Town Center Committee AGENDA - 6/8/10: Interlineations in Blue Summarize Discussion
Uploaded by
Terry MaynardTown Center Committee AGENDA - 6/8/10: Interlineations in Blue Summarize Discussion
Uploaded by
Terry MaynardTOWN CENTER COMMITTEE
AGENDA - 6/8/10
Interlineations in blue summarize discussion
Open Forum (5 minutes)
Joe Leighton: Provided a hand out related to the Denver Mall bus service; very efficient, runs
every two minutes or so along a mile route. No cars allowed; very successful.
Administrative (5 minutes – Inova “sale”; Robert Goudie relayed info from Tim Sampson (which
Dave Sittler confirmed) that the sale is for operations only, not the lot; Inova does not feel
this will interfere with parcel consolidation or plans for TCN, though concern was
expressed this may create issues if the buyer is given a long-term lease on the lot. Inova
senses this will not be an issue when the market is ready to allow the kinds of changes
the Committee envisions. bus station; Robert Goudie relayed information from Rick
Stevens that the County has no plans to move the existing bus station once Metro
arrives; Stevens note did say that another bus station may have to be added once the
Spectrum development proceeds, but no decision on that. no answer yet on TCP
extension)
I. Additional Edits to TCN Draft Report (10 minutes)
a. Proposed FCPA edits
i. Acknowledging urban parks formula
There was wide discussion on the two proposed language changes
emanating from the e-mail exchange between Robert Goudie and Sandy
Stallman of FCPA. No one had concerns with adding the fist change
(making clear that ultimate decisions on location, size, and nature of FCPA
open space in TCN would be made through the normal collaborative
process). The second proposed change --- referencing the existing FCPA
urban parks standard – received considerable opposition. Concerns ranged
from seeming to endorse specific amounts of open space in TCN (outside
the normal County process used to evaluate such things) to citing a standard
that may change over time. Further, whatever the standard is at the time of
redevelopment it is; the FCPA will look to that whether we specifically cite a
standard or not. Adding it, therefore, does not necessarily add anything to
the draft. The consensus emerged to eliminate any reference to the specific
standard principally because the group feels the existing language makes
plain we envision open space in addition to the proposed “town green” and
there is merit to keeping that language flexible. Terri Phillips and Susan
Mockenhaput offered to meet to review the section entitled Additional Open
Space and come back to the group with any proposed edits.
ii. Making even clearer particular uses and size of open space to be determined
by normal participatory processes
Per above, ok.
b. Incenting County to adopt the organizing principles and vision?
Agreed not much can be said to this point. However, group did suggest adding
language to ensure County provides for adequate and timely opportunity for
community participation in County land use decisions affecting TCN.
c. Bike sharing?
Despite a concern being expressed about how this would work, what it would cost,
and how it could be implemented, the wider sense of the group was we should add
language saying that bike sharing should be studied as an option among the other
bike-friendly improvements referenced.
II. Review of Metro South presentations (65 minutes)
a. Organizing principles?
b. Grid?
c. Open Space?
d. Res/non-res mix?
John Schlichting of JBG: See F1 as an alternative to TC with the anchor being a
grocer and major gym facility with retail to support the neighborhood. Their plan is
fairly settled. When asked what the Committee might be able to do to help advance
a positive outcome, John was especially concerned about two things: 1) getting a
signalized intersection at the right in-right out entry to the Brookfield lot (something
that VDOT has concerns about given its close proximity to the Toll Road/RP
intersection and RP/Sunrise Valley intersection; John feels this intersection could
actually help reduce pressure on the Sunrise Valley intersection, one of the worst in
the County, and would provide essential e-w connectivity across RP – note also John
Landry endorsed this idea); and 2) a ped access connection from the west side of the
Metro to and across the RP intersection that would allow ped connectivity to the JBG
lot.
John Landry of Brookfield: One of the challenges with E3, 4, and 5 is they are not
abutted by residential. John thinks residential is needed on these lots, which
currently are not zoned for that. When asked if a 50-50 mix makes sense, John
responded that the owners are office owners who do not typically do residential and it
is zoned for office now. To get to more residential there will have to be adequate
incentives in terms of sq. ft. (0.7 FAR today) and building heights (Reston
International tower is about 200’ which John thinks may make sense as a uniform
allowance across the lot). He also cited a concern about “loading” these sites with
infrastructure/grids that will consume scarce space and require developers to go
even higher (which is more expensive to build). Burdening the site with too much
infrastructure could make the site undevelopable.
There was also discussion of whether providing relief from existing County parking
requirements makes sense. It seemed the initial appeal of that idea got replaced with
a more market-oriented reality – developers don’t like to build parking, it is expensive
and consumes space (note also the bedrock issue esp. on the Tishman lot), but the
market is going to require a certain amount of parking no matter what. Candidly, the
County requirements may not be a big a barrier given the market demand. Issue that
we can perhaps return to later. For sure we should encourage shared parking where
possible.
Interspersed throughout was a wide-ranging Committee discussion from which some
common themes began to emerge:
1. Need to remake Metro South form a suburban office park into a higher density,
mixed use space. In short, make this an urban and not suburban space.
2. This is not likely to be a duplicate or extension of TC. The Committee does not
see the requisite n-s connectivity to make that happen. (That could perhaps change
if air rights are developed over the Metro station, but that is not seen by many to be
likely in the next 30 years).
3. There needs to be a strong residential component. Whether a model somewhat
similar to that employed for TCN – tying increased FAR and building heights to some
minimum number of residential units – can or should be developed for Metro South
remains to be determined.
4. Some kind of grid for the space probably makes sense, albeit one perhaps more
limited than what was proposed for TCN. Interparcel connectivity (and potentially
with the Metro) is key.
5. Probably not a site that will have heavy civic uses. Two were mentioned: a) a
music or concert hall facility – a number of Committee members voiced concern that
we have a facility at RCC and one nearby with Wolf Trap, and adding another may
dilute existing resources and create oversupply; and b) a children’s science center –
it was suggested that USGS currently offers science education that the Boy Scouts
and others utilize and perhaps it would be worth exploring a possible partnership with
USGS on this.
6. The forest area on the north edge of the USGS lot presents a potentially
interesting open space option. Inability to control what the Fed’l Government will do
with that parcel down the line creates a challenge, but the open space opportunity
there is intriguing to many.
