See
Consultant's Final Hunter Mill Vision Report :
HMDL
Proposed Revisions to the CirclePoint Draft #3 Vision Report
(See Tracked
Changes In Text)
Introduction
This Vision
Report is the result of an eight-week public engagement process initiated by
the Hunter Mill Road Area Special Study Task Force and the Fairfax County
Department of Planning and Zoning. In September 2005, CirclePoint was hired to
create a forum to elicit
comments from the public on the future of a Special Study Area,
created by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and to convey that
information to the Task Force. The primary goal has been to establish the
preferred future use of the Special Study Area.
This Vision
Report accomplishes two things:
1. Communicates the comments,
sentiments and any priorities of the Hunter Mill Road area residents and other
stakeholders with regard to the Special Study Area.
2. Outlines issues
based on the public comments and suggests overarching issues that the Task
Force might consider as it develops recommendations.
This Vision Report does not include recommendations from
the consultant team on what the Task Force, Planning Commission or Board
ultimately should do about the study area, although many public comments
received during the process do.
This document is organized into eight sections, plus an
Appendix with supporting documents and materials. The sections are:
Section 1: Introduction
outlines the report.
Section 2: Executive
Summary provides the highlights of the community visioning process.
Section 3: Project
Background describes the purpose, special study area, task force, community
visioning process and key activities.
Section 4: Public
Comments include discussion of the comment gathering process,
comment overview,
overarching issues, decision making, participation topic areas
and challenges.
Section 5: Stakeholder
Participation reporting for the community visioning process, community
visioning workshop, focus groups and open house.
Section 6: Community
Visioning Workshop includes its purpose, implementation, facilitator
recruitment,
selection and responsibilities, breakout groups, and workshop
assessment and implementation.
Section 7: Focus Groups section has a
purpose statement, a summary of the Business Focus Group and focus group
evaluation and assessment.
Section 8: Open
House section discussion includes the purpose, implementation and assessment.
Appendices include
comment compilations, meeting evaluations and outreach materials.
Executive Summary
Fairfax County, Virginia is a rapidly growing area in the
Washington, DC metropolitan region. For several years, residents, the
development community and government leaders have been unable to reach an
agreement about what to do with approximately 300 acres in the Hunter Mill Road
area, which is currently designated by the Comprehensive Plan as an area for
low-density
residential
development. The Board of Supervisors is attempting to guide the broader
community toward consensus about their vision for the area. [Alternative language: “The Board of Supervisors is providing a
forum and structure that stakeholders can utilize to determine if a consensus
vision for future development exists.”]In September 2005,
Hunter Mill Road Area Special Study Task and Department of Planning and Zoning
in Fairfax County, Virginia, launched a public engagement process with a
community visioning process as the focal point.
This is a report
of the process. Over the past eight weeks, several hundred residents have
become passionately engaged around this issue and at October 1
Visioning Workshop forged a consensus statement that stated the community
prefers no change in the low-density designation and other policies for their
community in the current Comprehensive Plan. The Task Force will use the report
as they develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission.
In the visioning
exercise, focus groups, written comments and statements in public meetings
people
consistently communicated a very strong near unanimous
preference for no change in the current Comprehensive Plan. Therefore:
“Given
the frequency of the sentiment and large degree of participation in the
community visioning process by residents in the Hunter Mill Road corridor, a
clear consensus has emerged that residents in the corridor prefer no change in
the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the Hunter Mill
Road area.” (October
2005)
Project Background
In recent years, a number of Since 1985,
during each plan review cycle, numerous proposals to amend the
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan for the Hunter Mill Road area have been
submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ). The majorityAll
of these nominations have been denied in favor of retaining the Comprehensive
Plan’s fundamental
concept of a low-density residential buffer zone separating the economic
development centers of Tysons Corner and Reston. During the 2004
North County Area Plans Review (APR) process, DPZ received four additional
proposals for amending the Plan. In scope
and scale, these proposals mirrored previous attempts to change the Plan. In this plan review cycle, and over the strenuous objections
of the established residential community, the Board of Supervisors
decided to depart from the established review process. The extent of the area affected
and character of the proposals raised concern among the DPZ staff that the
normal process for considering proposed changes to the plan might not allow for
broader identification and evaluation of issues in the Hunter Mill Road area.
Under normal
circumstances, the Area Plan Review (APR) process provides the opportunity for
the public to
submit nominations to the Planning Commission to consider amending specific
recommendations for geographic areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Any
member of the public may submit a nomination. During the APR process,
nominations are reviewed by a task force appointed in each Supervisor district.
This type of review is designed to evaluate nominations on an individual basis.
Ultimately, action by the Board of Supervisors is required to amend the
Comprehensive Plan.
The specific
group of nominations for the Hunter Mill Road area involved a large area of
approximately 250 acres, but did not include nearby areas of similarly located
properties that would have been significantly impacted by any changes to the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff also felt that it was necessary to consider the
proposed Comprehensive Plan changes in the context of a more logical planning
area than was represented by the nominations. The nominations also presented
complex issues affecting land use options with regard to housing, schools,
parks, transportation, public facilities, environmental and historical
resources and other county systems and facilities. For these reasons, the DPZ
planning staff recommended that the
nominations be considered as part of a special study of a larger
area, defined and authorized by the Board of Supervisors. The study area was determined
by the Board of Supervisors and was limited to 310 acres. It did not include more than 300 additional
acres of similarly situated, intellectually
indistinguishable, property to the north and east. It is described below in
detail.
The Board of Supervisors authorized a Special Study on
March 21, 2005. They
appointed a joint Hunter Mill and Dranesville District Task Force with
representatives from:
1. the potentially impacted local residential community
2. interest group advocates for county wide issues such as
affordable housing, and
3. development and related industries
A Task Force representing the
Hunter Mill and Dranesville Districts was appointed by the Supervisors of each
district.
Special Study Area
What
follows is the physical description of the study area boundaries as they were
established by the Board of Supervisors, followed by a map. The study area
comprises approximately 310 acres 
located east and west of Hunter Mill Road
near Sunset Hills Road and the Dulles Airport
Access Toll Road.
The portion west of Hunter Mill Road includes all of the parcels
east of Lake Fairfax Business Park, south of Lake Fairfax Park and north of
Sunset Hills Road, and the Virginia Department of Transportation maintenance
yard located south of Sunset Hills Road.
Τhe portion
east of Hunter Mill Road includes
the parcels located in the northeast quadrant of Sunset Hills Road
and Hunter Mill Road, south of Crowell Road that are currently used as a golf
park.
In the current Comprehensive Plan, the study area is designated
for low-density residential uses. It is part of a fundamental element of the Plan,
which separates the county’s economic development centers by
low-density residential buffers. The
plan also
recommendsexplicitly establishes a “line of demarcation”
between the use of
a buffer to the separatethe low-density Equestrian Park
subdivision from and higher-intensity
industrial
uses in at Lake Fairfax
Business Park. The low-density residential area near Difficult Run is intended to
preventpart of the buffer zone that prevents
the higher
intensitycommercial land uses in Tysons Corner
and the town of Reston from merging. Over the past several yearstwenty-five
years – since the Plan was first adopted, this policy has been supported
byhad near-unanimous support of many
residents in the Hunter Mill Road area and Reston, and has been reaffirmed by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, DPZ staff and community leaders.
Between 19971979
and 2001, nominations to amend the Comprehensive Plan that were
deemed incompatible with the existing land-use policy have been
consistently denied. Most of those proposals sought to to abandon the
low-density buffer concept by substantially increasing residentialincrease
density and change the mix of land usesadding
commercial and retail in the buffer zone.
Task Force
The Hunter Mill
Road Area Special Study Task Force convened its first meeting on June 7, 2005.
According to the Task Force’s charter, its purpose is to
consider the range of land use options for the study area and to develop
consensus around a set of recommendations to present to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors. The Task Force was asked to explore and analyze the
short-and long-term impacts of the range of land use options, including but not
limited to their potential effect on housing, schools, parks, transportation,
public facilities, environmental and historical resources, and other county
systems. The Task Force will then use this analysis to form recommendations.
For making recommendations, the Task Force was directed to consider the
geographic area designated by the Board of Supervisors. The charter does permit
the Task Force to identify other affected areas or issues of concern, and may
recommend follow-up by the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission. If
authorized by the Board, the Task Force may also study and make recommendations
for a larger geographic area.
Community Visioning Process
An important stated goal of the Task Force is to hear from
stakeholders. Stakeholders were defined by the Consultant to include
residents and landowners from the Hunter Mill Road and surrounding area,
commuters that use the roads, and employers and business owners in the area. A
priority of the public engagement effort was to convene a series of public
meetings during which stakeholders would establish reach consensus and propose a
preferred future use of the Special Study Area. The public
meetings were completed by mid-October in order to fit within the established
Task Force schedule.
To facilitate this process, the county issued an informal
solicitation on July 25, 2005 for consulting services to develop and implement
the public engagement process. The county specifically sought assistance in
designing and implementing a community visioning process. The proposal deadline
was August 8. CirclePoint, an environmental and communication
management consulting firm, submitted a response to the
solicitation. County staff and representatives of the Task Force conducted
candidate interviews during the week of August 15. CirclePoint was informed
August 22 that is was selected as the contractor. The contract award was
$29,990.
On September 7, CirclePoint presented a schedule and plan
for the community visioning process and the delivery of the final report to the
Task Force at a public meeting. At that meeting, the Task Force raised several
questions and concerns about the plan and schedule. The public also
expressed a variety of questions and concerns. At the September 21
Task Force meeting, CirclePoint presented a revised final plan and timeline
that responded to most of the questions and concerns. Key milestones in the
plan included:
|
Date
|
Activity
|
|
October 1
|
Visioning Workshop
|
|
October 17
|
Follow-up Open House
|
|
November 4
|
Draft Vision Report available for Task
Force and the public
|
|
November 9 D
|
Task Force discussion of the draft
Vision Report #3
|
|
November 4-14
|
Public comment period on the Vision
Report
|
|
November 23
|
Final Vision Report due to the Task
Force
|
The community visioning process was designed to include a several
opportunities for individuals and groups to share their ideas, concerns, and
information. At the conclusion of the community visioning process, the Task
Force is scheduled to continue to meet to consider what they have
learned from the community,
and to develop recommendations to be presented to and the Board
of Supervisors.
Key Activities
The public engagement process involved four key
activities: 1) informal stakeholder meetings and interviews, 2) six stakeholder
focus group discussions, 3) a visioning workshop, and 4) an open house. The
following graphic illustrates how the public engagement process worked. The
graphic is followed by a detailed description of each key
activity. The process was designed to convene diverse groups of stakeholders
and provide as many people as possible the opportunity to learn from each
other.
The informal
stakeholder meetings and interviews were intended to outreach to the community
and to begin informing people of the visioning process and for the consultant
team to better understand the existing physical and political conditions in the
community. The focus groups
were designed to engage small groups of stakeholders in
conversations before the visioning workshop to provide the consultant team the
opportunity to develop a clearer understanding of important issues of specific
stakeholder groups. The focus groups were originally planned to include those
groups or people who might not otherwise be expected to participate in the
workshops, but were expanded to include other community entities, such as
homeowners associations.
The visioning workshop was designed as the focal point of the engagement
process. The event was organized in a format that included facilitated breakout
groups so that it was possible in one afternoon to actively involve several
hundred people in a discussion. The final event was an open house, which was
designed to report to the public what had occurred at the workshop and to
obtain feedback on the visioning process. The process is culminated in this
Visioning Report, which documents the process for the larger public, Task Force
and county leadership.
FOCUS GROUPS (6)
WRITTEN COMMENTS
WEB-BASED COMMENTS
.
•Homeowner Assn •
.
• Businesses
.
• Faith
Community
.
• Schools
.
• Land-use
& Transportation
•
BREAKOUT SESSIONS WITH A MIX OF STAKEHOLDERS,
OCTOBER 17 ALL ADDRESSING THE SAME QUESTIONS
20-25
SEPARATE GROUPS, EACH WITH 10–15 MEMBERS
OPEN
HOUSE
OPEN TO EVERYONE
TASK FORCE MEETING NOVEMBER 9
DRAFT FINAL
REPORT
REPORT
Meetings and interviews 
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD NOVEMBER 4–14
There were fewer than a dozen informal outreach meetings or
interviews. Most conversations occurred on the telephone or as a side
conversation during a Task Force meeting. They rarely exceeded 15 minutes in
length. The civic association in the Hunter Mill
Corridor that has been the most active in land use issues for the past twenty-five
years was neither invited nor permitted to participate in these meetings or
interviews.
Focus Groups
Between September 28 and October 5, six stakeholder focus
groups were convened. Each focus group met for one 90-minute facilitated
telephone session. The focus group questions are included in Appendix A. The
six focus groups held were:
1.
1. Homeowners
2.
2. Businesses
and employers
3.
3. Pedestrian,
bicyclists, and equestrians
4.
4. Faith
communities
5.
5. School
communities—selected elementary schools that are in the Madison school pyramid
and that are closest to the subject area or are otherwise nearby
6.
6. County
advisory boards and commissions
The civic association in the Hunter Mill Corridor
that has been most active in land use issues for the past twenty-five years was
neither invited nor permitted to participate in the focus groups.
Visioning Workshop
The
October 1 Visioning Workshop was the focal point of the community visioning
process. The workshop was structured and facilitated to manage the large number
of participants and to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to contribute to
the discussion. The meeting opened with a plenary session that included
presentations on the current Comprehensive Plan, existing conditions, and
potential impacts of land-use scenarios. Participants were then randomly
assigned to breakout groups. The breakout sessions were led by volunteer facilitators
from the community.
Open House
As a follow-up to the
Visioning Workshop, a public Open House occurred on October 17. The purpose of
the event was to provide the community with a preliminary summary of comments
from the workshop and to provide an opportunity for the public to make comments
on the visioning process. During most of the meeting, a microphone was
available for participants to ask questions about the visioning process and
make statements about the special study.
Public Comments
This
report includes comments from the focus groups, visioning workshop and open
house. It also includes as an appendix all written comments sent to CirclePoint
and the Task Force that related to the community visioning process. The final
version of this report will incorporate comments submitted between November 4
through 14 by the Task Force and the public that the
Consultant deems useful in creating a final report that
is an accurate reflection of the the visioning process as it was experienced by
participants. also Also, the final
report shall include as an appendix any all comments
submitted between November 4 through 14 by the Task Force and the public on the
draft Vision Report.
The first portion of
this section describes the comment gathering process and synthesizes the
values, themes and visions gleaned from public comments in the October 1
Visioning Workshop and focus groups. With the exception of the business focus
group, which is discussed in a subsequent section, the messages from participants
in the Visioning Workshop and focus groups are nearly
identical. The comments from the October 17 Open House are summarized
separately. The summary of written comments can be found in the appendices.
The second portion of this section presents a detailed analysis
and summary of comments in several topic areas. The topic areas coincide with
the questions that were asked in the visioning workshop breakout groups:
•Values
.
•Envisioning
.
•Employment
.
•Walking, riding and biking
.
•Transportation
.
•Education
.
•Environment
.
•Housing
.
•Faith communities and
community services
.
•Land use
.
•Themes
.
•Visions
.
•Strategies
.
•Other
Comment Gathering Process
At the October 1
Visioning Workshop, facilitators and scribes were assigned to each breakout
group and recorded more than 2,000 comments on flip charts. The facilitators
were asked to indicate how many people agreed with an idea or shared a similar
sentiment (e.g., 8x, 8 or 8 check marks means that 8 people agreed with the
comment). Unfortunately, participants
reported that this process step of weighting
comments was missing in some, if not many, breakout groups.
Additionally,
114 comment cards
were submitted during or immediately following the workshop.
Forty-four written comments were submitted at the October 17 Open House. The
written comments from the Visioning Workshop are summarized and included in
Appendix B. The summary of written comments from the October 17 Open House is
in Appendix C.
County staff
transcribed the flip charts into a single electronic document. With the
exception of correcting obvious misspellings, there was no attempt by the
transcription team to edit the
comments. The
unedited compilation of comments organized by breakout group can be found in
Appendix B.
The comments were
then reviewed by a member of the consultant team and organized into topic
areas, which coincide with the questions in the visioning exercise. The
reviewer then identified issues and themes that emerged in each topic area.
Another member of the consultant team then reviewed the topic area issues and
themes to verify that they were a rational reflection of the
comments. Some comments in the topic area summaries also
include minor edits that complete sentences or phrases, correct misspellings
and spell out abbreviations. This complete compilation can also be found in
Appendix B.
Comment Overview
There were 15
questions in the visioning exercise and in nearly all groups, regardless of
which
question was
asked, at least one person and at times several people communicated a very
strong preference for no change in the current Comprehensive Plan. Focus groups
were asked similar questions and the public could include whatever they wished
in their written comments, yet the comments were consistent. Therefore:
Given the
frequency of the sentiment and large degree of participation by residents in
the Hunter Mill Road corridor, a clear
consensus has emerged that
residents in the corridor prefer no change in the current Comprehensive Plan
land use designations in the Hunter Mill Road area.
While no change in the Comprehensive Plan was the prevalent
message, residents made many other comments that elaborated on why the current
Comprehensive Plan was important and what else needs to be addressed, or remain
unchanged to maintain the quality of life and support the values of the
residents in the Hunter Mill Road corridor. A small minority of
attendees
(approximately x%) expressed some interest in increasing
residential density in the study area, or otherwise amending the Comprehensive
Plan.
Overarching Secondary Issues
Several secondary issues emerged from the consultant’s analysis
of the topic areas. The issues fall into a number of categories that, taken
together, suggest that there may be some priorities topics for citizens
and local officials to think about in the context of the larger community:
Proactively addressing land
use needs
.
• Changing
and strengthening the public’s role in decision making
.
• Strategically
managing and leveraging growth in appropriate areas
.
• Creating
a range of housing options
Investing in public infrastructure
.
• Creating new and upgrading existing recreational
facilities
.
• Focusing investment in public facilities
• Maintaining the quantity and quality of public services
Maintaining or enhancing the quality of life
.
• Protecting neighborhood character
.
• Preserving historic, community and cultural resources
and institutions
.
• Improving environmental resources and quality
Mitigating undesirable conditions
.
• Providing
greater mobility and connectivity of the transportation system
.
• Managing
the consequences of business development and additional jobs
.
• Addressing
traffic congestion without needlessly expanding capacity
.
• Making
roads safer and accessible without exacerbating congestion
.
• Preventing
dense residential, commercial, industrial, and retail development from encroaching on the adopted
Plan’s long-standing residential buffer between Reston and Tysons Corner.low-density
neighborhoods.
There are other notable observations. Some of the issues and
answers focus specifically on the Hunter Mill Road area, such as traffic
management at interchanges along Sunset Hills Road, traffic calming along
Hunter Mill Road and providing better access and safety along the Washington
and Old Dominion Trail. Other issues are focused on broader needs, such as the
importance of regional recreational facilities, balancing housing withand
adequate
public facilities. transportation
needs and maintaining investments in schools.
Decision Making
There were many
comments about the decision-making processes and public participation. Many of
the comments suggest a high degree of fear and mistrust in the visioning
process
specifically and in the decision-making processes generally. This
sense of fear may be because if there is any negotiation to amend the density
and allowable land uses in the Hunter Mill Road area, the potential outcomes
are:
1. Additional incremental
changes that will ultimately require lead to further
compromise and potentially undermine the community’s core values and create
adverse affects on the quality of life in the
area.
2.
A 2. Nnegotiated agreement
that may not withstand changes in
the elected leadership over time or when , renewed pressure is applied on
elected leadership, for example, to permit unplanned growth. accommodate
growth.
This
sense of fear may also exist because the elected officials
who departed from the normal plan review process did so without prior meaningful
collaboration with all of the key stakeholders – especially those whose homes
and lives would be most affected.
Many comments
make reference to: “the integrity of the plan,” “sought assurances that the
plan would not change” because as one commenter stated: “that’s what we bought
into.” In this case, the statement suggests that it is
perceived that changes to the Plan could adversely affect property valuesquality of life
in the established residential community.
More importantly, the concerns reflect frustration
because many believe that the study is part of a recurring “visioning
conversation” and that their concerns and positions have already been voiced
but are not being heard or honored. Many participants felt that elected
leadership has
had not been visible enough or , attentive
enough to their concerns, or representative of their interests.
Participation
The community
visioning process was open to anyone. Over the course of a few weeks
participation increased significantly. In comments during and after the
workshop, as well as in written comments, many residents implied that the
visioning workshop was the only opportunity they had to speak publicly about
the special study. The public comments suggested that they needed more time to
create a vision and encourage participation, and to make sure that more people
knew about the process and were prepared to participate.
Steps were taken to create balanced representation in the process.
The process was designed to get as much information as possible from
participants. Workshop sign in sheets were analyzed to determine the addresses
of all participants and demographic data was collected from participants in
each breakout group. The residents accepted an open process but wanted some
assurance that comments by Hunter Mill residents would carry more weight
because they were directly impacted by the proposals.
Because of
their mistrust of their elected officials ability to represent their clearly
stated interests, There was also an impression with several residents
thesome Hunter Mill Corridor
residents had the impression that everything was a “done deal.” That explains
why it may have been so difficult for people to participate in a visioning
process that encourages people to look forward: in short, why bother? Under
these circumstances, it is not
surprising that the Hunter Mill Road community, at
least now, finds it is more important to articulate what is unacceptable and
identify the things that they do not want. This dynamic, in turn, places the
focus on the perceived points of contention and divergence of interests between
the residents, elected officials and nominators. It is therefore much more
difficult to find any common ground, which may exist among these groups.
The
residents who participated in the visioning process eagerly looked to the
future and clearly articulated that they saw build-out in the Hunter
Mill Corridor according to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Their vision appeared to frustrate some facilitators in breakout groups, who
were encouraging participants to envision land use changes in the area’s adopted Plan.
Comment Topic Areas
A large
percentage of the 2,000 comments from the Visioning Workshop related to issues
affecting land use options with regard to housing, schools, parks,
transportation, public facilities, environmental and historical resources and
other county systems and facilities. However, the majority of comments
communicate one primary message clearly: no change to the Comprehensive Plan.
Still, comments suggested that there were certain aspects in the
community
that were important to
improve.
It is important for the Task Force as they develop recommendations
for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and to explore the broader
set of topics that focus on the complex relationship of the issues and the
context in which they are nested.
The 2,000
comments were reviewed and organized into categories corresponding to the 15
questions from the visioning exercise. Once they were organized, similar
comments were then
grouped into topic areas. Finally, the various groups of
the topics typically reflected a recurring thought or idea, so the
consultant team created themes to succinctly summarize the topics. All topics were
weighted equally, disregarding the fact that some were strongly
supported and some were not supported by anyone except the person who
offered it. To
facilitate a quick review, the section below includes only the topics and
themes. The entire compilation of comments, topics and themes can be found in
Appendix B.
Values
What are three
things you value in the community that should not be changed?
Topic Areas:
.
•Open space, parks and green
space are important neighborhood amenities.
.
•Maintain the rural character of
Hunter Mill Road and surrounding area.
.
•Maintain the buffer that
separates low-and high-density land uses.
.•The existing Comprehensive Plan adequately addresses issues
other than low-densities.
.
Section 4 Public Comments
.
• The integrity of the
Comprehensive Plan should be protected.
.
• There is no need to change the existing Comprehensive
Plan policy.
.
• Protect the high quality of the schools.
.
• School district boundaries and pyramids should remain
intact.
.
• Manage school population to prevent overcrowding and
increased classroom size.
.
• Additional growth will exacerbate an existing problem
with traffic congestion.
.
• Traffic
calming is important to slow traffic and to improve safety.
.
• The
neighborhood provides good access.
.
• There
is an awareness of the need for attention to transportation options.
.
• Low-density
residential development is an important reason why people come to and stay in
the area.
.
• There
is a degree of satisfaction with housing options and mix.
.
• Several
physical characteristics contribute to the overall livability of the area.
.
• The
natural environment and environmental quality adds to the richness of the area.
.
• The
community is stable and it offers the opportunity for people to build strong
communal relationships.
.
• The
area offers a degree of personal safety that must be maintained.
.
• The
character of the neighborhood had economic impacts and benefits.
.
• Hunter
Mill Road has historic value as a scenic byway.
Employment
What is it about employment and business-related issues that
people in this area should consider as they look to the future?
Key Theme:
• The
community does not want any new employment/business related growth.
Topic Areas:
.
• Business
growth would impact roads and cause congestion.
.
• Business
areas should be kept separate from residential areas.
.
• Should
consider telecommuting as an option for employment growth.
.
• Business
growth should be linked to public transit and the Metrorail stations.
.
• Metrorail
and public transit are not the answer to accommodating business growth.
.
• Consider
jobs/housing balance.
.
• Consider
the accuracy of job growth forecasts.
.
• Consider
safety and security effects with increased business development.
.
• Consider
the needed infrastructure to support business growth.
.
• Should
consider regional perspective.
.
• Consider
education link to employment needs.
Walking, riding and biking
What
issues related to walking, horseback riding, bicycling and recreation are
important to consider as people in this area look to the future?
Key Theme:
• Parks, recreational facilities and trails are valued by
the community. Improvements in trails and facilities are needed and would
benefit pedestrians, runners, equestrians, bicyclists and other recreational
users.
Topic Areas:
.
• Horse trails and facilities should be preserved and
improved.
.
• Need more and improved parks and recreational
facilities.
.
• Need
trail improvements for bikes, pedestrians, runners and other users.
.
• Need
easier access and greater connectivity to trails.
.
• Need
improvements to the Washington and Old Dominion Trail.
.
• Preserve
the rural character of area.
.
• Consider
funding options for trail and recreation improvements.
.
• Need
improved access to Lake Fairfax Park.
.
• The
current
Hunter Mill Corridor population is underserved by existing
recreational facilities are currently underserved.
.
• Adhere
to the improvements specified in the existing Comprehensive Plan.
.
• Should
look at the park needs from a regional perspective.
.
• The
Hunter Mill Road area is not a pedestrian community.
Transportation
What is it about transportation that is important for people
in the area to consider as they look to the future?
Key Themes:
.
• Although there is congestion and various areas where
the roads should be improved, road widening and roadway alternations are not
the preferred solutions.
.
• Traffic safety, improved bus service, innovative
funding, and controlled growth are important considerations for transportation
issues.
Topic Areas:
.
• The area roads should be improved in various locations.
.
• Should not widen or alter the roads to solve
transportation challenges.
.
• Transportation funding is not adequate and there is a
need for creative funding sources.
.
• Traffic safety is important for all transportation
modes.
.
• Metrorail is not the answer to the transportation
problems.
Section 4 Public
Comments
.
• Should control growth so that
road congestion does not increase.
.
• Area bus service should be improved.
.
• Consider innovative transportation solutions.
.
• Should consider density around the Metrorail stations
and transit areas.
.
• Connectivity is important in the transportation
network.
.
• Need to have accurate traffic counts. #3
.
• Should
restrict HAZMAT vehicles and trucks on the roads.
.
• Use
of proffers in the rezoning process should be considered for area improvements.
.
• Consider
bikes, pedestrians and others in transportation improvements.
.
• Transportation
funding is adequate.
.
• Should
coordinate construction of transportation projects.
.
• Consider
regional approach to transportation.
Education
What
about education is important to consider as people in this area look to the
future?
Key Theme:
•The
high quality of the schools should be maintained, and the school
district boundaries
should not be altered. The community
values small class sizes, optimum
teacher/student ratios, short travel to schools and safe travel routes.
Topic Areas:
.
• Should maintain quality of school system (small class
sizes, optimum teacher/student ratio).
.
• Should not change the school district: maintain
existing boundaries.
.
• The schools are already overcrowded, should not add new
students.
.
• Should
maintain appropriate distance/travel lengths to school.
.
• Maintain
existing school pyramid.
.
• Should
consider options to improve the schools.
.
• Should
keep density low because it affects the quality of schools.
.
• Need
more data on overcrowding in schools and should address the problem regionally.
.
• Should
not have classrooms in trailers.
.
• Need
affordable housing for teachers.
.
• Should
consider safe pedestrian and travel routes to schools.
.
• Trailers
can be used to accommodate more students.
Environment
What environmental issues are important to consider as people in
this area look to the future?
Key Theme:
• Future growth in the area should consider
the impact on the environmentally sensitive Difficult Run watershed (This is the
largest watershed in Fairfax County and it is located in the Hunter Mill
Corridor.), water quality and water facilities, asbestos issues,
wildlife and wildlife habitat, trees and green space, air
quality,
noise quality and light pollution. The environment should be preserved and
protected.
Topic Areas:
.
• Consider the environmentally sensitive Difficult Run
watershed, water quality and water facility issues that are impacted by growth.
.
• Community is concerned about asbestos issues and it
should be monitored.
.
• Preserve current density and character of the area to
protect the environment.
.
• Preserve
habitat and wildlife in the area.
.
• Preserve
trees and green space in the area.
.
• Consider
new park facilities and land before development options.
.
• Consider
and protect air quality.
.
• Consider
noise impacts related to growth.
.
• Enforce
environmental protection regulations.
.• Regulate HAZMAT vehicle travel
through the area.
.
• Consider the light pollution related
to growth.
Housing
What housing issues are important for people in
the area to consider as they look to the future?
Key Theme:
• Although the need for affordable and workforce housing is
generally supported, housing density should not be increased in the study area
and the character of Hunter Mill Road should remain the same.
Topic Areas:
.
• Should consider options for adding affordable and
workforce housing.
.
• Maintain the existing character of Hunter Mill Road
area.
.
• Should
maintain low-density housing.
.
• Maintain
housing the established low density
residential buffer as an essential element of the adoptedas it is in the
current Comprehensive
Plan.
.
• Housing
should be located near employment centers.
.
• Should
have a variety of housing types.
.
• Consider
quality of life issues with housing.
.
• Consider
the impact on infrastructure and services with housing changes.
.
• Preserve
the value of the existing residential properties.
.
• Consider
housing options for aging population.
.
• Housing
should be located near transportation.
Faith and community services
What role is
there for the faith communities and social services as people in this area look
to the future?
Key Theme:
• The faith communities are important
providers of social and community services in the Hunter Mill Corridor
(There are five places of worship in the corridor.) ,
make important contributions to the sense of community,
and have a stake in the physical planning for the area.
Topic Areas:
.
• The physical presence of churches has potentially
important implications for land use.
.
• The faith community is contributor to strong community
relationships.
.
• The faith community serves as an important community
resource.
.
• The faith community fulfills an important role in the
provision of social services.
.
• There is a greater role for the faith community in
providing services for the elderly.
Land use
What
is it about land-use that is important for people in the area to consider as
they look to the future?
Key Theme:
•Land
use and density should be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan to maintain
the critical planning element that separates the county’s economic development
centers of tysons corner and reston by a low
density residential buffer..
Residents will
experience the greatest impact and should have the most influence in land use
decisions.
Topic Areas:
.
• Land use and density should be consistent with the
existing Comprehensive Plan to maintain the critical planning element that
separates the county’s economic development centers of tysons corner and reston by a low density residential buffer..
.
• Residents will experience the greatest impact and should
have the most influence in land use decisions.
.
• Do
not make changes
to Hunter Mill Road a four-lane road.
.
• Land
use should provide appropriate open space and recreation.
.
• Land
use should be carefully considered.
.
• Land
use decisions create precedents and should be made in
consideration of the impact on all should consider the impact to all
of Fairfax County.
.
• Should
consider infrastructure impacts related to land use changes.
.
• Development
does not have to result in increased density.
Section
4 Public Comments
.
•Land use changes can be
positive.
.
•Comprehensive Plan should not be revised
continuously.
.
•Land use decisions effect affect taxes.
.
•The Comprehensive Plan should consider change.
.
•Should have better coordination between land use
and transportation.
.•Need
to make the land use decision process transparent to the public.
.
.
•Separate residential and
business land uses.
.
•Land use should be done by professional planners
not elected officials.
.
•Development should be clustered.
Challenges
The previous section described the comment gathering and
review process: The 2,000 comments were reviewed by a member of the
consultant team and organized into topic areas, which coincide with the
questions in the visioning exercise conducted at the October 1 Visioning
Workshop. The reviewer then identified topics and themes.
The discussion in
this section is based on a deeper review of all of the topic areas. The deeper
level of review suggests that even should if there be is no
amendment to the Hunter Mill Road area Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designation, there are broad, almost philosophic, public policy questions implied in the
visioning exercise. These are the seminal questions about the balance of growth and
quality of life that face many municipalities today and for which
there are no simple answers. The consulting
team is not suggestingparticipants are concerned about a number of other
issues that area specific to the Hunter Mill Road
area and others that transcend the boundaries of the study area. Raising these
issues is not a suggestion that the decision makers and or Hunter
Mill Road residents ever need to ever discuss these issuesquestions.
The
consulting team is only surfacing these mega-questions as a service to policy-makers. Raising them is intended to
ask: If the questions below, or others, are
important, when would it be helpful to initiate a discussion, who needs to get
it started, who needs to be involved, what would a process look like and how
would success be measured.
The questions below are organized by category. and T they
are not in priority order.
Proactively addressing land
use needs
• How to address
the premise that solutions to regional and countywide problems often yield
regional and countywide benefits but create specific local impacts? Decisions
made in areas surrounding the Hunter Mill Road study area may eventually impact
those who live in elsewhere, and vice versa.
Investing in public infrastructure
• What is the best way to address the
current backlog of infrastructure and public facility needs and improvements
with the current population? Is limiting density a viable
approach to
reducing future infrastructure demands?
.
• What
are ways to manage the trade offs between limited land and the need for more
recreation areas and other public uses, such as schools?
.
• What
level of investment in transportation makes sense? Where and for which modes?
Maintaining or enhancing the quality of life
• Is there a way to
incorporate design standards to preserve and complement the character
of what needs to happen so that
natural resources and amenities are not overused or exhausted?
• What are the ways to
maintain the quality of education and ease and prevent future overcrowding?
Mitigating
undesirable conditions
.
• There
is not an unlimited reserve of vacant land for new housing to meet projected
needs; what is the best use of what is available to create the necessary range
of housing options within the county?
.
• How
are housing options created and improved—where, what kind, and what portion
should reflect market rates?
.
• What
are the priorities for transportation investments to address current problems?
Decision Making
.
• What types of processes would allow the community,
business and elected leadership to more effectively anticipate and manage the
conflict associated with negotiating the trade offs in public policy decisions?
.
• How can the civic infrastructure be strengthened so
that more people in the community have the capacity and information to
participate meaningfully in the decision-making
processes?
• What steps can be
taken to integrate planning, development and decision making?
Clearly, the Hunter Mill
Special Study Task Force is not tasked with these weighty questions. As decision makers, the challenge
to the Task Force,The challenge to the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission is to decide ultimately when these fundamental, countywide questions should be
discussed, who should participate in the discussion, and what success would look
like. if it is
important in this process to address these questions. If they are, then: When
should these issues be discussed? Who, if invited, could help? What would
success look like?
Stakeholder Participation
Community Visioning Process
The community visioning process hit a nerve in the
community and sparked organizing and
activity. Between 100 and 150 people attended the
September 7 and 20 Task Force meetings. Less than two weeks later on October 1,
nearly 300 people participated in the Visioning Workshop. At the October 17
Open House the number of participants grew to more than 400. In a show of
hands, a clear majority of the participants at the Open House did not
participate in the Visioning Workshop. The number of written comments also
increased over the same six-week period. A growing number of Internet blogs,
Web sites and listservs now link networks of citizens concerned about Hunter
Mill Road and Fairfax County. Articles on the issue continue to
appear
regularly in local and regional newspapers.
This is not an exhaustive description of who was involved
in the visioning process but it offers a summary of the range of stakeholders.
There were a large number of stakeholders, many of whom belonged to homeowner
and civic associations that have been such as some of those belonging
to homeowner associations who have been actively engaged in many all of the
area’s land use and transportation issues , some f for
more than 205
years. They have participated in other visioning and public processes that have
raised the same questions and prompted the same
area.
They envision the Hunter Mill Road
area’s being enhanced by traffic-calming and recognition of
its scenic and historic resources and remaining a part of the
low-density residential buffer zone separating Reston and Tysons Corner. They value the county’s
planning process which has reviewed
and confirmed the area’s planning and pattern of
development for more than a quarter century.
There has also been
participation by other stakeholders, such as landowners who submit that the
Comprehensive Plan is dynamic and subject to periodic review and change,
particularly in an area such as Fairfax County that is experiencing tremendous
job growth and housing demand currently and will continue to do so in the
coming years. Another group of stakeholders are people who are rarely active in
transportation and land use or community issues , and may not have
access to relevant information or understanding of how to affect the
decision-making process. These
people but want to learn and to become more
engaged. A final group of participants are persons who are not from the
local community, who have a position on countywide
issues. They have a defined set
stakeholders
are those who have a defined set of interests that relate, for
example, to specific issues such as housing mix and affordability, mass
transportation and intensity of development, and recreation opportunities.
Community Visioning Workshop
According to sign-in sheets, 277 people participated in the
October 1 Visioning Workshop. Of those, 273 were legible names and addresses.
Sixty-seven percent of those attending the workshop identified themselves as
residents who lived in the 22181 and 22182 zip codes. Both are the Vienna zip
codes closest to Hunter Mill Road. Approximately 12 percent of participants
claimed residency in Reston--Zip codes 20190 and 20191--and six percent from
Oakton, which includes the 22124 Zip code. Of the remaining 40 participants, 39
are from other parts of Virginia.
October 1 Visioning Workshop Participants
|
Zip Code
|
Participants
|
Percentage
|
Zip Code
|
Participants
|
Percentage
|
|
22182 -Vienna
|
168
|
62%
|
22032 – Braddock
|
2 2 2
|
>1%
|
|
20190 -Reston
|
26
|
9%
|
20170 – Herndon
|
|
>1%
|
|
22181 -Vienna
|
18
|
6%
|
20165 -Sterling
|
|
>1%
|
|
22124 -Oakton
|
18
|
6%
|
20120 -Centreville
|
2 1 1
|
>1%
|
|
20191 -Reston
|
7
|
2%
|
22314 -Alexandria
|
|
>1%
|
|
22180 – Vienna
|
3
|
1%
|
22201 -Arlington
|
|
>1%
|
|
22101 – McLean
|
3 R
|
1%
|
22194 – Woodbridge
|
1 1 1
|
>1%
|
|
22066 – Great Falls
|
3
|
1%
|
22043 – Falls Church
|
|
>1%
|
|
22030 – Fairfax City
|
3
|
1%
|
22031 -Fairfax
|
|
>1%
|
|
20171 – Herndon
|
3
|
1%
|
20774 – Upper
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
|
|
|
Marlboro, MD
|
|
|
20121 – Centreville
|
3
|
1%
|
20168 – Haymarket
|
1 1
|
>1%
|
|
22102 -McLean
|
2
|
>1%
|
20111 -Manassas
|
|
>1%
|
Focus Groups
Between September 28 and October 5, six stakeholder focus groups
were convened. What follows is the summary of participation.
1.
1. Homeowner
Associations – 6 participants
2.1.
2.
1.
3. School
Communities – 4 participants
2.
4. Businesses
and Employers – 8 participants
3.
5. County
Advis0ry Boards & Commissions – 2 participants
4.
6. Faith
Communities – 3 participants
Focus Group Member Selection
• Task Force members made
recommendations for focus group participants.
.• Some citizens suggested people or
contacts from various groups or nominated
themselves. In most cases, these requests were accommodated. However, the civic association
that has been most active in land use issues for the past 25 years asked to
participate in a focus group and was denied
participation by Fairfax County personnel..
.
• In
addition, other county employees were asked to suggest people they work with on
county boards and commissions.
.
• County
staff also suggested potential focus group members from among individuals and
groups active in the community.
VISION REPORT
Hunter Mill Road Area Special Study
Section 5 Stakeholder Participation
Additional information on
focus groups appears in Section 7.
Open House
The sign-in
sheets indicate that approximately 350 people attended the October 17 Open
House. Twelve members of the Task Force attended the meeting. Thirty-five
people asked questions or made statements at the microphone.
October 17 Open House Participants
|
Zip Code
|
Participants
|
Percentage
|
Zip Code
|
Participants
|
Percentage
|
|
22182 -Vienna
|
220
|
62%
|
22030 – Fairfax
|
2
|
>1%
|
|
20190 -Reston
|
29
|
8%
|
20120 –
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
|
|
|
Centreville
|
|
|
|
22181 -Vienna
|
28
|
8%
|
20165 -Sterling
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
22180 – Vienna
|
18
|
5%
|
20171 –
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
|
|
|
Herndon
|
|
|
|
22124 -Oakton
|
15
|
4%
|
20194 -Reston
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
20170 – Herndon
|
5
|
A1.5%
|
22031 -Fairfax
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
22102 -McLean
|
5
|
1.5%
|
22032 – Fairfax
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
20190 -Reston
|
2
|
>1%
|
22033 – Fairfax
|
1
|
>1%
|
|
22183 – Great Falls
|
2
|
>1%
|
22101 – McLean
|
1
|