North County Governmental Center

Attendees: Committee members - Steven Cerny, Gene Klein, Joe Stowers, Feliza Kepler, John Lovaas, Bruce Wright, and Arthur Hill.

Other attendees: Goldie Harrison, Supervisor Hudgins' office; Elizabeth Baker, Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley; Rustom Cowasjee, Tishman Speyer and Dan Adkisson

The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Ms. Kepler.

The January 16, 2001 minutes were approved as modified.

Woodland Park East, RZ & FDP 00-H-044, & PCA 77-C-098-04, 80-C-028-06 - Ms. Baker handed out the latest version of the proffers and copies of the staff report. This application was initially presented to the committee on December 5, 2000. Ms Baker gave a brief overview of the application. Appendix 2 of the staff report contains the Proposed Final Development Conditions developed by staff and were added on Feb. 7, 2001. The conditions ensure that non-tidal wetlands are not present on the site, that bicycle parking facilities, lockers and showers be provided, and that child care centers be permitted without approval of a final development plan amendment. See Appendix 2 for details.

At the suggestion of staff after completion of the transportation study, the proffers include the construction of dual left turn lanes on Sunrise Valley Drive and Monroe Street (6-8), traffic signals (9), and transportation demand management strategies such as car pooling, use of mass transit, etc. (10)

Mr. Hill asked about the location of the parking structures and how many parking places were planned for the development. The structures are mostly on the edge of the property. Mr. Cowasjee stated that the County requirement is 2.6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of office space, but they have an option to go as high as 4/1000 sq. ft. due to expected demand and to facilitate obtaining financing. There could be as high as 6800 parking spaces. The structures will be 65' high, with ½ of a level below ground.

Mr. Lovaas stated that the parking structures will be the first thing that people see from the Dulles Toll Rd (DTR) and as they approach from Monroe St. and that it is much more preferable to have the structures located away from the street. Mr. Cowasjee stated that the structures will be partially hidden by landscaping required by the proffers, and that the office structures will be from 140'-190', and will be prominently seen above the structures.

Mr. Lovaas asked if it were possible to move the structures away from the road, more to the west. Mr. Cowasjee said that was not feasible if they wanted to retain the major amenity of the development, the planned forested park on the west side.

Mr. Hill asked if the surrounding residential communities had been asked to comment on the project. Ms. Baker stated that she contacted the Polo Fields and Van Metre communities and gave them some information and offered to meet with them. They have not requested a meeting.

Have any tenants been signed? No.

Mr. Stowers stated that access to/from the proposed Metro station at the Herndon Monroe Park and Ride is not good. The platform could be moved closer to this development to facilitate access, and now is the time to discuss that possibility, and encouraged the Applicant to pursue that option.

What is the best route for pedestrians to travel from the proposed Metro to the proposed development? Mr. Cowasjee stated that Fairfax County owns land adjacent to the DTR and that a trail could be built to provide a more direct route than along Sunrise Valley Dr.

Mr. Hill asked if a site plan has been developed? No.

Mr. Wright mentioned the difficulty of crossing Monroe St. with the additional lanes to be developed. He asked if the Applicant would consider contributing to pedestrian signals and crosswalks. Mr. Cowasjee stated that those are installed by VDOT as part of the traffic signal installation. Mr. Wright stated that it was not always the case. Mr. Cowasjee and Ms. Baker agreed to add wording to the proffers to agree to provide pedestrian signals and crosswalks at the traffic signals.

Mr. Hill would like to see the amount of planned parking reduced. Ms. Baker stated that the amount of parking is usually dictated by the tenants. Mr. Hill stated that he would like to see the Applicant limit the amount of parking to the 2.6/1000 required by the County and no more.

Mr. Stowers noted that the proposed location of the Metro station is approximately ¼ mile from the development. He stated that if passengers are required to walk more than 1000', the use of the facility drops. While at this stage of the planning process it would cost money to move the proposed station closer to the development, it may be worth the cost to ensure more usage.

Mr. Klein wondered at what point having access to Metro would reduce the planned parking. Mr. Cowasjee stated that it is mostly a matter of timing; that Metro will not be available for several years. It would be cheaper for the developer to build less parking, but he does not consider it an option at this time. Mr. Klein was very disappointed that even with Metro and Rapid Bus service proposed so close to the development, the Applicant was not considering a reduction in parking.

There was additional discussion about the location of the parking structures on the site and the desire to reduce the number of parking spaces. Mr. Stowers and Mr. Hill suggested that if Metro were located closer to the development, that at the time of the construction implementation, the developer consider a redesign to lower the number of parking spaces and possibly change the location of the parking structures. Mr. Cowasjee agreed that the developer would be more willing to consider changes if Metro were closer.

Mr. Hill asked if the Applicant would return to the Land Use Committee for a presentation during the site plan phase. Ms. Baker agreed.

A following motion was made by Mr. Cerny and seconded by Mr. Stowers:

The Hunter Mill Land Use Committee recommends approval subject to the inclusion of recommendations made by Fairfax County staff in their report dated February 7, 2001, and of the following conditions which shall be included as additional proffer requirements:

1. If the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority's current planning process for the Dulles Rail Corridor determines that direct access be provided between the southwest quadrant of the intersection of the Dulles Toll Road and Monroe Street, and the platform to be constructed for the Herndon-Monroe Street Station for the future Dulles Corridor bus rapid transit and rail project, developer shall consider reducing the size of its proposed parking garages so that they do not exceed Fairfax County minimum parking space provision requirements (i.e., 2.6 spaces per 1000 square feet of office space).

2. Installation of a pedestrian signal at the traffic light to be installed on Monroe Street between the Dulles Toll Road bridges and Sunrise Valley Drive (at the future Woodland Tech Parkway), if such a traffic light is warranted by VDOT. If such a traffic light is warranted by VDOT, the pavement on Monroe Street at Woodland Tech Parkway shall also be clearly marked to indicate the presence of a pedestrian crossing.

3. The provisions of Proffer No. 10 requiring the implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies shall be deemed effective upon completion of the first office building constructed at the site.

The vote was 6-0 for approval with Mr. Lovaas abstaining.

Infill Study - Mr. Gibson recently testified at the Infill Study public hearing before the Board of Supervisors and presented the Committee recommendations. Ms. Harrison gave a short report on what had transpired at the meeting. She handed out three supporting documents as part:

• The Planning Commission Report
• The meeting record of the deliberations in the Board meeting
• The follow-up questions that the Board asked the staff and the staff's responses

An omission we noticed in all these is any attempt to address the Affordable Housing concerns raised by the Land Use Committee, both in a letter to the Board and in Mr. Gibson's presentation to the Board.

Ms. Harrison said she would follow up on the disposition of this issue since she remembers some discussion of the subject but it seems like no action was taken to close out the discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.