Autumn Evening at Washington Plaza, Lake Anne,

Autumn Evening at Washington Plaza, Lake Anne,
Photo by Rodney Solano, Reston, hat tip Reston Patch

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Discussion with Fred Selden, Fairfax Department of Planning and Zoning, April 21, 2010

Interview With Selden, Fairfax DPZ, Dick Stillson 042110

Strategic Plan for Citizens Shaping Reston's Future, RCA and Reston 2020 Committee, April 26, 2010

Strategy Paper Final, April 26 '10

Letter: A Win-Win Solution For Reston Wetlands, Reston Connection, April 28, 2010

To the Editor:

I was impressed by your very comprehensive story on Sunrise Valley Park [“Area Residents Seek Protection for a Sanctuary,” Reston Connection, April 7-13]. The Master Planning process for Reston has revealed a very strong desire to keep the wetlands intact where they are today. There has been some hint that the property owner may wish to move the wetlands to another location because of the proximity of the property to the Metro. I hope the last few weeks have been an indication of the difficulty in achieving this goal against public opinion.

I would like to suggest a win-win situation. The developer should transfer the wetland portion of the property to the Reston Association. This should be done as a charitable donation. That will reduce corporate income taxes. By transferring land ownership, they would reduce the size of their land holdings eligible for property taxes. The Reston Association is exempt from property taxes.

The Reston Association is skilled at maintaining parkland. Sunrise Valley Park would become more accessible to the public. RA could maintain the present pathway system without seeking permission from the property owners. The property owners have permitted RA to place some signs on the property and to do limited maintenance on the pathway system.

Your readers might be interested in a book by Charles A. Veatch called the "Nature of Reston." This consists of a number of beautiful nature photographs, some of which were taken in Sunrise Valley Park.

The public has shown a great interest in the park. I hope that interest can be turned into action.

R. Douglas Pew
Reston

News: Connector Bus Service Preserved, Reston Connection, April 28, 2010


County dips into General Fund to cover loss of toll revenue for buses.

By Mike DiCicco
Wednesday, April 28, 2010


A month ago, it looked like seven Connector bus routes in the area were going to be replaced by a single route that would run between the Reston East Park and Ride and the West Falls Church Metro Station. However, the Board of Supervisors has decided to dip into the county’s General Fund to preserve bus service throughout the county, although some spare buses will not receive funding....


Click here for the rest of this article.

Bethesda Walking Tour, Doug Pew, RestonPaths

Doug Pew has posted a series of annotated photographs on the RestonPaths website of a walking tour he took of Bethesda to garner insights for the ongoing Reston planning process. Here are his opening remarks on the walk:

Part of the process of developing changes to the Reston master plan involves looking at other local towns that might serve as good examples for Reston Town Center. Bethesda, MD has been suggested as a good example of a transit oriented town that we may wish to emulate. We decided to do a walking tour of that town to see how it compares to Reston.

To follow his walk through Bethesda, click here or on the title. The photo tour is informative and enjoyable!

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

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

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

Tysons plan worries developers with property not near planned Metro stations, WaPo, April 26, 2010

This Washington Post article highlights some very important development issues still facing the Tysons re-development plan after more than five years of work. These same issues may also become important in the planning of Reston's urbanization beyond the transit-oriented development areas.

By Jonathan O'Connell
Monday, April 26, 2010


A new plan for Tysons Corner has been in the works since 2005, but there is still a lot at stake in the final details for developers with money in the area. Who will pay for transportation and infrastructure improvements? What incentives will there be to build housing and prevent Tysons from becoming (err, remaining) an office park?

One concern stood out, however, Wednesday night when developers and commercial property owners lined up with residents and environmental advocates at a Fairfax County Planning Commission hearing to have a final say on the 233-page draft plan: the fate of developers whose property isn't within walking distance of one of the four planned Metro stations. . . .


Click here for the rest of the story.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Notes from Meeting on County Planning for North Town Center, April 14, 2010

Notes From Meeting With DPZ on Town Center North--Rogers--041410

UPDDATE: FINAL Agenda: Reston Task Force Meeting, April 27, 2010

Note: The final agenda varies from the draft agenda by including a discussion of the Process Committee's meeting last week. Please see highlighted text.


RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY  
TASK FORCE  
 
April 27, 2010 
 
Task Force Meeting  
South Lake High School cafeteria 
 
AGENDA 
 
 
7:00 p.m.  Public Comment Period   
 
7:15 p.m.  Administrative Items  ‐  Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair 

Approval of 4/13 and  4/17 Meeting Summaries 
 
7:30 p.m.  Briefing:  Environmental Policy re: Stormwater Management, Green Buildings and Noise Impacts
 Noel Kaplan, Department of Planning and Zoning 
 
7:45 p.m. Reston Parkway Station Area presentation 
   Pete Ottenti, Boston Properties (property owner)
   Robert Goudie, Reston Town Center (resident)
 
7:55 p.m.  Task Force Small Group Activity re: Reston Parkway  
• Review of Suggestions from Process Cmte Meeting (4/16)
Report out of Small Group Activity and Task Force discussion   
 
9:25 p.m.  Upcoming Meetings  ‐
   
Tuesday May 11th – Briefings on Transportation, Parks and Recreation Facility 
Planning and Affordable Housing Policy 

Saturday May 22nd – Reston Town Center north Community Meeting 
 
9:30 p.m.  Adjourn  ‐  Patty Nicoson 

Dulles Rail Tax Fight Moves Ahead, NBCWashington, April 25, 2010

VA Supreme Court to hear Fairfax business owner’s plea

The fight to keep the Dulles rail project from hitting the wallets of Fairfax County business owners is moving down the line.

The Virginia Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit filed by a Tysons Corner real estate executive, according to an Associated Press report...

...The basis of FFW Enterprises’ cases is that taxing commercial property owners and not homeowners is a violation of the Constitution. . . .


Click here for the rest of this article.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Reston Looks at Town Center Metro Station, The Observer, April 22, 2010

Written by Leslie Perales • Observer Editor Thursday, 22 April 2010 15:46

Area residents took a closer look at land use around Reston Town Center and the future Metro station that will be constructed there on Saturday.

The Reston Master Plan Special Study community meeting allowed residents to get to know what the current county plans allow in the area and discuss what they would prefer to see once landowners begin redevelopment.

Fairfax County senior planner Heidi Merkel said the station will be a destination station, where people will go to spend time, rather than a collector station where people will park to ride the Metro to other areas. The station will include bus loops and kiss-and-rides on each side, but no parking garages will be built. . . .


For the rest of this article, click here.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Virginia's high cost of housing highlighted in 2010 housing affordability report, NLIHC & VHC

According to a national report released today that provides data on the cost of rental housing for every county, metropolitan area and state in the nation, the Housing Wage for Virginia is $19.63. The Housing Wage is the hourly wage a family must earn - working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year - to be able to afford rent and utilities in the private housing market. Virginia's Housing Wage has increased 54% since 2000, the 10th largest increase among the states.

The report, Out of Reach 2010, was jointly released by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), a Washington, DC-based housing policy organization, and the Virginia Housing Coalition (VHC). The report provides the Housing Wage and other data for every state, metropolitan area, combined non metropolitan area, and county in the country.

"Again the Out of Reach data demonstrates that it is becoming more difficult for low income families to find decent homes they can afford in Virginia," said Orlando Artze, President of the Virginia Housing Coalition. "The recession has only made a bad situation worse. We must act now to ensure that low income families have access to the safe and affordable housing they so desperately need."

Working at minimum wage, a family must have 2.7 wage earners working full-time - or one full-time earner working 108 hours/week at Virginia's minimum wage of $7.25 per hour - to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. The typical renter in Virginia earns $15.22 per hour, which is $4.41 less than the hourly wage needed to afford a modest unit.

In Northern Virginia, the numbers are even worse. The Housing Wage in that part of the state is a whopping $28.73, while the typical renter in the area earns only $20.54 per hour.

An estimated 46% of renters in Virginia do not earn enough to afford a two-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent.

This year, Virginia is the twelfth most expensive state in the nation for renters. The National Housing Wage is $18.44 in 2010.

The Virginia Housing Coalition (www.vahousingcoalition.org) supports organizations and individuals working to provide affordable housing options in Virginia by influencing and developing public policy, recognizing exemplary achievement, and providing education, training and services that will make its members more effective in attaining their goals.

For additional information, visit http://www.nlihc.org/oor2010/

The University of Reston Urban Planning and Design Graduate Center, Patrick Kane, Reston Urban Planner

Najeeb Halaby is a member of the Tytran advisory board of the UMTA-funded study; it was to create a vision of the future of Tysons Corner. He called to ask me if I had any big ideas under consideration. I replied, “Of course big ideas are the only ones that go somewhere.” There should be mass transit from, through, and to. The obvious from is DC; the obvious through is Tysons; the obvious to is Dulles Corridor. The second proposal is to add considerable amounts of housing within Tysons Corner. He replied, “Sounds good. Some of them might want to live in Tysons.” I challenged this comment by asking if “them” were people who are less important than he is. He agreed, and I asked him if he would like to live there; he said maybe it was time to reduce the size of his farm because his daughter, Queen Noor, had taken her horse to Jordan. I then asked where he might like to relocate; he quickly answered “Palo Alto, California.” “why Palo Alto? But not to worry I was accepted at Stanford.

My next question was if he would like to see a university at Tyson’s? He said that he could enjoy the culture, and it would support connectivity in Tysons.

The place called Reston is a very-well-balanced community that lacks the draw and vitality a university would provide. The following paper will advocate an approach towards the formation of the University of Reston. It could be a Notre Dame satellite.

Reviewing the need for a university, some suggested it would be appropriate to add a graduate center focusing on planning, architecture, and community design, and locate this center in Reston, a place that manifests so many innovations that are used to shape the future of suburbia and that will require reinvestment as they age. My former department head at UVA said “this may be of interest to new leadership arriving in Charlottesville”. [I like this because of my ten-year-commitment to UVA graduate planning when they were in Falls Church. Of course my personal loyalties are directed to South Bend, where a program was offered to a school of architecture by T Brooks Brademes. He offered a seminar on planning; from this pool of students, he established a consulting firm. It was on the front end of HUD programs. Several alumni moved on to other firms.]

Hokie Interest


The Alexandria VPI Center is a consortium of architecture and planning firms. Their current program is in need of new space. A key staff person met with me last week to hear some ideas. We talked about the ability to teach planning from an upper floor of the International Center; furthermore, if space could be found, he was ready to make a deal. The view rooms of the International Center were used to sell Reston by Reston Land Corp. Another time the members of the rail task force were guests of RLC. Kane students always had a window tour of Reston. Absolutely it cannot be beat. The broker has offered information forwarded to a Hokie. This idea was also presented to Father John Langan, the current rector of the Society of Jesus at Georgetown University. The Fairfax County staff person directing the Reston College wondered if window space could be used for the next class. [This space gives a 360 degree view of yesterday and places for tomorrow.]

Every project I carry out begins with the purchase of an air photo, usually from Reston’s first business, Air Survey Corp. A window view would equal a hard-copy sense of Reston.

[I did learn recently that Virginia Tech's Alexandria campus has more students than seats; they have begun talks with JGB for space in the International Center. This would allow from-the-window teaching and access to the hotels for luncheon programs. The real estate cost may be outside the allocated budget price- per-student. It may be outside the budget but with the president's commitment to education there should be a budget somewhere to cover the gap. The semester starts soon. So the time is now.]

Creating something to improve citizen effectiveness would tie into the people noise that’s catching the current news. This also ties into the County's current commitment to the land use college and the citizens' academy. Initiatives are growing in many places. If the educated residents of Northern Virginia are not prepared their efforts often go for naught.

There are initiatives underway to improve America, disguised as stimulus packages. An energized and informed populace would be the needed ingredient to make this stew edible. Other space worthy of consideration include both of the old Bowman houses and Lake Anne Village Center. In the early days of Reston, Virginia Tech operated from the old farmhouse on Sunrise Valley Drive.

Governor Kaine was intensely interested in the arrival of VW headquarters in Herndon; I pointed out the facility was in the Reston/Herndon area rather than in the corporate limits of Herndon. In my photo op I pointed out that we had many things in common but not eyes or " I’s". His remarks related to his hope that the new administration will expand learning opportunities for all ages in order to establish a pool of educated people that can fill jobs at places like VW. Communities should pursue education for all ages. I told him that the room was full of Reston leaders who had felt this way for years; I suggested he present the audience with the challenge to keep the ball rolling. We also talked about the connectivity between low vision and Downs syndrome. He directed me to the state school board member in the audience, who was surprised that this subject will be addressed on my webpage as soon as my high school support team reenters the field.

I have been circulating a document which sets forth a number of personal objectives which include: the formation of The University of Reston as a graduate center that uses this place as the basis of the syllabus. A colleague recommended I set forth an agenda with lower expectations and different implementation techniques. The subjects should be broken down and more wickets employed to keep the ball rolling as per the governor's exhortation. To that end objective one on my agenda could be restated as "to establish a lecture series related to patterns of human settlement", a subject addressed by Messrs Kane Simon and Ritchey during a tour for a VPI class. I have included Reston tours in all my classes at both UVA and Mason. The Dulles Corridor Task Force joined me and the Reston Land folks at the 8th floor windows of the county's tallest building to engage in a planning discussion. My personal agenda includes inviting citizens to join students for presentations which should meet the objectives of the Reston Citizens Academy if JGB would allow this to occur. I'm sure if it were followed by a luncheon at the Sheraton the idea would have traction. This will become wicket 1.1 to my opened agenda. I would add 1.2 to expand the focus of planned education to include future bankers, social scientists, media people, and future healthcare providers. A Reston resident who teaches community nursing will help me expand the curriculum to attract student nurses. Clearly law students should be introduced to planning issues in preparation for zoning work. Engineers should also be allowed access.

While at Charlottesville, hoping to get key people to join my group, I asked to meet with other schools, to no avail. All good programs there require a marketing element; a number of my contacts have stayed in the game, which helps seeking project approval. Expanding this curriculum would begin with the formulation of the philosophy of planning [another wicket to pass the ball through]. Improving cluster management is another agenda item. VPI should consider helping clusters utilize unused spaces for test gardens as seen along the highways for corn hybrids. This acreage is identified as VPI sign test sites. It would extend the VPI presence in Reston beyond the long=ago efforts of Joseph Intemago at the farmhouse, or the new communities institute with VPI and Reston which did prepare a letterhead and brochure which never got off the ground

I would like to reestablish contact with Mr. Blue, another man from that time, and keep this ball rolling. This paper should be reviewed together with the opened agenda prepared by Kane and the described need for the University of Reston. If a program begins, property at the Lake Anne plaza should be converted to student housing to establish an equivalent to The Green. That could carry the name of the bricks. This would clearly provide stimulus to the revitalization of the Lake Anne center.

©2009 Patrick Kane. All rights reserved. Draft.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Two Summaries: Reston Town Center Committee Meeting, April 20, 2010

Official summary prepared by Chairman Robert Goudie:

Reston Town Center Committee 4-20-10 Meeting Summary

Addendum prepared by Dick Rogers, Reston 2020:

20 April TC Mtg--Addendum--Dick Rogers

Dulles Rail Project Hits Snag Over Cost of Rail Cars, WaPo, April 21, 2010

By Lisa Rein.,
Washington Post Staff Writer

Officials building a subway line to Dulles International Airport say Metro is overcharging them for new rail cars, a budget-busting cost they predict could delay the opening of the extension and force higher fees for Dulles Toll Road commuters.

Unless Metro agrees to eliminate a $75 million markup on 64 rail cars it is preparing to buy for the new Silver Line, the regional airports authority won't agree to the deal, officials said. . . .



For the rest of this article, click here.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Agenda: Reston TF Town Center Committee, April 20, 2010

TOWN CENTER COMMITTEE

AGENDA - 4/20/10, 8AM, West Market Clubhouse

Subject: “Infrastructure” (sans grid, to include public facilities, open space, transportation)

Open Forum

Administrative

I. Transportation (35 minutes, to include presentation from Rick Stevens, County DOT – looking for overlay on TC map of RMAG-recommended improvements and discussion about what if any additional improvements are needed; will add to this bike/ped summit if we have presenter, borrowing time from other segments as needed)

II. Open Space (35 minutes, to include presentation from Bill Bouie, Chair, Parks Authority, with focus on possible plans/uses/alternatives for the 5 acre PA parcel)

III. Public Facilities (Dave Marshall and Heidi Merkel, County Planning – 20 minutes; covered some at last meeting (police, library, County offices, human services); extend beyond that discussion to other additions -- Schools? Fire? Utilities?)

Next week of course we will start with an INOVA straw man and begin creating a grid for North TC. If the INOVA folks can join us tomorrow, sure that would be helpful in thinking through the straw man for next week (Dave Sittler copied here, Dave please forward to Tim as I don’t have his e-mail).

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Notes from Reston Task Force Process Committee Meeting, April 16, 2010, John Lovaas

This morning (April 16, 2010), I attended the Task Force's meeting on PROCESS. About 15 people attended from the TF plus Goldie and Heidi. The rest was probably half regular members, half alternates. Developers and allies were outnumbered, but still led a lot.

Meeting began by general expression of frustration with either TF pace or lack of clear direction or both.

Heidi then reminded group of the mission, showing slides of some of the goals and "drivers" that had been shown in early meetings. She encouraged folks to remember that the TF's job was not to start anew on the comp plan, but only to make recommendations if truly needed, that their job was to concentrate more on the vision, the longer term view at a higher level of generality rather than getting into comp plan details. She said that the goals of TOD and the vision would not likely be realized for 20-30 or more years. [opinion--we hear this refrain frequently, as though what the TF recommends is not so important in our now world, so not to worry....]

She gave an interesting example: the amounts of parking proposed at Wiehle and more so at Herndon-Monroe are likely set since "funding decisions have been made." But, in 20 or so years, when we are really beginning to see what TOD actually looks like on the ground, it may be time to re-open the matter for reducing parking lots (Joe Stowers agreed, pointing out that the parking planned is excessive and will make it hard to achieve real TOD! But, he seemed content to wait 20 years or so.). But, it might be good to include that goal in the current Task Force's vision for later reference!

Several folks disagreed with the notion of the TF making recommendations only at a general vision level, not getting into specifics of land uses by properties in the comp plan. Bill Penniman was a champion on this one--arguing that indeed it would seem prudent to get into some detail if the TF was to really help shape outcomes. Arthur Hill chimed in that indeed that was true and the TF would need a lot better, more detailed information on current conditions both in terms of the comp plan and the underlying zoning. This got Mark Looney's dander up. He thought it much better to stay out of zoning and at a general level. Arthur reminded him that comp plans are relatively unimportant where the rubber meets the road because they are so easily changed, whereas zoning has the force of law. [I think we've heard Mike Corrigan, who was not present this AM, forcefully make the same case on several occasions].

Before the group got to actual discussion of the PROCESS, they went around on the parking issue. Richard Kennedy wants to hear no more about it, "it is a waste of time" because the parking is already set at both Wiehle and H-M. Patty Nicoson disagreed, pointing out that the speaker the other night left room for possible change at H-M--but not at Wiehle which is in Phase I and is DONE. Looney suggested a third possibility somehow letting the extended garages be planned at H-M but possibly not given to Metro to operate but to the private sector which might be more inclined to change uses [for more profitable uses??]. Polo Fields rep who sat with TF members argued strongly for flex to reduce not go to max at H-M.. It was left with the Chair seeming interested in the Looney proposal...

On PROCESS, the group decided to go to more small group action, but not entirely so as not to block the fullest understanding and fully informed consensus by the TF as a whole. Richard Kennedy and Mark Looney seemed to share strong distrust of turning process over to smaller groups, although the latter seems content with the arrangement for the Town Center Subcom which he helps to lead. Arguing ultimately for a kind of hybrid where, if I understand it correctly, the TF will break down into groups (probably one for each station area) early in the next meeting and then report back to the larger group at some point in hopes of getting the full TF to a better informed, detailed consensus. Some argued for continued work in groups, with each station group required (per Kennedy’s insistence) to make a written report to the committee of the whole for consideration, debate of different views that he saw lurking and needed to get out. Looney argued for random selection of subgroup participants because self selection could lead to special interest outcomes somehow. But, it is OK in Town Center? Not sure how all of this will shake out, but Chairman Nicoson said she planned to move to the working subgroups at tne next TF meeting, April 27.

Someone argued a strong agenda (direction?) was needed. Van Foster suggested the TF should organize around accomplishment of the end product, which he saw as a report and the framework for action a sort of table of contents. He volunteered and was tasked with preparing such a table of contents to guide the TF to conclusion and submit to the TF several days before the next TF meeting. The Planning Principles reworked from the Reston 2020 original in final by John Carter (absent this morning) and Nicoson will be discussed and voted on by TF. Then presumably they will carve into workgroups…

Jerry Volloy expressed a concern about moving into the work groups without the context of the community’s vision as developed in community meetings. He asked point blank—“do we mean now to walk away from the guidance given to the TF by the community in these meetings?” Oh no, oh no, said Mark Looney.

Looney offered an approach for larger TF consideration of station areas—“start first with easiest, get it under our belts and work toward the hardest.” He suggested that the H-M was the hardest, should be left for last because of difficult issues of access, wetlands, etc. The TF should begin with Reston Parkway—now preferably called the Reston Town Center station area. Kennedy wanted first to promote a discussion of what the package of the three stations should be—i.e., I guess, the theme of each and assuring they make sense when taken as a group. No one seemed to disagree—in fact, no one said anything in response.

Then Looney, who sought to steer the group—proposed that for consideration of each station area (and presumably Town Center subcommittee) each group be given by County staff:
1-Community input summary for each area (notes from community meetings)
2- Existing plan recs for the area, i.e., “6-9 pages of text from the existing comp plan”; and,
3- Existing land unit recs and plans overlaid with RMAG recommendations and “grid system”

His package noticeably (I thought) left out Arthur Hill’s suggested inclusion of the land unit current zoning?! In fact, I believe Mr. Hill left early and may have missed this omission. No one called Looney on it, and he went on to say, with no preamble or justification, that he thought groups might be instructed they no longer needed to stick to the “wedding cake” TOD model (of feathering density/heights down as you move away from the stations). Again, other than wanting the usual flexibility, no clear rationale was given for the change to TOD.

Ms. Nicoson allowed that she was happy with what the group had accomplished but noted they still needed to plan for community participation. Kennedy nearly jumped out of his chair. Tired of delays, wanted no additional meetings—“after all our meetings are all public” and people have been given many opportunities to speak. And, he said he certainly did not feel the TF should respond to everything written by someone from the community. Enough--he seemed to be saying! Ms. Nicoson did not seem comfortable with this. Bill Penniman stood up firmly for the community to not only comment but to make presentations on topics or issues to the Task Force—and he said he thought it reasonable for the Task Force to discuss those presentations, react to them.

Alternatively, he suggested that perhaps community groups such as 2020 could submit strawmen proposals for each station area, for example. His thoughts were sort of left hanging as the meeting began to dissolve, but the chair seemed receptive, but she certainly was not decisive, so the matter was not resolved. This is something that 2020 will have to act on, following up in whatever way the committee decides is most effective or the RA and 2020 working groups’s efforts are endangered and our vital strategic community substantive input to our community’s future will be lost…

John Lovaas

Saturday, April 17, 2010

RTF Process Committee Meeting Notes, April 16, 2010, John Lovaas

This morning I attended the Task Force's meeting on PROCESS. About 15 people attended from the TF plus Goldie and Heidi. The rest was probably half regular members, half alternates. Developers and allies were outnumbered, but still led a lot.

Meeting began by general expression of frustration with either TF pace or lack of clear direction or both.

Heidi then reminded group of the mission, showing slides of some of the goals and "drivers" that had been shown in early meetings. She encouraged folks to remember that the TF's job was not to start anew on the comp plan, but only to make recommendations if truly needed, that their job was to concentrate more on the vision, the longer term view at a higher level of generality rather than getting into comp plan details. She said that the goals of TOD and the vision would not likely be realized for 20-30 or more years. [Opinion--we hear this refrain frequently, as though what the TF recommends is not so important in our now world, so not to worry....]

She gave an interesting example: the amounts of parking proposed at Wiehle and more so at Herndon-Monroe are likely set since "funding decisions have been made." But, in 20 or so years, when we are really beginning to see what TOD actually looks like on the ground, it may be time to re-open the matter for reducing parking lots (Joe Stowers agreed, pointing out that the parking planned is excessive and will make it hard to achieve real TOD!). But, it might be good to include that goal in the current Task Force's vision for later reference!

Several folks disagreed with the notion of the TF making recommendations only at a general vision level, not getting into specifics of land uses by properties in the comp plan. Bill Penniman was a champion on this one--arguing that indeed it would seem prudent to get into some detail if the TF was to really help shape outcomes. Arthur Hill chimed in that indeed that was true and the TF would need a lot better, more detailed information on current conditions both in terms of the comp plan and the underlying zoning. This got Mark Looney's developer dander up. He thought it much better to stay out of zoning and at a general level. Arthur reminded him that comp plans are relatively unimportant where the rubber meets the road because they are so easily changed, whereas zoning has the force of law. [I think we've heard Mike Corrigan, who was not present this AM, forcefully make the same case on several occasions].

Before the group got to actual discussion of the PROCESS, they went around on the parking issue. Richard Kennedy wants to hear no more about it, "it is a waste of time" because the parking is already set at both Wiehle and H-M. Patty disagreed, pointing out that the speaker the other night left room for possible change at H-M--but not at Wiehle which is in Phase I and is DONE. Looney suggested a third possibility somehow letting the extended garages be planned at H-M but possibly not given to MEtro to operate but to the private sector which might be more inclined to change uses [for more profitable uses??]. Polo Fields rep who sat with TF members argued strongly for flex to reduce not go to max at H-M.. It was left with Patty interested in the Looney proposal...

On PROCESS, the group decided to go to more small group action, but not entirely so as not to block the fullest understanding and fully informed consensus by the TF as a whole. Richard Kennedy and Mark Looney seemed to share strong distrust of turning process over to smaller groups,. Arguing ultimately for a kind of hybrid where, if I understand it correctly, the TF will break down into groups (probably one for each station area) early in the next meeting and then report back to the larger group at some point in hopes of getting the full TF to a better informed, detailed consensus. Some argued for continued work in groups, with each station group required (per Kennedy’s insistence) to make a written report to the committee of the whole for consideration, debate of different views that Richard said were lurking and needed to get out. Indeed, Richard came out a bit it seemed at this meeting. Looney argued for random selection of subgroup participants because self selection could lead to special interest outcomes somehow. Not sure how all of this will shake out, but Patty said she planned to move to the working subgroups at tne next TF meeting.

Someone argued a strong agenda (direction?) was needed. Van Foster suggested the TF should organize around accomplishment of the end product, which he saw as a report and the framework for action a sort of table of contents.

He volunteered and was tasked with preparing such a table of contents to guide the TF to conclusion and submit to the TF several days before the next TF meeting (4/27?). The Planning Principles crafted in final by John Carter (regrettably absent this morning) and Patty will be discussed voted on by TF and then presumably they will carve into workgroups…

Jerry Volloy expressed a concern about moving into the work groups without the context of the community’s vision as developed in community meetings. He asked point blank—“do we mean now to walk away from the guidance given to the TF by the community in these meetings?” Oh no, oh no, said Mark Looney.

Richard Kennedy was most concerned about focus on a final product.

Looney offered an approach for larger TF consideration of station areas—“start first with easiest, get it under our belts and work toward the hardest.” He suggested that the H-M was the hardest, should be left for last because of difficult issues of access, wetlands, etc. First would he Reston Parkway—now preferably called the Town Center station area. Kennedy wanted first to promote a discussion of what the package of the three should be—i.e., I guess, the theme of each and assuring they make sense when taken as a group. No one seemed to disagree—in fact, no one said anything in response.

Then Looney, who kept trying to steer the group—proposed that for consideration of each station area (and presumably Town Center) each group be given by County staff:

1-Community input summary for each area (notes from community meetings)

2- Existing plan recs for the area, i.e., “6-9 pages of text from the existing comp plan; and,

3- Existing land unit recs and plans overlaid with RMAG recommendations and “grid system”

His package noticeably (I thought) left out Arthur Hill’s suggested for the land unit current zoning?! In fact, I believe Arthur left early and may have missed this omission. No one called Looney on it. Looney went on to say, with no preamble or justification, that he thought groups might be instructed they no longer needed to stick to the “wedding cake” TOD model (of feathering density/heights down as you move away from the stations, I believe). Again, other than wanting the usual flexibility, I was not clear what the rationale was for the change….

Patty allowed that she was happy with what the group had accomplished but noted they still needed to deal with planning for community participation. Kennedy nearly jumped out of his chair. Tired of delays, wanted no additional meetings—“after all our meetings are all public” and people have been given many opportunities to speak. And, he said he certainly did not feel the TF should respond to everything written by someone from the community. Enough he seemed to be saying! Patty, to her credit, did not seem comfortable with this. Bill Penniman stood up firmly for the community to not only comment but to make presentations on topics or issues to the Task Force—and he said he thought it reasonable for the Task Force to discuss those presentations, react to them.

Alternatively, he suggested that perhaps community groups such as 2020 could submit strawmen proposals for each station area, for example. His thoughts were sort of left hanging as the meeting began to dissolve, but I believe the chair may have felt receptive, but she certainly was not decisive, so the matter was not resolved. This is something that 2020 will have to act on, following up in whatever way the committee decides is most effective or the working groups’s efforts are endangered and the opportunity to achieve our strategic goal will be lost…



John Lovaas

Friday, April 16, 2010

Reston Parkway Station Community Meeting Presentation, April 17, 2010

Below is the presentation Fairfax County DPZ will provide as background for the brainstorming meeting in tomorrow's Community Meeting on Reston Parkway Station area. It is the most complete presented to date on the TOD areas. While the first 17 viewgraphs reviews the Reston Task Force goals and process, the balance of this presentation looks at the area as it is now and how various groups have suggested it evolve.

Presentation Reston Pkwy Commty Mtg Sat 4-17-10

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Agenda: Community Meeting on Reston Parkway Station TOD Area, Saturday, April 17, 2010, Langston Hughes IS

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY MEETING

RESTON PARKWAY STATION AREA

Saturday, April 17, 2010
9:00 a.m.

Langston Hughes Middle School, Cafeteria, 11401 Ridge Heights Road


AGENDA


9:00 a.m. Welcome
Supervisor Catherine M. Hudgins, Hunter Mill District

9:05 a.m. Meeting Objectives
Brief Overview of Reston Master Plan Special Study
Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning

9:45 a.m. Community Brainstorming Activity regarding future
Reston Parkway station area character

10:45 a.m. Reporting of results of Brainstorming Activity and Public Comments

11:30 a.m. Adjourn

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

Column: Train Is Coming - Literally, Reston Connection, April 14, 2010

The Reston Master Plan Task Force has spent four months listening to rudimentary county reports on the three future Reston rail station areas — Wiehle Avenue, Reston Parkway, and Herndon-Monroe. The Task Force also had productive community meetings on two of them — Herndon-Monroe and Wiehle. Community ideas were solicited on developing the station areas and many good ideas were forthcoming. Community contributors and Task Force members were particularly enthusiastic about making the Wiehle Station a remarkable gateway to Reston with striking features and world class architecture, a place to remember and visit often.

Meanwhile, Fairfax County is busily shaping the future Wiehle Station ignoring both the Task Force and the community. The station plan under hurried consideration is the product of another public-private partnership (under the infamous PPEA law) between the county and a developer. In theory, the PPEA allows a private developer to take public land to build something and, in return, the public gets something fulfilling a worthy public purpose. And, PPEA should expedite the normally glacial county processes. But, this is Fairfax County. It has taken this county four years to get an agreement and now a terrible plan. The developer is Comstock Corporation and its plan is a disappointment to the community, but it is being rushed through the county processes because the train is coming — literally. If the station and a minimum of 2,300 parking spaces are not completed by 2013, the train simply will not stop at Wiehle Avenue. More than a bit embarrassing, eh? So, the county is over a barrel, a barrel of its own making. Comstock’s crappy plan is about to be approved by the political appointees on the Fairfax Planning Commission over objections of most expert Reston residents and the county’s own planning and zoning staff!

What should be a beautiful and memorable gateway station instead promises to leave the impression that Reston is parking garages and sunless, ugly little car-filled malls in a sea of traffic where Wiehle meets the Access Road. In fact, there is no plan to eliminate total gridlock on already jammed Wiehle Avenue. When asked about plans to manage traffic, officials shrug, and tell folks they should plan to walk more. This sad tale is one more example of what happens when the county’s interests and the community’s diverge — Reston loses. Imagine the mischief to come in master planning!

By John Lovaas
Civic Leader and Reston Impact Producer/Host

Letter: A Win-Win Solution For Reston Wetlands, Reston Connection, April 14, 2010

To the Editor:

I was impressed by your very comprehensive story on Sunrise Valley Park [“Area Residents Seek

Protection for a Sanctuary,” Reston Connection, April 7-13]. The Master Planning process for Reston has revealed a very strong desire to keep the wetlands intact where they are today. There has been some hint that the property owner may wish to move the wetlands to another location because of the proximity of the property to the Metro. I hope the last few weeks have been an indication of the difficulty in achieving this goal against public opinion.

I would like to suggest a win-win situation. The developer should transfer the wetland portion of the property to the Reston Association. This should be done as a charitable donation. That will reduce corporate income taxes. By transferring land ownership, they would reduce the size of their land holdings eligible for property taxes. The Reston Association is exempt from property taxes.

The Reston Association is skilled at maintaining parkland. Sunrise Valley Park would become more accessible to the public. RA could maintain the present pathway system without seeking permission from the property owners. The property owners have permitted RA to place some signs on the property and to do limited maintenance on the pathway system.

Your readers might be interested in a book by Charles A. Veatch called the "Nature of Reston." This consists of a number of beautiful nature photographs, some of which were taken in Sunrise Valley Park.

The public has shown a great interest in the park. I hope that interest can be turned into action.


R. Douglas Pew
Reston

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

Minutes of Reston Town Center Committee Meetng, April 13, 2010

TC 4-13-10 Meeting Summary

Monday, April 12, 2010

For Board of Supervisors, long-term plans offer challenge, Fairfax Times, March 30, 2010

The following is an extract from a March 30 Fairfax Times article on Fairfax County Metrorail financing. While we have not focused much attention on financial issues in redeveloping Reston, building and maintaining the Metrorail will be a tax drain on local businesses, and maybe ultimately residents.

There are additional expenditures pending related to the so-called "Silver Line," the new 23-mile Metrorail line that will add eight transit stations to the county by 2016.

The county will be obligated to fund another $120 million for the second phase of the project, money which officials have not yet determined how to generate. The remainder of the county's share of the rail construction costs will be paid for via business tax districts.

Wales favors using the county's commercial and industrial tax revenues, which can be used solely for transportation projects, to close the gap. However, supervisors were also informed in February that pool of money is obligated for projects through fiscal 2016.

In addition, Fairfax County will need to begin paying increased operation and maintenance fees into the Metro system once the first five stations open in late 2013, Wales said.

In an unrelated obligation, Fairfax County voters will also likely be asked to vote on a bond referendum this fall that will support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital improvement program. The county is obligated to help finance the projects as part of the regional compact governing the Metro system.

The so-called "Metro Matters" bond program will cost the county about $120 million, Wales said.


The rest of this article is here.

Final Agenda: Reston Task Force Meeting, April 13, 2010

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY  
TASK FORCE  
 
April 13, 2010 

Task Force Meeting  
Reston Community Center at Lake Anne 
 
AGENDA 
 
 
7:00 p.m.  Public Comment Period   
 
7:15 p.m.  Administrative Items  ‐  Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair 
--Approval of 3/9 and 3/23 Meeting Summaries 
--Update on draft Reston Planning Principles 
 
7:30 p.m.  Comments on Herndon‐Monroe Station area 
--Residents’ comments 
--Property owner comments   
 
7:50 p.m. Briefing:  Dulles Corridor Rail Project  
Rick Stevens, Department of Transportation  
 
8:10 p.m.  Discussion of Herndon‐Monroe Station area 
 
9:00 p.m. Overview of Reston Parkway area  
 
9:25 p.m.  Upcoming Meetings  ‐
   
--Saturday April 17th –Reston Parkway area Community Meeting 
--Tuesday April 27th – Regular Task Force Meeting – South Lakes HS 
Briefings on Transportation Network and existing Environmental Policy 
Review of Reston Parkway area Community Meeting 
 
9:30 p.m.  Adjourn  ‐  Patty Nicoson


Notable changes from the draft agenda:
--Brief "update" on Planning Principles vice extended discussion
--No discussion of Wiehle Avenue TOD area concept

The draft agenda was clearly too ambitious. This makes more sense, although the Task Force is falling behind on digging into earlier work on planning principles and Wiehle.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

County Solicits Contractors for Lake Anne Redevelopment Plan, April 9, 2010

The Fairfax County Department of Purchasing and Supply Management (DPSM), at the request of the Office of Community Revitalization and Reinvestment (OCRR), has issued a RFP for the purpose of entering into a contract with a qualified firm to work with Fairfax County under the terms and conditions of the RFP to provide the County with a development plan and feasibility analysis necessary to facilitate redevelopment of the Lake Anne Village Center (LAVC), located in Reston, Virginia, in an economically feasible and timely manner that is grounded in the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan.

An optional pre-proposal conference will be held on April 20, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., at the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization and Reinvestment (OCRR), 12055 Government Center Parkway, Conference Room 1004, Fairfax, Virginia. The purpose of this conference is to allow potential offerors an opportunity to present questions and obtain clarification relative to any facet of this solicitation.

All questions pertaining to this RFP should be submitted in writing to Linda Williams the contract administrator, at dpsmteam3@fairfaxcounty.gov prior to the pre-proposal conference.

BID NUMBER: RFP10-163967-32

CLOSING DATE/TIME: May 19, 2010 @ 2:00 p.m.

www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpsm/solic.htm


NOTE: The April 20 meeting is NOT a public hearing. It is an opportunity for potential bidders to ask questions about the request for proposal (RFP). These questions may cover a variety of issues. There do not appear to be any limits on public attendance at the meeting--just no participation.

Key Excerpts (Click on each image for larger view):











For the full document in PDF format, click here.