Meeting
Minutes, July 13, 2004
Fred Seldon, Fairfax
County Department of Planning and Zoning
Development Opportunities for
the
General parameters to from
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Restrictions.
Subject Area:
Subunit G-4 - 34
acres
Existing: 400,000
sq. feet ± in Subunit G-4
300,000 sq. feet ± Office
100,000 sq. feet ± Industrial
Existing
Zoning:
I-4
– FAR I-4
Would allow 740,000 ± square feet
Existing development represents 54% of potential under current zoning.
Comp Plan
·
Baseline – office
use with .5 FAR based on current zoning.
·
30 Dwelling Units
per acre of residential allowed in baseline.
·
Rail oriented
mixed use highest option.
17
acres closest to rail station allows 2.5 FAR
·
Is the County
property in all the 17 acres or in part?
·
If all County
property is considered in the 17 acre area, support up to
1 million
square feet applying the “rail-oriented residential mixed use option.”
·
Impact of
development on transportation will be a key evaluative factor in looking at
development proposals.
·
Comp Plan
“contemplated” that we would go through a “BRT” interim development (1.5 FAR)
before we get to “RORMU”, --assumed phased development.
QUESTIONS on Development Opportunities:
Do the covenants “trump” the
comp plant?
Fred - the
specific legal determination has not been made at this point.
Frank
indicated that in the past, the answer has always been yes. The County has
respected the covenants of
Joe
Stowers would like summary information provided for the other 3 adjacent quadrants. Fred will provide for next meeting.
How many parcels in this area? On the
order 10 or 11 in the 17 acres.
There
are many owners involved (one multiple owner parcel is counted as 1 parcel).
Since the County considers
apartments as “commercial” not residential, is it conceivable that apartments could go in under existing
covenants? Frank
Fred
– Covenants speak to no hotels so you can infer that apartments would be a
precluded “commercial activity”.
FOLLOW UP ITEMS:
The Steering Committee may
want to seek legal clarification of the applicability of the covenants on
the County property. Follow up with RA to get
the status on the covenants revision issue. Possible Task: Develop a
steering committee view/language on how to consider/define the 17 acres –
hash through the application of the comp plan or G-4. E-mail input to Fred by
next Tuesday – Fred will work with Kohann and input for others to clarify
the 17 acres.
·
The Steering
Committee will want to consider how to address/consider/include areas adjacent
to G-4.
Harry Swanson , Housing
and Community Development
Deputy Director of
Revitalization and Real Estate
The Development Toolbox
Goals of Development
·
Stakeholders –
increase value of property.
·
Developers – make
good return on investment.
Tools
·
Tax Incentives
·
Staff from County
– be responsive to developers
·
Zoning – allows
reduction:
- in
parking requirements
-
building heights
-
landscape requirements
·
Expedited site
review
·
Web site
outlining possible development opportunities
http://fairfaxcountyrevitalization.net/
From Experience with
Developers:
·
Be organized.
Have a plan.
·
They like
public-private partnerships because if government is involved they are protected.
·
Government likes
partnerships because it leverages resources.
Bond Issue 2006 - millions of $$ available for public
safety and commercial revitalization.
Examples – Merrifield +
1985
D.A.R.T. well developed transit system with T.O.D.
T.I.F.
(Tax Increment Financing) w/CDA freezes district at current tax rate – “but
for” that incentive, we wouldn’t get this development…been around since 70’s
from
T.I.F
uses bonds to allow developers money for public resources: plazas, water
fountains, garages.
Encourages
developer to put his/her money up front. They get reimbursed from the returns
as they come in.
$1.5
million trolley brings people from transit to the retail commercial area in
Lease
Revenue Bonds obligates the money for the senior center. Lease with developer
who builds the garage, etc. + debt is paid by the _____________.
C.D.A. – Loudon used this for
Laurel Hill – County used land swap to put together that
deal.
Questions/Comments on Revitalization:
Could the Wiehle area could
be given a special designation (as C.D.A.)?.
Could the Lake Anne Revit
area be expanded to include this area?
What is the role of E.D.A. in
enticing and engaging developers?
They
are more into marketing to bring new entities to County.
What incentives, offerings do
we have to encourage developers to tackle the housing and parking?
Leverage
$$ for parking garage from Rail.
How much money is included in
the federal/state plans for the rail station?
Pro – Not too much
residential right near this area to object to plan changes.
From the June 29th
meeting:
Another web site for
consideration by the Steering Committee is the WMATA web site, which includes
their most recent solicitation for joint development, as was discussed by Doug
Hale. The web site is: http://wmata.com/bus/jd/JDevSolicitation.pdf
***Staff from County
purchasing should be included in the next meeting.
Joe Stowers has two ideas for
consideration as part of the public plan. He will send them out by email to the
group for review and comment.