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 sub-
areas 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.
2. 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.

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 north-
south 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 east-
west 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 pedestrian-
friendly 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 north-
south 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 world-
class 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 community-
County 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 (non-
residential: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 vehicular-
dependent) 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 north-
south through streets that will provide access throughout the parcel. On-
street 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
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.
 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.

• 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-more-
than 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 well-
balanced 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 walking-
distance 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
4
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.

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 mid-
course 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