RESTON COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

11400 Fairway Drive, #407

Reston, Virginia 20190

703-437-3606

pronske3@comcast.net

May 14, 2007

Cathy M. Hudgins, Supervisor

Hunter Mill District

12000 Bowman Towne Drive

Reston, Virginia 20190

Re: Lake Anne Revitalization Area

Dear Supervisor Hudgins:

The RCRC Board has undertaken an in-depth review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Text & Guidelines prepared by BBPA. We have identified some issues and made some recommendations that we believe should be given consideration in drafting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning. These are identified in the full summary below with supporting graphics attached. As the process continues, we will continue to interact with community groups and planning staff. Should substantive issues arise, the following may be revised or amended.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Building Height

• There is a minimum number of stories, 14, recommended but no limit on the height and that raises concern about the viewscapes from Washington Plaza. Assuming Bob Simon’s statue as the view point, the densities in Sub Areas #4 and #5 Option #1 could be accommodated below the view line but would not be required to do so under the draft guidelines. We suggest a guideline on the order of the following be added:

No new structure higher than 4 stories be permitted within the Village area that is visible when viewed from Bob Simon’s statue at Plaza ground level.

A high rise in Area #3 would not meet the above guideline as 9 stories above the 5^th floor would be exposed to view. While we all recognize the importance of having residential space close to Washington Plaza, pro and con opinions remain within the Board as to height constraints appropriate for that site.

Density

• In Sub Area #5, we believe Option #2 should be eliminated with a portion of that density added to Option #1. The added density is appropriate since the Option #1 square footage in the report would provide the same and possibly fewer dwelling units than the current zoning.
• The listed FAR values are calculated from land areas that included present public street right of way. We suggest it would be more realistic and understandable to use net parcel area in FAR calculations.
• The report utilizes 1650SF to project the possible number of dwelling units. If FAR alone is the controlling value to be used, it would appear a greater number of smaller units could be permitted under the guidelines. If this metric is incorporated, would it adversely affect the potential for work force or Section 8 housing?

Open Space

• The minimum guideline value used throughout the report is 15%. It would be helpful to know how this value was determined. Could consideration be given to increasing that minimum?

PARKING

• Sub Areas #1, #2 & #3 should be generally self sufficient in parking but shared parking should be considered.
• Sub Area #5 should provide on-site parking to support its projected development.

We recommend the County consider locating supportive parking for public use in Sub Area #4 with pedestrian access to the core provided by an enclosed overpass. Sub Area #1 has infrastructure and ground water impediments that would greatly increase the cost of more than one underground level of parking. Considering market forces, Sub Area #1 is likely to be the last to be developed and supportive parking in #4 would provide temporary parking during construction in Sub Area #1, minimizing impact on existing Plaza operations.

SUB AREA COMMENTS

• Sub Area #1

The total floor area of mixed use 3-4 story appears to be more than can be accommodated considering the need for a north-south view across a new plaza. This space we believe would need to be wide enough to accommodate the Farmer’s Market as well as service the ground level retail flanking the space on the east and west. The amount of retail space indicated does not appear to be available under the above configuration. We believe about one half of the proposed floor area would be reasonable. `

• Sub Area #2

Uses and density appear to be workable but a question was raised as to the rationale behind the residential density and building heights employed as compared with other Sub Areas.

• Sub Area #3

This is seen as a prime residential area. but with inherent problems for development. The Reston Association parcel north of Chimney House Road seems very narrow for housing development and the portion south, also small, encumbered with drainage, utility and walkway systems. Incorporating proposed building area into primarily a high rise on the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church parcel raises buffer and sight line issues that need to be resolved. This will be a cross-axis anchor for Washington Plaza.

We suggest the land uses for the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church and the Reston Association parcels be addressed separately for a better understanding of available options.

• Sub Area #4

We concur that this is a prime residential site and density appears to be appropriate. Further study may show that this density could be adjusted up or

down.

• Sub Area #5

We concur that this is a logical residential site. It appears the Option #1 density is only slightly more than the present 240 DU and we believe that could be increased. The density of Option #2 was seen as excessive, though it may be possible to increase that of Option #1.

Over the last four weeks the group has been diligent and dedicated in our efforts to provide a thoughtful, objective review. We hope our comments are received as constructive and prove useful in structuring the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Very truly yours,

THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Van Foster - Washington Plaza Cluster Bob Simon - At Large

Anne Strange - Washington Plaza Baptist Church Martha Green -Millennium Bank

Walt Peter - Good Shepherd Lutheran Church Howard Green - At Large

Rick Thompson - Lake Anne Condo Association Phil Tobey, TAP - At Large

Robin Smyers, TAP - Reston Association

Kurt Pronske - President

Att: Bronze Bob Views

Lake Anne Proximity Bob

What Bob Can See

Aerial with sight lines