Notes on Reston Master Planning Task Force –27 Nov 2012

                                                                  R. Rogers

                                                                 28 Nov 2012

.

Notes on Reston Master Planning Task Force –27 Nov 2012

                Summary and comment: This meeting focused on DPZ outlining their concept of more flexibility in the plan through the use of broader planning districts.  However, there was great uncertainty in the questioning about what this might mean for the actual plan.  The development community continued to voice dissatisfaction with the lower density levels in Scenario G. Despite many unanswered questions, the next meeting was put off until January.  The meeting was very well attended. 

Public Comments              

At the start, two members of the development community rose to state their concerns with Scenario G.  One represented properties along Association Drive and the other Unisys on Sunset Hills.  Both talked about the need for greater density to incentivize development.

“Development Districts”

                Heidi Merkel, DPZ, began with a review of the concept of “development districts” introduced at the last meeting.  (See map below showing the “districts.”) These would be bigger units than the former “sub-units” used in the process.  For example, on the South side of Wiehle station the “district” would include sub-units H-1, H-2, I-1 and I-2.  There would be five “districts” in the in the areas immediately around the Metrorail station where development would be focused.  (These are actually the Herndon-Monroe district and north and south “sub-districts” on either side of the stations at Reston Parkway and Wiehle.)  There would also be several peripheral districts (e.g.—North Town Center, West Town Center) where development levels would not change significantly from existing zoning approvals (although the details for those have not yet been presented).

                The idea of the “districts” is to introduce more “flexibility” into the planning process. Properties could be combined and residential and office use exchanged to some degree.  However, in each “district” there would be smaller “core” (colored purple on the maps) that would concentrate office density close to the station.

                The ‘core” areas would have greater density (i.e. old H-2 (Vornado land) would be 1.5-2.5) but the density outside the core was not explicitly stated. (See talking points accompanying the 13 November meeting on county website).

                Last meeting the Wiehle Districts were tabled on maps; this meeting Town Center and Herndon Monroe were presented. 

                The attempt to explain how the districts would work elicited great confusion.  Since job-residential ratios and FARs were not given for the districts it was uncertain how development might proceed (this is the “flexibility “ apparently intended).  Heidi said all this would mean that “you might not know the FAR you get until you get into the process.”

Developer Reservations

                Much of the meeting was given to developers expressing reservations about Scenario G and asking questions about the “district” concept.

                One area of inquiry revolved around the figures passed out at the last meeting indicating that under Scenario G there would be substantially fewer jobs than under the existing comprehensive plan.  One line of questioning was that developers could opt to build under the existing plan and ignore Scenario G.  To give one example, the A-2 area near Herndon Monroe station (now undeveloped) could have 1,000,000 feet of office under the current plan.  Under Scenario G it would have a 1.5 FAR.  Heidi thought office and residential development would interest the owner.  Some thought the incentives would not be there for developers to get involved in multi-use TOD development.

                Other reservations were raised about using the transit study—which showed massive gridlock at key intersections in the study area—to determine development levels. This was called the “tail wagging the dog.”  Developers again argued that not all proposed Scenario G development will take place so traffic analysis should not be based on the plan.

                Again developers said the lower FARs in Scenario G meant there will not be an incentive to tear down relatively new 8-10 story buildings, and that what will be encouraged will be infill development that would be unlikely to fulfill the visions and potential for mixed-use development outlined in the sub-committee reports.

                Various other questions were asked but not always answered. For example, Heidi said “we are looking at it” in response to a question about what bonuses might be given for and how much.  Heidi did say if developers worked together and could come in with 30-60 acres rather than say 10 there could be a bonus given.

                One question emphatically answered was that there would be no height limits in the plan.  Heidi thought spindly tall buildings unlikely.

Comment: The net result of the DPZ presentation and the answers to questions was to leave even more uncertainty about what the formal staff plan proposal will look like.  The idea of introducing “flexibility” leaves uncertain what would be in the plan regarding developer proffers for needed improvements, grid of streets, parkland, etc.  It also implies that in each “district” there will be a “rush to the courthouse” to claim as much development rights as possible before the “bucket” of development is taken.

Conclusion: At the end of the meeting Patty Nicoson cryptically said that there would be no vote on Scenario G at this time in view of all the questions raised about the “bucket approach.”  To our knowledge, there was no plan to vote on Scenario G at this time since its presentation was so incomplete and confusing. 

Herndon-Monroe: Heidi did briefly comment on the Herndon Monroe station noting that initially it was not clear that there might be further development in the garage.  Now, however,  MWAA and company have kicked the cost of the garage back onto the county.  So, FC is looking for a public-private partnership to develop the garage area as TOD mixed use.  In Scenario G it has a FAR of 1.5-2.5 with 47% allocated to office.  As noted above, A-2 is already authorized substantial office.  Heidi thought SPRINT was unlikely to re-develop and that in any event, it was uncertain what might be done by 2040 in the station area.

Notes: Heidi at several points talked about the plan timeline being 2040 (vice the previous 2030).  Also, it was noted that there was a revised version of Scenario G dated 10-16-12 on the website.  The main difference with the 10-9 version seems to be a slight increase in FARs for E-5 (south Reston station), and the introduction of flexible but slightly higher maximum FARs for G-5 (JBG land) and I-1 at Wiehle (perhaps with the hope of attracting education institutions). 

Debbie Hendircks was introduced as the DPZ staff replacement for Sandy Beaulieu

Next: Despite all the questions that were left open the next meeting was said to be in January (at a time to be set).  It was hinted that some introductory plan text may be available by then.

The Task Force drafting group will meet on 28 November to have a ‘”brainstorming” session about what should be in the report.  Van Foster and Bill Penniman are drafting text.