, we want these and to what streets these criteria apply (e.g., presumably Reston Parkway should not be treated the same as Market Street; I have created a difference between what I’ve called “interior streets” and boundary or “conveyer streets”; while all should have sidewalks and some bike/ped-friendly characteristics, the former would have more traffic calming and on-street parking while the latter would be used more to convey vehicles around the urban core and Metro South).  I’m sure this warrants some discussion.  For example, I understand one or more of the other Committees are talking about Sunrise Valley’s character being changed considerably.  Not clear to me the group wants that in Metro South, this being an important conveyer street to some extent.  Sunrise Valley may not be the only sticky one.  New Dominion we’ve parsed a bit.  Town Center Parkway?  Open for discussion.  Here is what I propose:

Administrative (5 minutes – meet again September 28, at which time we will hear a presentation from a County representative working on the police dep’t redesign efforts and we’ll finalize the report; we still have Oct. 5 and possibly even the 12th for an additional meeting if needed)

I.                  Open Forum (15 minutes)
II.                Discussion of Looney parking/housing proposal
III.               Road Design
a.       Do we like the new language?  Any adds/edits?
b.       Do we want to designate what are interior versus conveyer streets (for lack of a better term) and define the distinguishing characteristics of the two?
IV.               Discuss other edits to the draft
a.       Suggested format:  Each Committee member will be given time to raise and have addressed by the group (pro, con, or modified) three possible changes/edits
b.       Once we’ve gone around the Committee once, we’ll return and ask for an additional edit from each Committee member
c.       Once we’ve gone around the room we’ll return and ask for an additional edit from each Committee member, and so on until we run out of time and/or get all Committee input on the draft
d.       So all Committee members should try to prepare a list of edits you’d like to see addressed so we can cover them as we go around the room.
Once again, many thanks to Rae for editing the map (more than once over the last few days!).

Joe, I’ve added your minority report.  I’d ask you to reconsider what we’ve said now on the various subjects on which you comment and ensure it matches up appropriately with what we are saying in the latest draft (e.g., is maybe the air rights criticism a bit overbroad given what the draft now reflects as but one example?)  Many thanks.
Reston Town Center Metro Draft Committee Report--09-18-10                                                                   

Reston TC Metro Development Straw Man--09-18-10                                                                   

No comments:

Post a Comment

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