RESTON COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Board Meeting

April 12, 2007
Lake Anne Office Building
11484 Washington Plaza West
Reston, VA 20190

MINUTES

Board Members Present:
Phil Tobey
Robin Smyers
Howard Green
Anne Strange
Walt Peter
Van Foster
Rick Thompson

Invited Guests:
Bridget Hill, HCD
Lee Rau, RHA

Observers:
Mirza Kurspanic, Reston Connection
John Lovaas

Vice President Tobey called the meeting to order at 7:32PM and asked if there were any public comments.  

Public Comments
Mr. Lovaas commented that the Recommendations for the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the Lake Anne Village Center (LAVC) appeared to be over the line in terms of density.   He also understood that there was a concept of making Lake Anne a “mini town center” retail complex and felt that this was inappropriate.   He asked if there was any intent to use the PPEA process for redevelopment of Lake Anne and noted that the experience in Southside has called the legality of the PPEA process into question.  

The Board discussed the question and concluded that there was no current plan either for or against using PPEA.   It is too early in the process to be able to determine this.  

Design Guidelines Report
The discussion of the report opened with Mr. Green suggesting that the TAP members (Ms. Smyers and Mr. Tobey) comment on the process and report.   Ms. Smyers said that in meetings with TAP and the consultants, much time was spent on the philosophy of the revitalization design for the LAVC but little of this discussion was covered in the report.   The objective of maintaining a local and unique retail mix was discussed at length, but covered little in the report.   On the other hand, the numbers in the report, such as the 15% open space and density figures, had hardly been mentioned.    Architectural renderings were a topic of debate.   On one hand, they would provide a more tangible vision of what the LAVC could look like, but the risk was that the community would consider a rendering as a firm design rather than illustration of a concept.   In the end, it was decided to minimize renderings.   

Mr. Tobey agreed   and noted that the TAP was clearly “advisory”.   Much of the richness of the debate was not conveyed in the report.   There was no discussion of metrics, so this was an area that the RCRC needed to address.

The board discussed the renderings issue without reaching a conclusion.   It was recognized that renderings were difficult because there were many variations that would satisfy the basic design concepts.   On the other hand, it would be difficult for the community to understand the concept and density without some type of renderings.   The possibility of showing plot plans as opposed to elevations seemed to offer a middle ground.  

The discussion indicated that board members were generally comfortable with the design concepts but not with the density numbers.   Mr. Green suggested that before getting into the details, the board should discuss the process for reviewing the report.   He proposed a series of meetings to focus on individual sub areas and commented that the board’s job is to finalize the report.   The board discussed the product of the process and the consensus was that it would probably be a memo from the board to the Supervisor.   The board agreed to hold a series weekly meetings starting April 18 th and to advise the Supervisor of this process.   

Mr. Tobey suggested that each of the members comment on their views on the report.   Mr. Foster said that the qualitative sections of the design guidance seemed quite well done and liked the apparent concept of a mix of tall, thin high rises and low rises.   On the other hand, he felt the quantitative part defining square footage and FARs allowed a density much in excess of what the community would accept.  

Mr. Rau said that he likes the requirement to be architecturally consistent with the existing LAVC environment and that the Comprehensive Plan shouldn’t unnecessarily constrain developer’s design.   He compared the high rise/low rise concept to San Gimignano, Italy, with its skyline of prominent towers.  

Ms. Strange agreed with the design concepts and suggested that while renderings may not be practical, some sense of a plot plan would be important.  

Mr. Tobey agreed that the qualitative side looked good, but quantitative issues hadn’t been discussed with the TAP and needed attention.

Mr. Green expressed concern that the design guidelines preserve the historical nature of the Lake Anne environment.  

Mr. Peter addressed the concerns about density and noted that the severe difficulties with providing parking would limit the density to something significantly less than the draft allowed and would be a major issue.  

Mr. Thompson concurred with the consensus on the design philosophy and the concern with the density.  

Ms. Smyers   commented that transportation issues had been discussed extensively and that support was needed for a mix of transportation modes: pedestrian, bicycle, bus and automobile.   

The board agreed that these issues would be discussed at the meeting on the 18 th.  

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25PM.