Reston Town Center Metro Draft Committee Report--09-18-10 | Mixed Use Development | Zoning

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10

Report of the Town Center Committee For the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force AugustSeptember __, 2010 Committee Members: Robert Goudie, Co-Chair Pete Otteni, Co-Chair Bill Keefe Mark Looney Susan Mockenhaupt Rae Noritake Terri Phillips Joe Stowers Phil Tobey

1

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Committee was tasked with making recommendations for the possible redevelopment of the parcels comprising the immediate Reston Parkway Metro Station area. We are pleased to report that there was a good deal of consensus (if not unanimity) among the Committee for the vision and organizing principles for these areas that are embodied in this report. The Committee without exception believes the essential emphasis should be the creation of dynamic, mixed used spaces that will make the Reston Town Center Metro Station (and we think that should be its name) a signature destination-origination station. Going forward, this will require a stronger emphasis on creating a healthier residential:non-residential balance consistent with transit-oriented development (TOD). Proper incentives will be needed to achieve these outcomes, particularly since much of this area is already built to or near existing density limits. The annexed straw man map reflects the essential themes comprising the Committee’s recommendations. The straw man (which we do not expect would become part of the Comprehensive Plan) is but one way to reflect and achieve the goals we recommend. Other configurations and designs are possible and may be more merit worthy. What results on the ground will be the product of the normal planning and zoning processes as guided by the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that this report will generate. Given time constraints, the Committee chose to especially focus on three subareas within the larger study area (as reflected on the straw man). It is our sense that these sub-areas are the most likely to redevelop in the near term (and we will use these defined terms throughout this report): TC Metro North (land units D4 and D5 and the Vornado parcel on land unit D3), TC Metro South (land units E3, 4, and 5), and Town Center North or TCN (the parcels bounded by Town Center, Baron Cameron, and Reston Parkways and the Town Center District center-north boundary). To a lesser extent we have also considered the key implications for the legally defined Town Center District (also outlined on the straw man) and we’ve noted those more general observations in the report. Parcels that are within the study area but outside these primary areas of focus could be considered in Phase II of the Task Force’s work if and as necessary. Exhibits A and B detail the vision we see for each of these areas. In summaryMore particularly: TC Metro North (parcels D3, D4, and D5): If a vibrant destination-origination station is to be realized here then these parcels, in particular the D4 parcel, hold the key. Tthe Committee feels that the existing Town Center urban core (essentially the area bounded by Reston, New Dominion, and Town Center Parkways and Bluemont Way) must be extended south through land units D3, 4, and 5these parcels and to the Metro station.

2

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Land unit D4, as the touchdown point north of the Toll Road for the Metro, will be of special significance. An idea that generated strong Committee interest is creation of a single or perhaps even multi-level platform at this stationon this land unit with a contemporary urban plaza on the top level. That plaza would be directly accessible from the Metro via an extension of the Metro pedestrian bridge and from new vehicular roadways off Sunset Hills Drive. Most vehicular traffic, however, would be funneled under the platform, where parking would be created. The urban plaza would create opportunities for signature retail, new restaurants and nightlife, possibly a hotel function with convention capability to complement existing and future hotel inventory, potentially a public amenity of some import, and additional office/commercial. Strong north-south connectivity is recommended, though there are some physical challenges with creating these links. Theose challenges, combined with the costs of building the platform, locating a healthy balance of residential here, ensuring adequate open space and space potentially for an important public amenity, will require very strong incentives to the developer if this vision is to become a reality. The Committee feels the benefits to greater Reston of extending the urban core and creating this vibrant downtown with true TOD justify the approach we recommend. With respect to the rest of the Town Center District the Committee is not recommencing any significant changes. This will allow for a tapering of densities as one moves north from the Metro station. In terms of the District’s character, however, we recommend that parcels with existing residential development maintain that character going forward. Add to these the proposed redevelopment of the Spectrum parcel and our recommendations for Town Center North and this will maintain/create what will primarily be a residential collar (with supporting retail) around the extended urban core or downtown. This will help ensure balanced TOD within the Town Center District. TC Metro South (parcels E3, E4, and E5): We think it highly unlikely these parcels will develop into an extended Town Center urban core given the limited north-south connectivity across the Toll Road. This will not change even if the Town Center Parkway extension is realized (and Committee members have heard there are apparently significant engineering challenges associated with that recommendation). Consistent with the overall theme for the Metro Station area, however, we think it is essential that this area be transformed from its current suburban office park paradigm into a more urban, mixed- use space consistent with TOD. It is important to emphasize that we are not starting from scratch here. This area was zoned exclusively industrial; there is no existing residential (impermissible under its original zoning) and there are existing and substantial commercial buildings already here. Consequently, to achieve the Committee’s vision for a mixed use environment with at least a 1:1 sq. ft. residential:officenon-residential balance, which we recommend, with new links creating better intra- and inter-parcel connectivity, and essential open space (including a significant central green space that we see as an important orienting feature for this land bay, a difficult challenge given that multiple landowners would have to cooperate on such a project), there will have to be adequate incentives provided. In return the community will receive significant benefits – the transformation of this land bay from what is and

3

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 will otherwise remain a suburban office park to a vibrant mixed-use area with a strong central green space. Town Center North: We feel this should develop into a more urban, mixed- use parcel organized around a strong emphasis on open space – as with Metro South, we recommend creation of a meaningful central green space or “town green” – and a consolidated but strong government function. There will be opportunities for supporting retail as well as office/commercial but – consistent with a theme for each of these areas – there must also be a focused commitment to bringing residential to this area. Even though this parcel is beyond the ½ mile radius, a Town Center bus circulator or linear service – something we view as essential to tying this all together and mitigating traffic throughout what would be a larger and even more dynamic downtown – will support the residential opportunity this parcel presents. Exhibits A and B provide the detail for these visions. In addition, a straw man map that reflects the essential themes comprising the Committee recommendations accompanies this report. This particular map need not necessarily become part of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides a visual context to the themes and ideas contained herein, but this map is but one way to reflect and achieve the goals we’ve set. Other configurations and designs are possible and may be more merit worthy. What results on the ground will be the product of the normal planning and zoning processes as guided by the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that this report will generate.

4

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 COMMITTEE METHODOLOGY It should be emphasized from the outset that the Committee did not attempt to write Comprehensive Plan language. This is a Committee report; it reflects the Committee’s points of consensus on how we think the Town Center Metro Station area should develop and what incentives will be required to achieve that vision. We think a smaller group of individuals with the appropriate expertise will be required to distill from this report, as adopted and/or modified by the Task Force, those items that must then be translated into proposed text for the Comprehensive Plan. With limited resources and time, the Committee adopted a collaborative model for doing its work. Each meeting included an opportunity for public input on matters before the Committee (and sometimes maters that were not). Individual landowners were invited to participate, and, to their credit, they (like many members of the public) have faithfully attended the Committee meetings and offered extremely helpful ideas and recommendations. We have also heard from County staff on topics ranging from the RMAG recommendations for Town Center, to the County Parks Authority on open space, to staff on general planning issues and the interdepartmental dialogue that has been ongoing the last couple of years concerning the future development of County uses in Town Center North. The Committee’s meeting summaries, a part of the public record here, reflect all of the individuals who appeared before the Committee to offer input. The Committee wishes to thank each and every person who has so patiently attended our meetings and offered input. To the extent this report is able to make a constructive contribution to the important community dialogue is testament to the incredibly thoughtful input we received from so many. ITEMS NOT ADDRESSED OR REQUIRING FURTHER STUDY There are several significant items the Committee does not address in this report or that, to the extent referenced, require additional consideration. A number of these items could significantly impact the feasibility of our recommendations: Infrastructure Needs Assessment: The Committee has carefully outlined a number of important infrastructure improvements within the areas we studied (detailed in Exhibits A and B), but Aadoption of the Committee’s recommendations will unquestionably create additional pressure on Reston’s existing infrastructure outside these study areas. When combined with what might be recommended from the Wiehle and Herndon-Monroe Committees the impacts could be very significant. At some point there must be an impact/needs assessment of the Task Force recommendations, something that is clearly beyond the scope of this Committee. That kind of assessment should be done before the kinds of development we are proposing should be allowed to move forward. Air Rights Development: The Committee has heard from a number of residents who are especially passionate about moving forward with air rights development at the Town

5

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Center Metro Station (and this is the only station among the three the Task Force is studying that MWAA is even considering for possible air rights development). Air rights development at this station would unquestionably alter the vision we propose, starting with greater north-south connectivity over the Toll Road, additional footprint that could allow for more open space, and incorporating certain land unitsparcels within Metro South into an even more extended Town Center urban core. The Committee, however, feels that actual air rights development is some years away from economic reality (and the MWAA representative who presented to the Committee strongly suggested the same). Given the Committee’s scarce resources and time we chose to focus on what we see as more near term development opportunities/challenges. We feel there will be ample opportunity to revise theis vision we recommend to accommodate air rights development if and aswhen air rights development gets closer tobecomes a reality. Consequently, we have not spent scarce time studying possible air rights configurations/opportunities. The Committee, however, feels strongly that MWAA should be encouraged to embed now the pylons needed to pursue future air rights development – in short, to preserve that future potential. Failing to do so will all but eliminate the ability to change that decision later (an MWAA representative advised the Committee that trying to embed the pylons once the station is constructed will significantly add to the engineering and economic challenges of doing so). Town Center is – and if our recommendations are adopted will further become --– a unique place along the Northern Virginia rail corridor. Air rights development, in a sense, would be the next stage of Town Center’s evolution following the one we are defining in this report. But we must preserve that opportunity for future growth. Consequently, the Committee urges that MWAA move forward with embedding the pylons now. Considering Town Center as a WholeZoning Changes: The Committee’s charter did not include looking at the existing urban core and Town Center overall (principally because in the limited time we had our focus needed to be, in the cases of TCN and Metro South, on areas that are not now developed consistent with a more urban vision or, in the case of Metro North, presents greater near-term redevelopment potential). The Committee, however, generally discussed several ideas that should probably be studied in parallel with or shortly after adopting some version of the Committee’s recommendations. Beyond market factors residential development in the Town Center District is essentially subject to two “caps”: a Town Center District cap of 50 dwelling units per acre and the Reston PRC Ordinance overall cap of 13 persons per acre. Our sense is much of Reston feels that Town Center, planned from the outset as Reston’s urban downtown, is an appropriate location for higher densities associated with the arrival of Metro. Consequently, it is worth considering whether the Town Center District should be recreated under its own zoning conditions separate from the Reston PRC and/or whether flexibility should be allowed to grant certain exceptions from the Reston PRC Ordinance for plans brought forward in Town Center consistent with the vision we propose. Indeed,

6

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 to achieve the vision we are recommending (with its emphasis on creating a healthier residential:non-residential balance consistent with TOD best practices), zoning adjustments inevitably will have to be made. Zoning for TC Metro South will also have to be addressed to permit the mixed-use vision we are recommending. The Committee talked broadly about how Town Center should continue to develop along something of a “horseshoe” or inverted U model (with the Toll Road forming the base): the extended urban core (a rectangle cabined by the Toll Road and New Dominion, Reston, and Town Center Parkways) surrounded by a horseshoe of denser residential with supporting retail. At 50 dwelling units per acre, the Town Center District could theoretically develop +/- 9,000 residential units. Whether that is an adequate number must be evaluated in the context of how much non-residential is developed in the District. To maximize the TOD potential for this area, it may make sense to do away with the 50 dwelling units per acre standard, extend throughout Town Center our 1:1 square foot res:office minimum ratio (perhaps using 9,000 residential units as a minimum floor), with allowance if not encouragement or even requirement for a heavier residential mix (with supporting retail) in the surrounding horseshoe. It is worth thinking this through sooner rather than later as it may impact how both Metro North and TCN should be allowed to develop. Reconsidering the County’s Urban Parks Standard: This standard contemplates 1 acre of open space for every 10,000 workers and 1.5 acres for every 1,000 residents. It was the product of years of deliberation and input. With appreciation for that factGiven the brief time the Committee has had to wrestle with application of this standard we are in no position to comment positively negatively on its application. But we do have nonetheless has concerns with the application of this standard at the density levels and in TOD spaces with the character we are proposing. Metro South will have to be rezoned to realize the vision we are proposing and some open space standard will have to be applied. Town Center open space is currently master planned (as opposed to being subject to a particular standard), but to the extent that area is rezoned and/or granted as will potentially Metro North (or perhaps generated certain exceptions to the Reston PRC Ordinance then an open space standard may be implicated). In either event tThe Urban Parks Standard would be one possibility of how to measure adequate open space in these land bays. Included with this report (Exhibit C) is an interactive density chart that allows one to project density levels and open space requirements under the existing Urban Parks Standard by adjusting the FAR placeholder in the spreadsheet. Consider:
-

Built out at a 3.5 FAR and 1:1 SF residential:office ratio, and assuming only 2.6 residents per dwelling unit, Metro North and South combined would be required to yield in excess of 340 acres of open space under the Urban Parks Standard. Metro South alone would be required to yield almost 18 acres, or approximately 28% of the 65 acre land bay.If adjusted to 2.5 residents per dwelling unit, that umber increases to +/- 40 acres.

7

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10
-

Increasing the FAR to 5.0 would require more than 460 acres of open space at 2.6 residents per dwelling unit for Metro North and South combined. For Metro South alone the number would be over 25 acres, or approximately 40% of the entire land bay and at 2.5 persons per dwelling unit almost 60 acres.

This could require that more than 30-40% of individual land units intended for intense TOD be set aside for open space. By any judgment this would seem too high a requirement. Our sense is that the philosophy behind the Urban Parks Standard may be appropriate for TOD areas like Town Center but that the mathematical formula used to calculate open space may need to be reconsidered and/or capped in some way. We recognize that this issue impacts especially all land units within the RCIG as they are rezoned. At least with respect to any area that is the subject of this report that chooses to seek the higher densities we recommend we think the following broad principles should apply: 1. As a starting point, every parcel should be required to provide “functional open space” that equals +/- 20% of the parcel’s total acreage. By “functional open space” we mean urban plazas, outdoor active recreational areas, publicly accessible roof top space (e.g., for tennis or multi use courts, recognizing this space is not free and presents accessibility challenges), and storm water ponds so long as they are extended with buffer park area and are not just the ponds themselves. By contrast streets, typical street sidewalks, and medians should not qualify as “functional open space.” A pedestrian boulevard that is integral to an urban plaza setting might qualify. The character, quality, and location of open space are especially important factors to consider. We think the centrally located, contiguous, and publicly accessible green spaces in TCN and TC Metro South that we recommend serve important community needs and have a high social utility. Locating a central green space should be given the highest priority. a. We recognize that locating a central green space in TCN may be easier than in TC Metro South (there being only two landowners in the former, one being the County and the other currently being a not-for-profit landowner while the latter has multiple, for-profit landowners only). That said, we view this as a priority in both land bays. Consequently, we propose that no development beyond existing by-right development in either TCN or TC Metro South be allowed to proceed unless/until in each case there is an agreement that the County approves defining the location, size, and maintenance responsibility for a central green space consistent with the recommendations set forth in this report. b. In TC Metro South in particular, we think that multiple landowners should be required to participate in providing land for that solution. No one landowner should be made to bear that entire burden. Landowners who do not provide land but who will share in the benefit should be required to contribute in other ways to ensure that the burden of creating this important space is equitably shared throughout the land bay.

2.

8

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 3. Central greens are a shared public space that can serve multiple active and passive needs. Consequently, for those parcels that contribute to the central green solution, an adjustment to that parcel’s remaining open space requirements may be appropriate – both as incentive to participate in the central green solution and in recognition of the shared nature and high social utility of these kind of spaces. Not all adjustments should be the same; the size and nature of the contribution made to the central green solution should guide the amount of any adjustment to a particular parcel’s other open space requirements.

4. This standard also contemplates the addition of new ball fields as residential and commercial populations increase. These uses require significant amounts of land. The committee feels that town greens, with their potential for both active and passive uses more appropriate to an urban environment, are higher priorities in a more dense Town Center Metro Station area (as reflected in our report). The current County Urban Parks Standard also contemplates the formulaic addition of new ball fields as residential and commercial populations increase. These uses require significant amounts of land. We don’t think those are appropriate open space uses in a dense, TOD area of the kind we are outlining for Town Center and TC Metro South. But tThat does not eliminate the need for new ball fields, but those spaces should . Where those would be located is a question for which we currently have no answeroutside the TOD areas. We recognize the challenges in finding that additional space and point to this as one of the infrastructure impacts that must be considered on a broader scale by the entire Task Force. Designating and preserving adequate open space has rightly been a signature hallmark of Reston’s development and we feel it must be an essential component of the community’s redevelopment. The priority this Committee has placed on securing large central greens in the spaces it has reviewed (augmented by other pockets of open space), and the concepts we propose above, reflect that sense of priority. But we have genuine concerns about strictly applying the Urban Parks Standard in these areas and feel this is an issue that must get additional scrutiny before an open space standard is applied in the RCIG area (if not elsewhere in Reston). Governance This is a topic that is beyond the Committee’s charter but on which there are some strong feelings within the Committee. It is also a topic that generated some strong community input at our meetings. It undoubtedly deserves wider consideration in a more appropriate forum, but there are several items that grew out of our discussions that are worth mentioning here: - Within the Town Center Metro Station area there are two areas that are not presently subject to a master property association: TCN and TC Metro South. Both are envisioned for new residential and publicly available open space areas.

9

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Whether either need be subject to a master property association as an interim layer of governance between the landowners and the County is a matter on which there appears to be some difference of opinion within the Committee. The Committee agrees, however, that: o As to TCN, which is essentially surrounded by the Town Center District, if it or any part of it is somehow required to become part of a master association for design guideline or other purposes then the Reston Town Center Association (RTCA) – and not some other or new association – would be the appropriate association in the interests of consistency and continuity. o As to TC Metro South, if it is decided that these land units are somehow to be required to be part of a master association then they should be given the choice of joining either RTCA or Reston Association (RA). In all events the Committee feels that new master associations are not desirable; either RA or RTCA should be used if it is decided a master association is needed. Most on the Committee feel that the recommended central green spaces in TCN and TC Metro South should in all events be available for general use by anyone who lives in Reston if not beyond. Consequently, those spaces should be operated as public or quasi-public spaces. It is the Committee’s sense that a private master property association may be in a better position financially than the County to ensure that these spaces are maintained as premier open spaces for the community’s benefit and enjoyment. Consequently, if master property associations are designated for either TCN or Metro South then strong consideration should be given to having the central greens in those areas deeded to the applicable association.

-

THE ESSENTIAL FRAMEWORK: DELIVERY OF GRID, GREEN, DISTINCTIVE DESIGN, AND 1:1 RESIDENTIAL:OFFICENON-RESIDENTIAL TO QUALIFY FOR HIGHER FARs To achieve the Committee’s vision for vibrant, balanced, mixed use, TOD throughout the Town Center Metro Station area, the Committee has identified four minimum criteria that it believes must be satisfied as the conditions precedent for increasing office densities above those permitted under existing zoning. The first three of these generated little concern within the Committee: - Intra- and inter-parcel connectivity. In some cases an urban-style grid may be appropriate; in others a less elaborate but still essential network of links is needed. In all cases emphasis should be placed on pedestrian and bicycle access and use. - Adequate open space must be planned from the outset. We heard from the County Parks Authority staff that central greens, while often difficult to plan and creating myriad other challenges in areas with multiple parcels and landowners, are highly desirable with rich social utility. Our recommendations include major

10

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 central greens in both TCN and Metro South – augmented by other pockets of open space to meet multiple needs. For Town Center to retain its reputation for leading edge design, distinctive architecture must be encouraged.

-

The fourth of the proposed conditions – creating a healthy residential:non-residential mix – generated the most discussion amongst the Committee. Research suggests that achieving higher residential densities at TOD sites where there already is a strong commercial component is perhaps the primary challenge facing a community. (See Station Area Planning -- How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places, Report of the Non-Profit Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, at p. 8 (link at http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/tod202)). This is precisely the situation that confronts us in the Town Center Metro Station area (both the result of organic development patterns and that in the RCIG residential was not permitted). The key questions for the Committee were: 1) what is considered a “healthy” mix of residential:commercial, and 2) what if anything should we say about encouraging that mix? There is no easy answer to either of these questions. In answer to the first , George Mason University demographers provided the Task Force with existing and projected jobs:households data throughout the Northern Virginia Metro corridor. The numbers vary significantly. But when asked which existing station provides the most desirable mix (i.e., one that creates healthy mixed use and also mitigates traffic impacts), GMU’s demographers cited Ballston’s 4:1 jobs: household ratio as the best example (noting that in the Ballston area traffic along Wilson Boulevard has actually decreased in volume in recent years). That translates to a roughly 1:1 square foot ration, residential:office.1 In addition, the Committee learned that Crystal City is expected to move to the same kind of 1:1 residential:office SF ratio with its pending redevelopment plan. Neither Ballston nor Crystal City is not Town Center, but many on the Committee see a helpful analogs there. And, importantly, Ballston is not a theoretical case of successful, mixed- use TOD but one that exists now on the ground and seems to be working – an important factor in the Committee’s thinking.
1

If one assumes 4 workers per @ 1200 sq. ft. of office space and 1200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit in an urban area like that conceived for Town Center, a 4:1 jobs: household standard converts to approximately 1:1 sq. ft. residential:office (not surprisinglyindeed, that is Ballston’s current ration per the existing data). John Carter provided the Committee with the following benchmarks: Office = one job per 250 square feet Retail = one job per 400 square feet Industrial = one job per 450 square feet Other = one job per 500 square feet Each dwelling unit equals 1,250 square feet including lobbies, corridors and mechanical space (which compares to an 1100 sf figure many Committee members have used as a benchmark in development). If one exempts hotel and retail from the calculation and assumes more office than industrial in and around Town Center, we have taken an average of +/- 300 sf of non-residential and +/- 1200 sf per dwelling unit to get to the 1:1.

11

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 , In addition, and consistent with the Ballston and Crystal City examples, the Committee feels for multiple reasons that hotel and retail should be treated outside the ratio: - Hotel typically tends to act like residential in terms of traffic impacts. Convention space may not, but the Committee decided against complicating the standard by treating convention space differently from other hotel space. - Retail, especially in the key downtown-like areas, should be encouraged. But we learned that getting appropriate retail developed and located can present some challenges and is typically more expensive to build and manage than other commercial space. Keeping retail outside the ratio, therefore, provides some incentive in this regard. It is this 1:1 standard (a minimum of 1 SF of residential for every 1 SF of office) the Committee has adopted as an appropriate minimum guideline for future development within the Town Center Metro Station area. With the Station aArea currently at 15:1 jobs:households according to GMU, a 1:1 SF ratio (which, again, translates to an approximately 4:1 jobs:household ratio) will significantly bend the curve to create what we see as a more desirable residential:non-residential mix for what will be a more urban, mixed- use transit area that will also have the hallmarks of a true destination-origination station. To implement that standard, the Committee then adopted several important qualifications: - In a perfect world, residential and commercial would develop simultaneously or nearly so. The markets for the two, however, rarely track one another. Further, the typicallywhat can often be more profitable commercial development must often precede the residential to provide sufficient returns on investment to permit the residential building. Finally, requiring that at least some minimal amount of residential be built before commercial may proceed can require physical challenges (requiring residential buildings to be torn down once the market allows the more fulsome development, a very expensive proposition). Weighing these challenges, the Committee has recommended that zoning applications that seek FARs higher than those for which the land unit is currently zoned must include at least the 1:1 ratio, but residential need not be built at the same time. It can await market conditions that permit that building. This ensures the creation of residential land banks that must be used for that purpose so that, over time, the development will get to at least the 1:1 ratio. - The land banks that are designated, however, must have a bona fide chance of becoming residential development once the market allows for that development. Consequently, proposals that keep land fallow and available for residential development once the market allows will be looked at with the highest favor. Those that designate existing commercial buildings as future residential sites could be allowed by will apparently be given heightened scrutiny (given the concern that those buildings might never get redeveloped into the residential that we feel is essential to ensuring healthy mixed use). Developers in these circumstances may justifiably be asked to provide specific assurances that these

12

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 buildings will be torn down and replaced with the appropriate residential development once the market conditions are ripe. In addition, requiring a 1:1 on especially smaller land unitparcels that are already fully or nearly fully built out commercial may well prevent the future redevelopment of those land unitparcels. That is not a desirable outcome. The Committee, therefore, is recommending that “any property” within the Metro North and South that is the subject of a zoning application – whether a single or joint/collaborative application – will be subject to the 1:1 standard. This will allow developers the flexibility to work amongst themselves in apportioning the residential and commercial mixes so long as the Metro Station area overall gets to at least a 1:1 ratio. Finally, the standard we are proposing is a minimum or floor, not a ceiling. Thus any zoning application that either seeks to build residential at a higher- than- 1:1 ratio would be acceptable, but no zoning application that seeks to build office at something higher than the 1:1 should be allowed. Further, while the residential minimum is always required, there is no requirement that commercial be built. An application that seeks to build exclusively residential on a given land unitparcel would be permissible (though any such application must be weighted against the other objectives this report seeks to achieve).

-

-

Included with this report is the minority report of Committee Member Joe Stowers who advanced a recommendation for an even stronger 4:1 SF minimum thresholdtarget. This standard would be designed to ultimately get the jobs:workers ratio in 1:1 balance throughout the Town Center Metro Station area. We also received public input from Reston 2020 and a Reston 2020 member (Terry Maynard) suggesting a 2 and 2.5:1 ratio respectively, which argues for at least a 1:1 or nearly 1:1 jobs:workers balance for new development going forward (assuming 1.6 workers per household). The essential theory animating these proposals is that if the amount of jobs in the immediate area is matched by the amount of workers available to fill those jobs there will be little or no traffic impacts whereas if there are not enough workers in the immediate area to fill available jobsjobs and workers are out of kilter there must inevitably be traffic impacts. The Committee gave a great deal of consideration to these important inputs but by a 7-2 majority decided in favor of the 1:1 standard. We are certain the Task Force will appropriately revisit this issue will be appropriately revisited by the Task Force. The Committee’s reasons for recommending the 1:1 SF ratio instead of something higher are multifold: The Committee’s vision for the Town Center Metro Station area is premised on the belief that, properly redeveloped, this area will have even stronger destination appeal. The Committee is unaware of any established authority on TOD who suggests that a 1:1 jobs:workers ratio is the desirable standard when one is trying to create the kind of dynamic space we envision for Town Center. Indeed, we are concerned that overloading residential could actually inhibit that vision, which by necessity will require a strong commercial as well as residential presence. No vibrant, urban downtown we are aware of is premised on a 1:1 jobs:workers ratio.

13

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Of course this means that workers from somewhere will have to be imported, but that is part of the promise of Metro – it will help alleviate some of these traffic impacts. This is not to say that the Greater Reston area more broadly should be subject to a 1:1 ratio. We are only talking about a ratio that we think makes sense for the Town Center Metro Station,. When considering a wider demographic area that is not designed to be urban and/or a regional destination then a higher residential:office ratio may well be more appropriate. In that regard, we think there is a difference in traffic impacts between importing workers to Town Center from elsewhere in Greater Reston (using internal Reston arteries and hopefully bus service) versus workers coming from outside Greater Reston and using the external vehicular arteries to get here. Third, according to the GMU data, the Town Center Station area is currently at 15:1 jobs:households (which is almost 9.5:1 jobs:workers). By requiring that the area be redeveloped at a 1:1 SF ratio we would bend this curve almost fourfold. So at 1:1, a paradigm the GMU demographers tell us is already working well on the ground in Ballston, we may be able to significantly mitigate the traffic impacts – especially if other areas outside Town Center are allowed to develop with heavier residential. Finally, we refer the reader toas referenced in the attached density chart (Exhibit DC),. A at just a 3.5 FAR for just Metro North and South we will allow for a minimum of almost 910,000 new residential units; at 5.0 that minimum grows to almostover 134,000. Add in new residential at TCN and Spectrum (and our recommendation that a strong residential collar around the urban core be maintained/augmented) and there is the potential for a minimum (remember, the 1:1 is a minimum ratio) for greater than 10-15,000 new residential units in the Town Center Metro Station area – which at the upper end is double what GMU projects as new unit demand in this same area through 2050. So at 1:1 we are not talking about an insignificant amount of residential development. At 2.5 or 4:1 the Committee is concerned that the vision we have for this area will not be achieved.

-

-

-

ThreeTwo Additional Items Beyond the Comprehensive Plan There are threetwo items that are technically beyond the scope of any Comprehensive Plan amendment but that nonetheless received Committee attention and are worth mentioning. Identifying this Transit Station as the Reston Town Center Metro Station A consensus quickly formed within the Committee that this station should be known as the Reston Town Center Metro Station: - Our entire vision is premised on this being a regional destination. The destination is not Reston Parkway – it is Reston Town Center.

14

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Reston Town Center is already a regionally (indeed, internationally) known brand with a unique identity. Building that brand is good for Reston. In short, this name marries two important considerations: it keeps “Reston” in the name while highlighting the known destination (“Town Center”) that we want to highlight. Pedestrian Crossing Across the Toll Road Essentially Linking Plaza America with Westin/Sheraton This appears to technically fall within the Committee’s jurisdiction, but due to time constraints we did not focus on areas outside Metro North and South along/near the Toll Road. We are told, however, that MWAA must make a decision on this proposed connection before the tracks are laid or else construction of this pedestrian overpass will be much harder to achieve and will be more expensive. Even without extensive consideration the Committee feels it important to strongly endorse this proposed crossing in concept. As the broader Town Center Metro Station area develops there will be even greater priority than now exists on creating effective north-south links across/over/under the Toll Road and Metro tracks. Their priority must be weighed with other infrastructure priorities that new development will trigger, but the concept of a pedestrian crossing here is something we strongly endorse. Governance This is a topic that is beyond the Committee’s charter but on which there are some strong feelings within the Committee. It is also a topic that generated some strong community input at our meetings. It undoubtedly deserves wider consideration in a more appropriate forum, but there are several items that grew out of our discussions that are worth mentioning here: - Within the Town Center Metro Station area there are two areas that are not presently subject to a master property association: TCN and Metro South. Both are envisioned for new residential and publicly available open space areas. - Whether either need be subject to a master property association as an interim layer of governance between the landowners and the County is a matter on which there appears to be some difference of opinion within the Committee. All on the Committee seem to agree, however, that if any of these properties are to be subject to a master property association then it makes some sense to have them subject to the jurisdiction of one of the two existing master associations (rather than create new associations): the Reston Town Center Association (RTCA) or the Reston Association (RA). - As to TCN in particular, the Committee feels that if it or any part of it is somehow required to become part of a master association for design guideline or other purposes then the RTCA -- and not some other or new association – would be the appropriate association for such purposes. Most on the Committee feel that the town green space should be a public or quasi-public responsibility and that the RTCA might be in a better position financially than the County to ensure that this is maintained as premier open space for the community’s benefit. In all events -

15

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 that space should be available for general use by anyone who lives in Reston if not beyond. As to Metro South, if it is decided that these land units are somehow to be required to be part of a master association then they should be given the choice of joining either RTCA or RA. And like the recommend town green in TCN we think the recommended town green space in Metro South should be a public or quasi-public responsibility and that either of the existing master associations may be in a better position financially than the County to ensure this is likewise maintained as premiere open space. And like the TCN space this should also be available for general use by anyone who lives in Reston if not beyond.

-

16

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 EXHIBIT A Town Center Metro North and South Executive Summary The Committee believes that new development at or near the Reston Town Center Metro Station represents an important opportunity upon which the community should be eager to capitalize. Given time constraints, the Committee gave greatest focus to those parcelsland units closest to the Station (essentially within the ¼ mile radius): parcelsland units D3 (the Vornado lot only), 4, and 5 north of the Toll Road (or what we refer to collectively as “TC Metro North”) and south of the Toll Road parcels E3, 4, and 5 all currently zoned I4 (or what we refer to collectively as “TC Metro South”). TC Metro North should become an extension of the TC urban core – rich with nightlife, signature restaurants and retail, perhaps a hotel with convention capability, an augmented office presence, a strong residential component consistent with TOD, and potentially at least one prominent civic use. In combination, these additions to the Town Center will make it a rich and balanced destination-origination station that will be a unique asset to Reston. TC Metro South should fundamentally change from an essentially suburban office park to a more dynamic urban space – separate and different from Town Center (given the limited north-south crossings over the Toll Road) with its own identity. In addition to more urban office space, we envision a strong residential presence. Supporting retail, hotel, restaurant, and at least one grocer should also mark the space. Both places should have strong interparcel connectivity and, where appropriate, a more urban grid. All roadways should be complete streets (capable of comfortably handling pedestrian, bicycle, transit-oriented (including bus), and vehicular travel). Distinctive and robust open spaces (consistent with the then-current and applicable County guidelines set forth in this reportfor urban spaces of this character, which may or may not be the current Urban Parks Standard) will improve the quality of life and the working experience and are essential. Amongst the three stations that are the subject of the Task Force’s consideration, this is the only one without planned subsidized parking for rail access and it is the only one being considered for possible air rights development. It should and we think will develop- in a much more robust way in comparison to the other two stations and the community should be specially focused on making it a world-class success. Doing so will in our view be decidedly in the community’s best interests.

17

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Vision The Committee recommends that the Reston Town CenterTC Metro Station be viewed as a destination-origination station. This will be realized by ensuring that its immediate neighborhoods, both north and south, evolve to a more urban, mixed use character with attractive reasons for people to take the Metro to and from this center. The focus first and foremost should be on successfully extending the urban core south to the Metro station. Good things will follow from that. Organizing Principles We will discuss separately the individual components of Metro North and South. But the following four organizing principles apply to both: • An Urban (not suburban) Character with Intra- and Inter-parcel Connectivity and/or Grid: Metro North should continue to develop, and Metro South must develop, as an urban, mixed-use space. The zoning designations for the Metro North and South should be changed as needed to accomplish this objective. A fundamental building block for both will be creating interparcel connectivity and, in certain cases, a grid of complete streets. In the case of Metro North, the connections must tie into the existing urban core (with at least ped/bike friendly connectors to Explorer and Library Streets and ultimately realization of the planned “Discovery Street”). For Metro South, that means creation of connections to the planned Kiss and Ride and strong north-south and east-west connectivity at an urban scale. For certain land units (particularly those in E4 and 5) an urban grid with typical urban-sized blocks would seem to make sense. Linking that grid in a way that also enhances east-west connectivity across Reston Parkway would be a plus. • 1:1 (sq. ft.) Residential:Office: The Task Force has heard that the best TOD in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor (that which creates a healthy mix of uses and best mitigates the traffic/congestion impacts) is essentially 1:1 sq. ft. residential:office (with retail and hotel space not considered part of “office”). We think that ratio is an appropriate target for development on any land unitparcel within both Metro North and South that seeks FARs above those currently permitted under the Comprehensive Plan. We note that Town Center as currently built is significantly weighted to commercial over residential. Residential development that any developer proposes above this target (so that Town Center overall can get closer to a 1:1 ratio) should be encouraged if not incented. Put differently, this ratio sets a residential minimum: residential at a higher than 1:1 ratio is permitted (if not encouraged) and matching or any office space is not required. • Robust and Diverse Open Space: Open space is at a premium in Town Center. What we are recommending for Town Center North, if adopted, will help. But the residential and commercial populations will significantly grow if our recommendations for the TC Metro Station area are adopted. That will require a strong commitment to active and passive open space in both Metro North and South to ensure a high quality of life. Innovative solutions in these urban environments will be needed. What exact standards should apply is a subject that remains to be determined, but tThe Committee

18

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 sees two important prerequisites to development of these land bays: an urban plaza in the D4 lot of Metro North and a meaningful town green space of at least 5-8 acres in Metro South. Beyond that, we think parcels that seek additional densities beyond their existing by-right allowances should meet the following open-space standards: o As a starting point, every such parcel should be required to provide “functional open space” that equals +/- 20% of the parcel’s total acreage. By “functional open space” we mean urban plazas, outdoor active recreational areas, publicly accessible roof top space (e.g., for tennis or multi-use courts), and storm water ponds so long as they are extended with buffer park area and are not just the ponds themselves. Uses may be active or passive. By contrast streets, typical street sidewalks, and medians should not qualify as functional open space. A pedestrian boulevard that might be integral to an urban plaza setting could qualify. o The character, quality, and location of open space are especially important factors to consider. In Metro South, we think a centrally located, contiguous, and publicly accessible green space of meaningful dimension (of between 5-8 acres) serves important community needs and has a high social utility. Consequently, we propose that no development beyond existing by-right development in TC Metro South be allowed to proceed unless/until there is an agreement the County approves defining the location, size, and maintenance responsibility for the central green space along the lines recommended in this report. o We think that multiple landowners should be required to participate in providing land for that solution. No one landowner should be made to bear that entire burden. Landowners who do not provide land but who will share in the benefit should be required to contribute in other ways to ensure that the burden of creating this important space is equitably shared throughout the land bay. o Central greens are a shared public space that can serve multiple active and passive needs. Consequently, for those parcels that contribute to the central green solution, an adjustment to that parcel’s remaining open space requirements may be appropriate – both as incentive to participate in the central green solution and in recognition of the shared nature and high social utility of these kind of spaces. Not all adjustments should be the same; the size and nature of the contribution made to the central green solution should guide the amount of any adjustment to a particular parcel’s other open space requirements. o The current County Urban Parks Standard also contemplates the formulaic addition of new ball fields as residential and commercial populations increase. These uses require significant amounts of land. We don’t think those are appropriate open space uses in a dense, TOD area of the kind we are outlining for Town Center and TC Metro South. That does not eliminate the need for new ball fields, but those spaces should be located outside the TOD areas. We recognize the challenges in finding that additional space and point to this as one of the infrastructure impacts that must be considered on a broader scale by the entire Task Force..

19

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 • A Commitment to Distinctive Design: Communities around the world look to Town Center as a model of planned development. All of its architecture should reflect this exalted status and embody the theme of Town Center’s ongoing 20th Anniversary celebration: distinctive and defining. Of course this inevitably becomes a subjective judgment, but our intent in recommending this as one of the four prerequisites for permitting densities higher than are allowed under the current zoning is to send a signal to the applicable Design Review Board (if any) and County Planning Commission that each should demand architecture that it considers distinctive and worthwhile when passing upon redevelopment plans. To achieve these important outcomes our partners in the development community must be properly incented. Development within Metro North and South that meets these four criteria – gird, green, balanced residential:office, and distinctive design – should be allowed the flexibility to go as high as a 5.0 FAR with building heights up to 350 feet. Zoning should be amended accordingly.2 Individual Components The Committee heard interesting presentations about how Metro North and South might develop: Metro North: The key to realizing a vision of an extended urban core will be the development of D4. Ideas that generated keen interest included a possible multi-level platform with parking below and mixed use above, centered around a signature urban plaza. There was talk of potentially bisecting the upper level of the platform with an east-west urban plaza with signature retail on either side. . There might be some street parking along that plaza to allow for deliveries and short stops, but traffic would otherwise be funneled to the parking below and then out to Town Center Parkway. In all events the Committee feels, consistent with the open space standards enunciated above, an urban plaza of some distinction should be a key organizing principle for this parcel. Signature street-level retail along the key connectors in this parcel must also be given high priority consistent with the goal of creating a destination of significance. Metro South: There were a number of ideas heard for Metro South as well, but these are even less advanced since this area has heretofore been unable to develop residential. There was, however, wide agreement on the concepts of a more urban, mixed use space and one that creates better interparcel connectivity. Where appropriate (e.g., in the E5 and perhaps E4 parcels) an urban gird of streets should be considered. In all events, strong east-west and north-south connectivity will be essential. In addition, the Committee feels that a contiguous central green space of at least 5-8 acres that would be capable of passive and/or programmed or active uses (as the community should decide) is an essential organizing principle for this land bay (defined in greater detail below).

2

Our recommendations for Metro North and South may or may not be appropriate for the extended Reston Parkway Special Study Area. The Committee suggests that those areas be given additional scrutiny in Phase II of the Committee’s work.

20

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 The attached straw man map is illustrative but not prescriptive of certain of these themes. How any of this evolves will be a matter between the developers and County with appropriate community input, as market conditions allow. We do see, however, the following individual components as important to whatever final plans develop. . • Transportation Infrastructure o Metro North:  Interior and Interparcel Network of Streets/Connections: A classic urban grid may not make sense in D4. There are a series of roads or connections, however, that the Committee feels should be incorporated into future development thinking: • The existing curb cut and traffic signal along Sunset Hills should be utilized for vehicular ingress/egress. This might also become an east-west boulevard through the site potentially leading to parking below (if the platform idea is pursued). Indeed, keeping parking free from the urban plaza that almost certainlywe think will have to develop strikes us as essential. • Potentially adding a second ingress/egress off Sunset Hills about one block to the west of the existing curb cut would allow for creation of a north-south spine for the site. • The already proffered extension of “Discovery Street” should be completed. • The Committee also feels there must be additional northsouth connectivity to the existing urban core. Extending vehicular roadways presents serious logistical challenges. That should be considered as demand warrants and resources allow. At a minimum, however, we think there must be ped/bike connectors that essentially extend Explorer and Library Streets into and connect with whatever street network is created for D4. o We say “essentially extend” because at least in the near term each may require a slight jog around existing structures (the Sallie Mae parking structure in the case of the Explorer extension and parking along the western edge of Discovery Square with respect to the Library Street extension). o In addition, we recognize that each will require an overpass over the W&OD Trail. Depressing the trail at the appropriate locations so these new crossings can be essentially at grade is an outcome the Committee feels deserves special consideration. The cooperation of the Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority will be needed to achieve these 21

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 outcomes. We highlight these needs in this report so they may be given the priority we think they require. o Effective ped/bike crossings across Bluemont Way will also be required to make these connections work. In terms of interparcel connectivity, the Committee believes it may beis desirable to provide a functioning eastwest connection between D4 and D3 across Town Center Parkway (one that might allow access from the west to the D4 extension of the urban core). The Discovery Square and Overlook portions of these lots are not likely to redevelop in the near future. If and as they do the same principles apply – creating a network of connections that ties in with the existing and extended urban core and TC Metro Station. Over time, we see the extended urban core growing organically east and west, so providing for the future tie-in of the D3 and D5 land units into this mix is important. Thinking about this extended urban core more broadly, future planning must accommodate better ped/bike crossings across the four major boulevards that frame or bisect the extended urban core: Reston Parkway, Bluemont Way, Town Center Parkway, and New Dominion Parkway.

Bus Circulator: The Committee strongly recommends a bus circulator or linear connector service from the TC Metro Station through the Town Center District and Town Center North. We see that as an essential priority to help minimize vehicular traffic in and through the Town Center District.

o Metro South:  Interior and Interparcel Network of Streets/Connections: The attached straw man represents some base line thinking about the kinds of connections we see as important throughout Metro South as it evolves from more of a suburban office park to an urban, mixed use area: • North-south and east-west spines are critical to the parcels’ redevelopment. Edmund Halley should be extended to link with the Kiss and Ride (and, if it is ever built, the Town Center Parkway extension). An east-west spine should be built using the existing right in-right out off Reston Parkway into parcel E5. That should connect with Edmund Halley with consideration being given ultimately to

22

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 extending it or a parallel road farther west (tying ultimately with South Lakes Road). A more urban grid linking E4 and E5 should alsolikely be pursued. Block size in E5 should probably reflect typical urban dimensions. Depending on the location of the central green and how that impacts design of these spaces these grid requirements should be adjusted accordingly. In all events strong connectivity, if not an urban grid, between and throughout E4 and E5 is essential. The existing ingress/egress points into E5 along Sunrise Valley Drive also present ready opportunities to create north-south roads to further develop the E5 grid. The near- and even long-term expectation is that much of E2 will remain a Federal government campus for the USGS if not others (but see our discussion on open space below). We think extending Edmund Halley directly from the Kiss and Ride into that parcel would provide a more efficient connection with the Metro and help keep additional traffic off the main collector roads (assuming some kind of shuttle service to the Metro).

• •

Signalized Intersection on Reston Parkway: JBG and Brookfield have urged that we recommend a signalized, four-way intersection at Reston Parkway utilizing the existing right in-right out into parcel E5. This would provide important east-west vehicular and ped/bike connectivity across Reston Parkway with parcel F1. Although the Committee has not heard from any transportation experts on the subject, both developers have researched the issue and feel strongly that addition of this intersection would help alleviate some of the congestion that occurs at the Reston Parkway/Sunrise Valley intersection (identified as one of the worst congestion points during peak periods in Fairfax County). We recognize this would create a signalized intersection closer to the Toll Road ramp than VDOT might ordinarily allow. We would urge that VDOT be open to this idea as this area becomes more urban in character. We think the benefits in providing important east-west connectivity and potentially mitigating existing traffic congestion at the Reston Parkway/Sunrise Valley intersection could be significant.

o Other Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Applicable to both Metro North and South:  Complete Streets: All streets within Metro North and South should reflect an emphasis on “complete streets” that will be designed to enable safe access and use for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders (including along panned bus routes). 23

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Characteristics of these interior streets that we think should be given special consideration in the panning process: • Wider sidewalks (typically 10’ +/- to accommodate larger groups of people, passing strollers, pedestrians with dogs and architectural/calming elements such as tree pits/shade trees appropriately spaced) • Street furniture (such as benches, trash and recycling units, bike racks, newspaper racks, etc.) • Sidewalk lighting and signage • Pedestrian crossings to include: o Flared sidewalks (i.e. bump outs) at intersections to increase visibility and reduce crossing distance o Pavement markings or special texture pavement o Visual timing signals and buttons o Appropriate lighting o Appropriately timed signals (these might include if not full intersection signals then raised crossings where appropriate or even lighted crosswalks that can be activated by those using the resource to calm traffic) • “Mid-block” signalized pedestrian crossings where appropriate (e.g., heavy retail area, large blocks) • On-street parking (calms traffic and acts as buffer between pedestrians and cars; also supports street-level retail) • Reduce travel lane widths, which will not only clam traffic but allow for space to create bike lanes (creating bike/ped separation) • Reduce/eliminate rounded-off right turn lanes (i.e. small radius corners) • Main conveyer routes such as Reston Parkway, Fairfax County Parkway, and the like should not have certain of these characteristics (most prominently on-street parking and reduced lane widths) but should share the pedestrianfriendly characteristics that should be a hallmark of all interior streets in these areas.  Bicycle Facilities: Bicycle lanes and facilities – that will enable residents and workers to travel by bicycle on dedicated on-road facilities and make use of bike racks, bike lockers, and other facilities at residential, retail, and commercial areas – should be a priority throughout Metro North and South. Bike sharing should also be given consideration (at least in Metro North). Pedestrian Connectivity from the Metro Station: The pedestrian bridge and crossing over the Toll Road envisioned for the TC

24

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Metro Station must be accessible 24/7 (with the Metro access area capable of being separately locked off so it does not interfere with this 24/7 access). This will allow at least one important northsouth pedestrian link between Metro North and South. Further, this connection must be extended directly into the D4 and E4 lots to allow those using the train a direct connection into the extended urban core to the north and the mixed use development to the south. • MWAA has advised the Committee that WMATA has legal concerns with keeping these bridges open 24/7. We think there are ways to overcome those concerns (perhaps leasing the public right of way on the bridge to a public entity that has governmental immunity as but one example). We urge the community leadership to pursue that dialogue with vigor and design a solution that will allow this key access.  Additional Pedestrian Access To/From the Eastern End: JBG has asked that the Committee recommend an additional pedestrian connector from the eastern end of the station to Reston Parkway, ending with a crosswalk leading into the F1 lot. Not everyone on the Committee is convinced of the public utility or practicality of such a connection and/or have concerns about traffic impacts of a pedestrian crossing at that location (especially given that we are urging consideration of a new signalized intersection essentially two blocks to the south to improve east-west connectivity across Reston Parkway). Nonetheless, if VDOT is comfortable with this connector and it is privately funded, the Committee does not object to its construction. RMAG: In addition to the transportation infrastructure improvements recommended here, the RMAG recommendations should be made part of the Comprehensive Plan and aggressively pursued in Town Center and Metro South.

o Traffic Analyses: Future development applications should include detailed traffic, bike, and pedestrian impact analyses that address the transportation impacts of, and possible mitigation measures for, the project.  Overall the goal should be to create a much more pedestrian and bicycle friendly experience through Metro North and South. Coupled with a bus circulator or linear connector in Metro North, and the interparcel network of connections we advocate, this will help ensure that the immediate TC Metro Station area becomesis a more people- and less vehicular-oriented space. • Open Space o Open Space as Centerpiece: 25

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10  Metro North: A signature urban plaza as centerpiece of the D4 development makes good sense. This is the touchdown point in Metro North for those exiting the Metro and should evoke a special sense of place. • The plaza, however, cannot be the only open space on this lot (especially if D4 and D5 will ultimately be more tightly knitted together as would seem inevitable as the core grows). • One possible asset that the Committee identified is the storm water pond on the Discovery Square lot. Taking advantage of this space and creating a water-oriented open space would provide a different and very interesting type of open space within the core (perhaps analogous to the swan boat experience in Boston’s Public Garden). Metro South: The Committee believes that a prominent central green or park should be a prime organizing principle for Metro South given the new emphasis on residential (and the County Parks Authority staff commented on this as a desirable outcome for the area). The Committee has identified two options to meet this need: • Option 1: The option the Committee most strongly prefers, but which admittedly will require considerable energy and effort, would be to Llocate a contiguous green space of between 5-8 acres south of Sunrise Valley Drive principally within the E2 parcel. This outcome would require dialogue between the landowners in Metro South and the Federal Government, owner of the USGS site that comprises the E2 parcel. The challenges are obvious: from the need for structured parking (which private developers may be able to provide) to consolidating the Federal office space (where again private developers may be able to assist) and/or engaging in land swaps to meet the Federal needs while freeing up parts of this parcel for critically needed open space. But ideally this would be our first choice given a clean slate on which to draw. The parallels with TCN are striking: using Edmund Halley as a north-south link from the Metro Kiss and Ride to the north and the central green south of Sunrise Valley, rimmed with new residential. This would allow the rest of Metro South to develop along a very different design – with commercial staying near the Toll Road and tapering down to residential on either side of Sunrise Valley Drive with supporting retail. Our hope would be that, having laid out this vision, the affected parties would immediately begin discussions with the Federal Government to explore this potential. o Failing this, the Committee feels that lines of communication should be open with the Federal 26

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Government to explore preserving some of the forested area as open space. It may present the possibility of a win-win – augmenting open space in Metro South while still preserving some kind of natural buffer for the Federal property. o A ped-bike connection to the Station through the eastern side of this open space would also be desirable to improve access to the Station from residential areas to the south Option 2: Recognizing the inherent challenges in Option 1, the alternative is to create a central green of similar dimension principally in parcels E4 and 5 (and perhaps utilizing some land from E3). To achieve that outcome, all options must be on the table to ensure that landowners who contribute to this solution are properly compensated. These options could include tax incentive financing (essentially financing a taking over time), creating a model akin to what we are recommending for residential whereby landowners may be able to trade open space requirements among themselves, to relaxing other open space requirements on those landowners who contribute to this solution. o How this space would be utilized/programmed would be up to the community to decide through the normal planning processes. We know the County is in need of rectangular ball fields, but we don’t think that is appropriate here. We see this, like the space we are recommending in TCN, as more of an urban space with the possibility for multiple, simultaneous passive and active uses. o Other areas of Reston that will not grow to this kind of density should be looked to for additional ball fields (including, for example, roof space at the other two Metro stations which we would assume are not going to develop to the same kind of densities or building heights envisioned here). Regardless of the option pursued, no development beyond that permitted by existing zoning should be permitted on TC Metro South unless/until there is agreement among the landowners that the County approves that defines the location, size, and maintenance responsibility for the central green space along the lines recommended in this report. The central green would be augmented by other pockets of open space along the lines we outline in more detail for TCN. Utilization of roof top space in more public buildings (for example, garage roof tops) will be important. 27

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 That is an area where we see an opportunity for more hardscape-type facilities – tennis and multi-purpose courts – so that green space on the ground can be maximized. • In addition, the Committee also feels theat the four storm water ponds along the southern edge of Metro South should be utilized to cerreate an interconnected series of parks. Landowners who contribute to the first priority – the contiguous, central green space – should be generatedgranted some flexibility in setting aside additional space for this concept of a linear park • Our straw man map also reflects utilization of space on the E3 parcel to connect a possible central green with the linear park that utilizes the storm water ponds. Our thought is that one of these spaces should be used as a dog run. o The Committee received strong input from those currently living in Town Center that providing space for dogs – both waste areas and run areas – areis essential. The alternative is that dogs will create significant pressure on and friction with human uses of open green space. o These competing needs must be accommodated ideally with separate spaces. This is increasingly a focus of urban planning and needs to be so here given the significant new residential we are proposing for this area. Additional Open Space in Both Areas: In addition to a signature piece(s) of open space, both Metro North and South would benefit from the kinds of additional open space we identified as possibilities for TCN: • Traffic calming measures as open space features; • Green pedestrian pathways through blocks; • Buffers along individual land units within parcels as appropriate to the unit’s function/use; and. • Innovative uses of building rooftops for this purpose to increase both the amount and diversity of open space (admittedly perhaps a more difficult thing to accomplish with the kind of building heights that may be necessary here to achieve the development goals we have set out).

o Public Art: The incorporation of public art, especially in an urban plaza or central park and the denser ped/bike linkages, as well as at other major public spaces, should be considered in any future development plan for these areas. • Civic Uses/Facilities

28

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 o Metro North: The Committee feels that addition of a prominent public amenity on the D4 parcel would materially add to the potential for creating this as a true destination station.  There has been some preliminary discussion of a possible worldclass performing arts center. Another possibility that some on the Committee find especially interesting is a children’s science center (there is not one now in Northern Virginia, and having that within walking distance from the Metro station would seem inherently desirable given the demographic it would serve).  The Committee is in no position to define what would best meet the goal of creating a destination station and satisfy community need; that should be defined through a collaborative communityCounty process. But we mention the examples above as illustrative of the kind of significant scale we think is needed for the civic component here.  In all events, future planning for this parcel should take this notion of a prominent public amenity into consideration. o Metro South: A similar kind of facility on the south side of the Toll Road on the E4 parcel, within walking distance of the Metro Station, might well help in developing the new identity for Metro South. We don’t see this as an area that will have a heavy civic presence, but a signature public facility might help draw attention, foster residential growth, and attract visitors. Consequently, this should also be taken into consideration with future planning for this parcel. • Intensity/Density of Development o Residential:Non-residential Intensity: GMU reports that the current jobs:household ratio in the Reston Parkway Special Study Area is approximately 15:1. This roughly converts to a 4:1 sq. ft. ratio (nonresidential:residential). As suggested in the lead-in paragraphs in this report, our sense is that a minimum 1:1 sq. ft. residential:office ratio maximizes the chances for successful TOD – creating a rich mix of uses that will mitigate traffic impacts while also incenting the creation of important supporting retail. The Committee feels that going forward new development in Metro North and South must be guided by this 1:1 target. o Planning Mechanism: The Committee proposes that any Metro North or South property that is the subject of a zoning application to achieve higher FARs than are currently allowed under existing zoning must meet the four organizing principles identified above, including being balanced at least 1:1 sq. ft. residential:office (it could be more heavily residential with little or no commercial if the developer feels the market will bear it, but if commercial is built the overall development it must be at least equal to this target ratio).  The application may be that of one or any number of landowners acting jointly or collaboratively within Metro North, Metro South, or some combination from both. In either case (a single or joint 29

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 application) the organizing principles must be satisfied for the property that is the subject of the application to qualify for the higher densities we recommend. In addition, the residential and non-residential development that is the subject of an approved application need not be built at the same time. By including residential in the approved plans this will essentially create a “residential land bank” that will ensure the residential development gets built once the market allows (if that is not simultaneous with the non-residential components). We recognize that this could allow for a lag between commercial and residential development (if the former develops first). The Committee does not yet have a solution that could reasonably prevent that outcome. Two suggestions have been madeIn such cases: • First, to prevent creation of “residential land banks” in name only, new development plans that do not provide for simultaneous residential and office construction may not designate existing commercial buildings as future residential sites. There is no guaranty those buildings will ever get torn down and replaced by residential. The land banks that are designated must have a bona fide chance of becoming residential development once the market allows for that development. Consequently, proposals that keep land fallow and available for residential development once the market allows will be looked at with the highest favor. Those that designate existing commercial buildings as future residential sites will be given heightened scrutiny (given the concern that those buildings might never get redeveloped into the residential that we feel is essential to ensuring healthy mixed use). Developers in these circumstances may justifiably be asked to provide specific assurances that these buildings will be torn down and replaced with the appropriate residential development once the market conditions are ripe. • Consequently, the application must designate areas that will remain open/fallow as a future residential site or it must build residential simultaneous with the commercial. • Second, interim uses for residential (or commercial) land banks would create community benefit (not parking, but additional open space would be the most prominent example). This should be encouraged. That will come with a price – when it is time to develop the residential units there will be a public uproar over the loss of the interim use. The Committee recognizes this is not easy, but our instinct is that interim uses should be encouraged as opposed to leaving the land fallow (an existing example of

30

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 land that could have been utilized for an important interim use is Lot 16 in the Town Center District). If leasing that land on a temporary basis to a governmental unit will help minimize liability issues then that should be considered.  An additional planning tool that we think should be at the community’s disposal is relaxation of the County residential (and commercial) parking requirements. This could both incent creation of residential and the kind of residential (less vehiculardependent) that we would like to encourage in this area. Consequently, developers should be allowed in this TOD area (Metro North and South) to build residential parking that it believes the market will support. If that is less than the County requirement, so be it. In short, the County residential parking requirement in this area should be converted from a floor to at best a ceiling if not simply a guideline. o FAR and Building Heights: Many on the Committee feel that FAR limits should not drive development – the County should have the flexibility to approve good applications that are consistent with the vision regardless of what FAR results so long as the infrastructure can handle the application. We recognize, however, that FAR limitations are an inherent part of the existing County scheme. Consequently, and in the interest of ensuring that FAR limits are set so as not to place a material barrier on good, worthwhile development consistent with this report, the Committee recommends that any Metro North or South zoning application that meets the above criteria (and any other applicable County requirements or proffers made during the application process) should be entitled to a FAR of up to 5.0 including all uses and a building height not to exceed 350’ Similar to what we recommend for TCN, variegated building heights to create a diverse topographical palate should be required.3 • Private development in Metro North and South should serve the goals of: (a) creating a well-balanced mix of residential and non-residential uses; (b) adding commercial/office space and targeted retail support for those living and working in and around Town Center and, in the case of Metro North, signature retail that accentuates the potential for this being a regional destination; and (c) augmenting the existing housing stock in ways that creates well-designed living spaces that can accommodate a diverse demographic.

3

We have talked very little about parcels F1 and 2, both of which are within the ½ mile radius of the TC Metro Station. F2 of course was only recently developed, and there is a pending APR nomination for F1. We are reluctant to say without further study that F1 should be subject to the same criteria and benefits we have outlined for Metro North and South. We note, however, that JBG (owner of the land units within these parcels) reported to us that its pending APR for F1 is 1.18:1 residential:non-residential and a mix of uses is proposed. If the nomination also meets the criteria for open space and distinctive architectural design then it may satisfy the organizing principles set forth in this report. (Worth noting also is that F2 has been built out at 1.34:1 residential:non-residential, excluding the hotel space.) We think these parcels should be revisited along with the other parcels that are part of the Reston Parkway Special Study Area for which we have not given guidance.

31

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 o Commercial: Commercial (i.e., non-residential outside of retail) should be focused primarily nearer to the Toll Road. We think commercial will naturally gravitate to those locations in any event as is the case now (both because of the advertising potential and because it will be harder to sell residential along the Toll Road). This also creates something of a barrier between the envisioned residential and the Toll Road which is likely to be seen by new residents as a positive. o Retail: Street-level retail along key connectors will be critical to realizing this mixed use vision. In Metro North, street-level retail around the envisioned urban plaza and along the key pathways in D4 connecting it to the existing urban core must be incorporated into future plans. In Metro South, strong consideration should be given to having retail located near and around the central green and along what are ultimately created as the essential north-south and east-west interparcel connectors. o Residential: All residential should seek to serve a diverse demographic, consistent with current County guidelines (including workforce and affordable housing) with emphasis on accessibility/visitability. • General Guidance for the Remainder of the Town Center District: o The remainder of Town Center is largely built out for the near term. We think it important to state, however, that the existing residential areas within Town Center should remain so. Augmented by the approved concept plan for Spectrum and what we are recommending for TCN, we see these areas combining to form an important and essentially residential collar around the extended urban core (with supporting retail). o These areas are currently zoned at 50 dwelling units per acre. Residential development that moves the Town Center District beyond the minimum 1:1 ratio we are recommending for Metro North and South should be encouraged. Among other incentives the County should consider are permitting density increments above those currently allowed (staying within the tapered approach we are recommending, with highest densities adjacent to the Metro Station and gradually tapering off as one moves north). Any such incremental increases should be used solely to encourage additional residential (with supporting retail as needed) to continue to shrink the current disparity between available jobs and resident potential workers. o With respect to development closer to the Toll Road, individual applications could be considered on a case-by-case basis guided by the general principles we have enunciated for Metro North and South (again, with allowable densities tapering as one moves farther away from the Metro Station) until those areas are more closely examined.

32

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 EXHIBIT B Town Center North (TCN) (TCN means the 41-acre parcel essentially bounded to the north by Baron Cameron, to the east by Fountain Drive, to the south by the central-north boundary of the Town Center DistrictBowman Towne Drive, and to the west by Town Center Parkway) Organizing Principles • The Committee believes TCN should develop into a more urban (not suburban) space with a mix of uses. Although advocating a more urban character the Committee does not believe TCN should become an extension of the Town Center urban core. It should be comparatively less intense. • Special emphasis should be placed on creating a dynamic open space as the centerpiece of the area and on preserving and expanding civic uses that will support Town Center and more broadly the Greater Reston community. • The attached concept map reflects this sense of the parcel’s future -- an urban-like street grid (with strong “complete streets” that will ensure pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and connectivity) oriented around a large open space or “town green.” The addition of a civic center or community hall that might crown the open space received strong Committee support. Other configurations to similar effect are possible (and public planning with the landowners will determine the final configuration), but theis “straw man” is indicative of the Committee’s major themes. • New commercial (i.e., private residential, office, hotel, and institutional uses) with street-level retail in targeted areas would be focused primarily on the eastern portion of the lot with existing and new civic uses more likely concentrated on the western portion. • The Committee envisions a strong residential component to any redevelopment of TCN in an effort to achieve greater balance among residential and non-residential uses within the Town Center District. Individual Components • Transportation Infrastructure o Grid of Streets: We propose an urban-style grid of east-west and northsouth through streets that will provide access throughout the parcel. Onstreet parking and shared parking areas among nearby uses should be encouraged.  The grid should reflect an emphasis on “complete streets” that will be designed to enable safe access and use for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders.  Block size should reflect typical urban dimensions.  Traffic claming measures are essential to ensure this is a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly space.

33

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 See also the discussion of interior street characteristics for TC Metro North and South, which also applies here. Bicycle Facilities: Bicycle lanes and facilities – that will enable residents and workers to travel by bicycle on dedicated on-road facilities and make use of bike racks, bike lockers, and other facilities at residential, retail, and commercial areas – should be a priority. Bike sharing should also be given consideration. Bus Circulator: As fFuture land development proceeds along the lines outlined in this reportcould benefit from a bus circulator or linear connector service to improve access to the Town Center Metro Station will be essential. New Dominion Parkway: New Dominion provides an important collector function connecting the Fairfax County, Reston, and Town Center Parkways. However:  Future development applications should evaluate and contribute to measures to improve the at-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossings along New Dominion Parkway.  Special focus should be given to the segment between Fountain Drive and Explorer Street, especially if/as the “town green” is incorporated into the space immediately to the north. • A “road diet” along that segment, as recommended in the RMAG report, should be pursued (for instance, a narrowing of the street in this section to single lanes east-west with appropriate traffic calming). • Creating a strong pedestrian/bicycle crossing at the end of Library Street is essential to provide safe and easy access to the envisioned “town green” space and help complete the north-south connectivity all the way to the Metro Station that the Committee envisions. Traffic Analyses: Future development applications should include detailed traffic, bike, and pedestrian impact analyses that address the transportation impacts of, and possible mitigation measures for, the project.  In addition to the “road diet” suggested for New Dominion Parkway, we think similar changes should be evaluated along Fountain Drive.  Overall the goal should be to create a much more pedestrian and bicycle friendly experience north-south from the Metro station all the way to Baron Cameron Drive, thus connecting the constituent elements of the Town Center District. Coupled with a bus circulator or linear connector this will help ensure that the District becomes a more people- and less vehicular-oriented space. 

o

o

o

o

Open Space

34

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 o The “Town Green” as Centerpiece: Open space within Town Center is at a premium. TCN presents an opportunity to help address that issue and this should be an important goal.  The Committee believes it makes sense to replace part or all of the current FCPA 5-acre park abutting Fountain Drive (a somewhat rocky and a steeply sloped parcel with significant subsurface rock, providing additional challenges and costs for its development) forwith a 5-7 acre contiguous open space that is flatter and is both more centrally located within the overall parcel and closer to the Town Center urban core. This would serve multiple goals: • Allows greater flexibility to meet whatever the FCPA and community ultimately decide are the best utilizations of open space in TCN (its flatter character and size could accommodate both some active and passive uses; the ultimate uses, of course, will be defined through the normal collaboration among the County, Reston’s recreational entities, developers, and the residential community). At a minimum, some kind of tot lot-like facility should be located within TCN; • Provides a centerpiece around which the rest of the parcel may be oriented and creates the potential of a powerful north-south visual and physical connection from the Town Center Metro Station (using Library Street as an important north-south connector); and • Enhances the possibility of street-level retail at intersections along Fountain Drive to complement the approved Spectrum concept plan.  A north-south orientation of this open space (along the lines envisioned in the attached concept map) would maximize southern sun exposure, an important consideration. This consideration should help in guiding building height decisions especially on the south and west edges of this open space.  No development beyond that permitted by existing zoning should be permitted unless/until there is agreement between the County and other landowner(s) in TCN that defines the location, size, and maintenance responsibility for the central green space along the lines recommended in this report. o Additional Open Space: The Committee’s further sense is that consideration should be given to augmenting this larger open space area with other pockets of open space that are pedestrian accessible. Examples include:  Traffic calming measures as open space features;  Softening of the edges along east-west through streets;  Green pedestrian pathways through blocks;

35

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Buffers along individual lots as appropriate to the lot’s function/use; and.  Innovative uses of building rooftops for this purpose to increase both the amount and diversity of open space. o Public Art: The incorporation of public art within the “town green” (if not elsewhere) should be considered in any future development plan for this area.  • TCN as an Important Center for Civic Uses/Facilities o Government Services: The existing County offices and services (Supervisor’s office, other North County government, the Regional Library, and Health and Human Services) should remain in TCN. Consolidation of these government functions should be encouraged both for convenience and to maximize the TCN footprint.  In that vein, the idea of a civic center or community hall that crowns the large open space is an idea that has meaningful support among the Committee.  The Committee sees a strong opportunity to augment these existing facilities/services with an expanded library (more appropriate to the population it serves), a recreational center, and perhaps a performing arts center. Again, consolidation of more than one of these uses should be encouraged.  As part of a library expansion strong consideration should be given to relocating it to allow for the creation of the larger open space or “town green” that the Committee envisions. Private land is also needed to finish the extension of the central green to New Dominion. That parcel (the so-called Library Park parcel) is by deed intended to serve as some kind of open space so this should be achievable.  Community input was received about the possible need for an urban elementary/middle school within TCN. Recognizing that TCN cannot accommodate all civic functions needed to serve the area, the Committee nonetheless believes that TCN would be one possible and appropriate location for that kind of use if and as demand warrants. o Embry Rucker Community Shelter: The Shelter is an important part of the Town Center fabric. Whatever redevelopment occurs should accommodate the Shelter’s continued location within TCNTown Center. o The Police Station and Fuel Depot: The Committee feels strongly that a police station presence should continue to be a part of TCNTown Center. It feels equally strongly that this presence should be consistent with the new urban paradigm we envision.  That said, our vision accommodates what it heard to be the culmination of a two-year internal County dialogue about expanding and relocating the current police station as part of the land unit Inova partially owns immediately north of the conceived 36

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Cameron Glen Drive (unlike the internal County plan the Committee feels strongly this must be a through street, like the rest of the essential grid). This move may have to be phased over time (with parking remaining on the existing lot until the Cameron Glen health facility can be relocated within the overall parcel).  The Committee is alert and sensitive to the security concerns that are driving the County’s current vision of a stand-alone, no-morethan two-story building with adequate buffering. The Committee, however, has genuine concerns that this is inconsistent with a more urban vision for TCN. Building a police station within a more urban paradigm is not unique to Reston. So while our draft concept plan accommodates the County’s current vision it is the Committee’s hope that a solution more consistent with an urban remaking of TCN would be pursued.  We note also that a phased solution here is also possible under the Committee’s approach. It may be that TCN’s build out to the full vision suggested here will take 20 or more years. Accommodating the police near term according to the current County dialogue may not be the preferred solution but it does not preclude a more urban solution in the future as TCN becomes more fully developed.  Regardless of what happens with the police station, the Committee does not believe that a fuel depot – as currently configured and serving a broad array of County uses – should remain in TCN. It is incompatible with the development goals we have outlined in this report. If it is necessary then it should be incorporated into another building on site in a much more urban configuration. o Land use decisions the County makes for its property in TCN should be preceded by an opportunity for adequate and timely community input. • Private development in TCN should serve the goals of: (a) creating a wellbalanced mix of residential and non-residential uses; (b) adding commercial/office space and targeted retail shopping support for those living and working in and around Town Center; and (c) augmenting the existing housing stock in ways that creates well-designed living spaces that can accommodate a diverse demographic. o Commercial: Commercial (i.e., private residential, office, hotel, and institutional) should be focused primarily on the eastern portion of TCN. o Retail: We see an opportunity for targeted street-level retail to help animate the intersections along Fountain Drive and thus complement the approved concept plan for the Spectrum lot, as well as along edges of the conceived “town green.” o Residential: The Committee’s broader vision for Town Center – extending the Urban Core to the Town Center Metro Station to the south, thus ensuring that this Metro station is a true “destination station” – is an important factor here. There must be a healthy mix of uses, including a strong residential component, in and around the extended urban core to make that vision viable. 37

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10  Within TCN, we feel the residential component should seek to serve a diverse demographic, consistent with current County guidelines (including workforce and affordable housing). The Committee believes that some emphasis should be given to locating housing for our seniors in this space – given its walkingdistance proximity to important health, government, and retail resources. For that and other reasons new housing should emphasize accessibility/visitability. And the 1,000 residential unit minimum here (discussed below) should be seen empathically as that. This space is zoned at 50 dwelling units per acre, which would allow ultimately the construction of +/- 2,000 residential units in this land bay. That should be the ultimate goal and future planning should reflect that.

Intensity/Density of Development o Vision: The Committee does not believe TCN can or should be conceived as an extension of the density/intensity of the Town Center urban core. It should be more of a transition space that while becoming more urban in character remains less intensely developed (as compared to the Town Center urban core). o Non-residential:Residential Intensity: TCN currently is planned for a mix of uses (including governmental, institutional, residential, office and retail) at up to the equivalent of 0.7 non-residential FAR and 50 dwelling units per acre. This would result in approximately 1.25 million square feet of non-residential uses and 2,000 dwelling units. This intensity/density is generally consistent also with the approved Concept Plan for the adjacent Spectrum property.  The Committee feels that development up to that level of intensity/density should provide logical parcel consolidation that will allow for (and not preclude) the phased implementation of the vision for a transportation infrastructure (urban grid of complete streets) and connected open spaces set forth in this report.  The Committee further believes that non-residential intensity within TCN may be increased up to 0.9 FAR provided that in addition to the transportation and infrastructure pieces identified above there is a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units required as part of the overall development plan. Such a provision will ensure that a mix of uses with a substantial residential component is provided.  We feel this tiered approach will realize the vision of a mixed use space that has the necessary infrastructure (transportation and open space) to support that intensity while at the same time achieving the kind of non-residential:residential balance that we think is important to realize the goal of transit-oriented development in and around what will be the Town Center Metro Station. o Building Heights: Current zoning generally permits building heights of up to 185’ for TCN and 275’ for the urban core (or a 2/3 ratio). 38

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10  Continuing an upper limit on building heights was an issue that generated meaningful differences among the Committee. Nonetheless, and consistent with our view that TCN should be a transitional space (not an extension of the Town Center urban core), a consensus emerged that building heights across TCN should not be permitted to exceed 200’ above grade. The Committee also feels there should not be uniformity of building heights across the space, thus creating a more variegated look and feel. We think this will get addressed organically (the product of market conditions, different uses, and the slope of the parcel). Still, ensuring a variegated look and feel with respect to the overall parcel is an issue that should be taken into account in approving future development plans.

39

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 Minority Report of Committee Member Joe Stowers Overview I support the Report of the Town Center Subcommittee in general and believe that it contains many valuable contributions to the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force Task Force's recommendations. I think in many ways it should be seen as a model for the other subcommittees and for the first phase final report of the Task Force. However, I would like to offer (a) a very different recommendation regarding residential - commercial balance, (b) a stronger recommendation supporting air rights development, and (c) to add several specific suggested additions to the subcommittee's report regarding planning and urban design considerations. In submitting this minority report, I want to express appreciation for the opportunities that the subcommittee gave me and everyone else to express our views and have them fully considered and, when appropriated, voted upon, in the process of attempting to reach consensus. I particularly appreciate the extraordinary efforts of co-chair Robert Goudie who made special efforts to give me these opportunities, even to the extent of taking considerable time to talk to me and leave long detailed telephone update reports on the final work of the subcommittee in drafting its report while I was on the West Coast over the last 2 weeks of their final work on the subcommittee's penultimate report! Residential – Commercial Balance I strongly disagree with the subcommittee's recommendation in this area. For several reasons a great deal more care should be given to achieving an overall balance between residential and commercial development in Reston Town Center, and this recommendation should be based specifically on Town Center conditions rather than on experience in other Transit-Oriented Developments TODs) which all have quite different characteristics. Although precise numbers are not readily available, there are probably about 4 jobs in Reston Town Center currently for every Town Center resident in the labor force, based on data provided to the subcommittee by Mark Looney in a June 3 email.4 In order to minimize the motor vehicle congestion in the Town Center over the long term it is critical to move much closer to a 1:1 balance in this jobs-to-residential-labor-force ratio. Every significant step in this direction will increase the proportion of people who (a) walk to work, (b) use transit getting to work, and (c) drive very short distances to work. Of course, not every person will walk to work, but we know from experience that the percent of people who do walk to work goes up as an area moves closer to this balance. This is also true regarding its effect on increasing transit use and increasing the This estimate is based on Mark Looney's tabulations of 4.512, 010 square feet of office, 852,883 square feet of retail, and 2,966 dwelling units, plus my assumptions for Town Center of 1.5 persons in the labor force per dwelling unit and 1.0 jobs per 300 square feet of combined office and retail space.
4

40

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 percent of people who make very short auto trips to work. This is not an assumption; it is based on sound logic that has been tested over several years using urban transportation models in many, many cities throughout the developed world. Based on documented experience in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and in other areas around the country, an achievement of this goal can probably result in a slight reduction from current levels of congestion even with a doubling of employment and a quadrupling of residential development in Town Center. These are reasonable targets to plan for over the next 40 years and are consistent with all available forecasts of growth in the Dulles corridor. It can also result in the greatest overall increase in a vibrant living and working environment and financial success of the retail market. Although we know that relatively little development is likely to occur over the next 2 or 3 years, and we know that market conditions will vary from decade to decade, a reasonable target goal would be to reduce the ratio of jobs to resident labor force in Town Center from about 4:1 now to close to 1:1 in about 40 years at roughly the same rate each decade (i.e., to 3:1 by 2020; to 2:1 by 2030, and close to 1:1 by 2040).5 I recommend that Fairfax County refine these and other rough estimates presented here before adopting any recommendation regarding balance of uses. And, perhaps more importantly, I recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to require midcourse corrections, as Arlington County did for the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. These mid-course corrections should be performed each decade to assess the degree to which the target progress has been made in achieving this jobs-resident labor force balance and reducing auto commuting to work in Town Center. Each such review should result in recommendations for whatever changes in land development policy are appropriate to better achieve the target goal for job-resident labor force balance and congestion reduction. For the next decade I recommend setting a target goal in the Comprehensive Plan of achieving a balance of about 4:1 in residential - commercial gross square feet for new development for Town Center as a whole. The above recommendation is a sharp contrast with the recommendation of the Town Center subcommittee on this subject. To risk oversimplification, that recommendation is a goal of achieving a residential to commercial ratio of 1:1 for gross square feet for new
5

The recommended overall Town Center gross square foot ratio of 4:1 for new development is chosen because I believe it would result in steady progress in slightly reducing congestion. However, one might ask what the lowest gross square foot ratio that might result in preventing congestion from worsening? My analysis, which can be tested by application of state-of-the-art urban transportation models, suggests that a GSF ration of between 2.5:1 and 3:1 might be able to do this, but many unknowns and uncertainties are involved, and I have much less confidence in making this statement.

41

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 development with modest incentives for exceeding this goal. This translates into a continuing imbalance in the ratio of new jobs to new labor force of about 2:1. On first blush the Town Center subcommittee’s recommendation may seem reasonable because the continuing imbalance of 2:1 in the most important metric of balance for new development is below the existing ratio of about 4:1 and would gradually lower that overall Town Center ratio if such development were feasible. However, this is far from being a reasonable recommendation. In terms of impact on congestion, it is the TOTAL imbalance between jobs and resident labor force that counts, not the ratio. If this goal recommended by the subcommittee were to be implemented, every 1000 more jobs would result in many more auto commuters to Town Center (probably more than 500) and would reduce the proportion of new jobs that are accessed by transit, walking, or bicycling. This is not a minor problem. Approaches to Town Center are already congested (probably more so than any TOD in the Rosslyn – Ballston corridor, with the possible exception of Rossyln). This trend simply could not continue, because the Town Center subcommittee's recommendations for residential - commercial "balance" (really imbalance) would result in continuing increases in congestion. Extreme congestion would result and investment in office development (and probably other types of development) in Town Center would decrease at a steady rate until it ceased. The only way for Reston Town Center to grow over the next generation and beyond is for it to continue to gain more residents in the labor force than jobs and thus more walk-to-work trips! This point is gradually being understood and accepted by several of the other Task Force members and other interested participants because of the sheer logic of this well-understood transportation planning relationship. Yet the subcommittee report seems to ignore this logic and look to much less expert sources who pay little attention to the very different specific circumstances involved in other TODs such as the much smaller and generally less congested nodes in Arlington's R-B corridor. How did this Town Center subcommittee recommendation come about? It certainly does not reflect the community’s interests. The Town Center subcommittee was originally organized representing only Town Center’s stakeholders, and its work program consisted largely of a series of dialogs with the principal commercial property owners in the larger Town Center core area -- mostly property owners of office campuses and one property owner of a large retail center. None were residential developers and only one very brief dialog with a major mixed-use developer occurred, and even this dialog did not include any discussion related to this subject. At no time in this process did anyone bring up the history of Reston’s emphasis on balanced mixed-use development, which was fundamental to Reston’s original Master Plan. Few if any others on the subcommittee understood how important Town Center’s

42

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 success can be traced to a Mobil Oil Vice President’s directive that Reston Land (at that time the principal developer) had to form a partnership with a nationally accomplished mixed-use developer before it could proceed with the planning of Town Center. Few if any others understood how much the transition from the first phase of Town Center’s development, which was purely commercial, to gradually becoming a truly balanced mixed-use center was largely the result of community pressure to humanize Town Center – i.e., to use residential development to make it more lively, safer, and more successful. At no time in the Town Center subcommittee’s work program did anyone point out that experience all over the country, as in Reston Town Center, demonstrates that true balanced mixed-use development is generally more profitable than either single use or dominant use office development, or pure residential development, or pure retail development. This is true not only because of the ability of developers to take advantage of changes in the market, but much more importantly because everyone benefits. Homebuyers and renters are willing to pay more to live where they can save money by owning fewer cars and using them much less often. Employers are willing to pay more because their employees are more able to get to work on time and work a little later because they don’t have to drop everything to catch their car pool. And retailers and restaurants have a great built-in around-the-clock and weekend market. And at no time did the subcommittee discuss the importance of encouraging office developers to form partnerships with residential and/or mixed-use developers so that they can be successful and more profitable in achieving balanced development in Town Center. As the leaders of the subcommittee were finalizing the definition of what the goal should be for residential - commercial balance the decision was apparently based primarily on what the principal property owners (mostly the office developers) were willing to accept. In my opinion the RMPSS Task Force decision on what to recommend for the goal for Town Center's balance of uses should be based on the perspectives of both the community and property owners with particular attention to the perspectives of residential and experienced, successful mixed-use developers. Many of these people are still living in Reston or can easily be contacted (see me for telephone numbers and email addresses). During our recent 2-week trip to the Northwest, we spent a busman's holiday touring TODs in the Portland metropolitan area (where I had played a significant role in the early planning of the transit and land use development program in the 1970s). What we found is that most of that development conforms with my recommendations on balanced uses. In the newly redeveloping large historic Pearl District along a new light rail line near Union Station, about 75 percent of the new development, including significant amounts of current construction, is residential, mostly with ground floor retail and related services. We found the area so attractive and lively that we took time to return to enjoy a

43

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 few more hours there again after a trip to the mouth of the Columbia River and the beaches. This recent Portland observation is completely consistent with my long-term observations of how most or all of the major West Coast metropolitan areas have been developing over the last generation. Enormous concentrations of new residential and mixed-use development with strong residential components have been transforming these cities into lively and economically successful centers. As a result of observing this current and recent trend, I'm inclined to think that residential and other TOD can now be successful in any area that has a good track record of planning, coordinating, and implementing transit and TOD policies -- developers, banks, and the market will all respond. This may soon be possible again in our Town Center. Metro South was recognized about 15 year ago in a well-attended charrette as being a great future place for a successful urban residential village. I believe North Town Center also got some recognition in that regard at the time as well. They deserve to be even more recognized as such today -- great places to live, work, and play, while saving Reston Town Center from choking on auto congestion. Air Rights I disagree to a significant extent with the tone of the draft report of the Town Center subcommittee’s characterization of the community’s interest in air rights development. I believe that it is in the interest of the community to strongly support immediate investment in completion of design work and construction of foundations for future air rights development around both the Town Center rail station and the Herndon-Monroe rail station. Furthermore, I believe it is in the interest of the community to encourage developers and all concerned public bodies to plan, design, and build Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) on air rights as soon as economic conditions favor such development. Regarding the first issue (designing and building air rights foundations now), there are two points that need to be made: (1) Our efforts to encourage such air rights development over the last dozen years have been frustrated until recently by lack of sufficiently strong community support to get public officials to take any concrete steps toward making such air rights development possible at any time in the future. I believe that Reston is now on the verge of having sufficient community support to achieve success with regard to this immediate challenge. However, we could easily fail to gain sufficient support to obtain public commitment to spend several million dollars to design and build these foundations now. I believe that an expression of strong support from the RMPSS Task Force is likely to be necessary to obtain that support. I’m afraid that the draft Town Center report is not a strong enough recommendation in that regard. For example

44

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 it fails to point out how much air rights development can contribute to north-south connectivity across the Toll Road, compared to relying on a very problematic Town Center Parkway to Edmund Haley Drive underpass which would offer far less benefit than the air rights development. (2) I am convinced that it is now essential to go well beyond immediate design and construction of future air rights foundations. At least two additional things need to be done: (a) sufficient engineering design work should be done now to convince both the community, potentially interested developers, and concerned officials that there is a practical, safe, and economically feasible way to build future air rights development above the highway and rail system without great interference with highway and rail operations, and (b) sufficient study of all major legal and administrative impediments to building air rights development should be done as soon as possible to assure both the community, potentially interested developers, and concerned officials that there is a feasible path for a good developer to acquire, at a reasonable price, a long-term air rights lease that will facilitate development without great additional cost compared with the approval process of development on private property. It is important to note that for the first time there may be the possibility for open competition of air rights development if public funds are used to achieve (1) and (2) above. Prior to this, all of the planning, design, and engineering work on the feasibility of air rights development has been done by interested developers and their associated architects and engineers, with the implicit assumption that this work would lead to air rights lease negotiations directly with those who undertook all that work. Regarding the second issue (encouraging air rights development as soon as economically feasible, there are three points that need to be made: (3) I totally disagree with the draft report of the TC subcommittee regarding the prospects for air rights development around the TC rail station within the next couple of decades. I think this judgment is almost entirely based on the current lack of interest of property owners in Town Center and Metro South whose obvious first priority lies in their existing and past investments in their property. They apparently believe that they do not stand to gain much, if anything, from the potential interest of other developers in future air rights development around the Town Center rail station. (4) Recent history demonstrates that competent and successful developers have had an interest in Reston rail station area air rights development. Reston Land and Terrabrook were quite interested in the potential for Town Center rail station air rights development when the market was strong during the late 1990s, and worked closed with Doug Carter and his engineering colleagues on a detailed plan that demonstrated market feasibility with an FAR of about 6 while providing funding for essentially the full costs of developing the rail

45

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 station and its required access facilities. More recently, at different times Monument Realty, Comstock, and Jorge Kfoury have demonstrated serious interest in the 2000s in investing in air rights development at the Wiehle Avenue rail station (now a dead issue because foundations have not been put in place prior to construction, making the current and future costs of building on air rights prohibitively costly). (5) The possibility for future air rights development around the two Reston stations remaining to have their design completed prior to construction have now received so much community support that it now appears unlikely that there will be any opposition. The entire community planning process leading up to, and including the RMPSS process has led most interested Restonians to appreciate the potential of this air rights development. Most interested people now recognize the many benefits, including: (a) housing and jobs for people who may be able to lead a life with little or no dependence on the automobile, (b) enormous energy savings and pollution reduction, (c) the introduction of completely free movement by all modes of transportation, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists, across the Great Reston Barrier Trench, at least within the length of the air rights development area, (d) lack of any threat to established neighborhoods, (e) support and connectivity for adjoining TOD around the rail stations, (f) the possibility of creating additional small urban open spaces in the most densely portions of Reston, and (g) additional County revenue with little up-front costs. The Town Center subcommittee's report and recommendations show little or no appreciation for these potential benefits. General Planning and Urban Design Suggestions The subcommittee's report could be much improved by adding options that have been put forward by members and non-members of the subcommittee. Examples include (a) the addition of strong incentives for achieving consolidated plans for each of the several major sub-areas of Town Center such as Metro North, Metro South, and Town Center North; (b) stronger incentives for moving further and faster toward residential commercial balance; (c) different configurations of open space in Town Center North, such as the proposal of having 4 Savannah style small parks -- one in each quadrant of the area -- to bring usable open space closer to most parcels; provide traffic calming by blocking several of the possible straight line cut-through routes; and giving greater identity to small neighborhoods; and (d) adding alleys where appropriate to provide a better fine grain to the street grid and provide additional pedestrian shortcuts. Additional design guidelines should be added, such as those provided to supplement the Comprehensive Plan language adopted about 3 years ago for the revitalization of Lake Anne Village Center. A primary example is language discouraging bulky mid-rise buildings in favor of both taller and shorter heights. The strongest guideline option might be that suggested by Reston's original master planner Bill Conklin in the guidelines for Lake Anne revitalization -- i.e., no building should be built between 4 stories and 14

46

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 stories. Another example might be specific suggestions for different design features that would create a sense of place where most appropriate in each major sub-area of Town Center, such as dimensions for open space of different kinds and arrangements of prominent buildings along secondary "Market Streets" in each major sub-area (see last paragraph of this section), and at the ends of important streets such as Stratford House at the east end of Market Street. Other examples are a listing of features that create a sense of place and suggestions for the placement of art in public places. The subcommittee's report shows no appreciation of the TOD achievements that have been made in numerous other metropolitan areas, such as on the West Coast. Nor does it reflect the very important achievements and transferable lessons learned in developing the new Tysons Corner plan, particularly the need to drastically change the severe imbalance in residential - commercial development -- the major cause of the current congestion and the most important policy change that can mitigate further increases in congestion while permitting continuing growth. The Town Center subcommittee report gives proper attention to the need for north-south improvements in connectivity with the Urban Core, but fails to recognize that the proximity and connectivity with the Urban Core are essential to support the recommendations for increased densities in Town Center North. Such arguments are essential to counter challenges being made by others to allowing such density increases in an area well beyond the half-mile distance from the Town Center rail station. The short walk to the jobs and other attractions of the core are far more important than the length of the walk (or bus ride) to the station. Once this point is put forward and accepted, the most obvious missing recommendation is that Town Center North can provide the most important location for housing the missing resident labor force for jobs in the Urban Core. The Comprehensive Plan should encourage a higher concentration of residential development (e.g., a gross square foot ratio of 6:1 for new development, thereby making the largest contribution to achieving the recommended ratio of 4:1 for new development in Town Center as a whole. The subcommittee report should have offered more guidance for how the walking and biking experience of streets throughout newly developing parts of Town Center could be improved, in part by applying the lessons learned from the success of the Urban Core, particularly the first phase from Presidents Street to Library Street. Some of the streets most in need of such improvements are the north-south connections between Freedom Drive and Town Center North. Explorer Street in particular is in need of a road diet and the addition of retail and service activities between Freedom Drive and New Dominion Parkway. The subcommittee report should also offer more specific guidance for traffic calming on the arterials surrounding the Urban Core, particularly the New Dominion Parkway (speedway), but also Town Center Parkway and Bluemont Way. One suggestion might be to introduce rougher surfaces at selected intersections such as is widely done in Europe and elsewhere. We may not be willing to pay for cobblestone like European

47

DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENT Edited a/o 98/1830/10 countries are, but a much less costly alternative might be the use of stamped concrete surfacing. Incidentally, we have to get beyond the subcommittee report's desire to please VDOT officials who resist urban street recommendations like more substantial traffic calming and much closer spacing of signals where needed to protect pedestrian movements and to provide a small measure of traffic calming. As Supervisor Cathy Hudgins has suggested, Fairfax County should be more aggressive in specifying desired street and arterial design guidelines in urban areas, particularly since VDOT has so little money to build anything. To make some further contribution to reducing the shortage of residential in the Urban Core, a recommendation should be added to encourage any new residential buildings to be built at the highest practical and allowable densities, consistent with other objectives. For example, the current market might encourage short-term stick-built residential on the undeveloped land immediately south of Town Square between Explorer and St. Francis streets. The County should consider Comprehensive Plan language to try to prevent this from happening and thus delaying the construction of highest and best use residential densities. This last point introduces another broad shortcoming of the subcommittee's report. In many ways it is a trend-based projection rather than a planning document. Many statements are made favoring market solutions, which are often, but not always, the best solutions. For example trend-based forecasts by GMU and others are used for guides on balance of uses rather than being seen as a warning of problems that may need to be corrected. Very little is said about recommendations for how the design review process, tax incentives, and subsidies can be used to achieve recognized goals and objectives. Language might be added encouraging the County to look for new ways of creating incentives. An assumption (or office developer's wish?) is made in the subcommittee report that the market for commercial will (always?) be stronger and precede a strong market for residential. This was obviously not true during the last growth cycle of the mid-1990s to mid-2000s. Over the long haul these market shifts are bound to be in balance. Finally the maps that have been prepared to supplement the subcommittee's text report should be augmented to show selected examples of the above recommended additions to the report including the Savannah-style small parks described in (c) of the first paragraph of this section, and secondary "Market Streets" extending directly south of the Town Center rail station into the center of Metro South and another extending along either Explorer or Library streets, or both, from Metro North through the Urban Core into Town Center North.

48

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful