Herndon’s Unfinished Fight for a Small-Town Feel – Part 1 to 4

7/25/2019 Herndons Unfinished Fight for a Small-Town Feel Part 1 to 4

1/25

1

http://herndonopinion.com/

Herndons UnfinishedFight For A Small-Town Feel Part 1

January4, 2016

by

Jasbinder Singh

PART 1 OF THE 4-PART SERIES:

THE IA!O" HOTE# $s% FORTH&O!I"' O("TO(" E)E#OP!E"T

The 2008 rejection of the Diamond Hotelhelps us understand Herndons long and protracted fight over

a small-town feel The hotels !" height and *+l,had created such great anguish for some citi#ens

that it received its initial rejection by the then-Town $ouncil The developer had tested the communitys

resolve and failed %hortly after the initial rejection& he reduced the height by only ' and received

approval from the weary council

The 2008 fight should be a cautionary tale for the forthcoming development proposals that are li(ely to

contain structures with higher heights and greater bul( than those of the Diamond Hotel

%)*+H),& ,+ %++* T) H.+ +/D+D 1 / ,)3%+ %TT)/

TH/ / 2008

This 1art 4 of the !-1art %eries discusses the 2008 struggle that led to the development of a

communitys shared vision of the downtown in 2044

1% APP#I&A#E .//0 O"I"' RE'2#ATIO"S

The following applicable #oning regulations have been a matter of controversy ever since the Hotel

was proposed in 2005 and disapproved on %eptember 26& 2008

a% In3rease in Intensit: 7The Town $ouncil ma increase the floor area ratio 9:3; up

to 2'0 9from 20; < if the development meets a specified criteria 5Em6hasis added7

The language of the regulation did not bind the Town $ouncil to approve the hotel even if it had

met the prescribed criteria The regulation did not say the T$ shallapprove the higher :3 The

$ouncil had a duty to ma(e sure that the application of the criteria would overcome the effects of

other deficiencies The height of !" created a more massive structure than a si#able population of

the town was willing to accept :3 of less than 226 and greater than the by-right :3 of 20

could have been met only with a lower height Therefore& the town council had the legal right to as(

the developer to lower the hotels height or ta(e other actions to reduce its mass and bul(

Herndons Unfinished Fight For A Small-o!n Feel " #art 1 January 4, 2016
http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/


2/25

2


*% Set a3, at 8/: The then-regulation stated& 7t the right of way 93),; line& no structure

shall e=ceed 60 in height and the height of the structure shall increase no more than one

foot of additional height for each foot of hori#ontal distance from the 3), line7

This part of the regulation was designed to ensure that the face of any structure would not be 7flat

however& the proposed hotels front elevation was 7straight up


3/25

&


:T+3 E)/F /D BTT+3 :FHT THT HD D.D+D TH+ T),/&TH+ T),/ HD $H+.+D 3+D$T)/ / H+FHT ): %T ' ft

8% &A##S FOR E)E#OPI"' A O("TO(" !ASTER P#A"

The intense 7struggle< over the height and mass of structures generated calls for creating a

Downtown *aster 1lan that would represent the communitys shared vision During the ugust

42th& 2008 public hearing& $ouncilmember Tirrell renewed his call for a master plan for the

downtown in order to 7overcome some of the issues that have developed which could be

avoided in the future< $ouncilmembers ,addell and Downer echoed *r Tirrells call

By the end of 200"& the community had articulated its vision for the future of the downtown n

:ebruary 2044& the Town $ouncil approved The Downtown *aster 1lan 9D*1; The fight over

height and mass of future downtown buildings had come to an end& or& so it appeared new town

council too( office on uly 4& 2042 %lowly but surely& it began to ma(e changes to the D*1 Thefollowing figure shows how the perspective of a 2-story retail structure& illustrated in the D*1 and

accepted by the public& is li(ely to change to a !-story& up to @!G high structure under the

regulations enacted by the 2042-204! town council

%chematic diagram

9 visit https://reader009.{domain}/reader009/html5/0327/5ab9fd7c79e48/5ab9fd7e6755b.jpgfor #oom view;

n the light of the e=perience with the Diamond hotel& the changes made to the Downtown *aster

1lan by the 2042-204! Town $ouncil foretell future public fights over the height and mass of

downtown buildings

I

J4KThe H13B never had another opportunity to ta(e a loo( at changing the design& because the Hotel was never built By thetime the Town $ouncil approved the hotel& the national financial mar(ets had collapsed and the great recession had already

begun t wouldnt have been built even if the application had been approved @-8 months earlier Regardless, the s!pporters ofthe hotel still blame the then-co!ncilmembers for their apparent fail!re to bring new development to the town.

Herndons Unfinished Fight For A Small-o!n Feel " #art 1 January 4, 2016
http://herndonopinion.com/2016/01/04/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel/#_ftnref1http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-station-and-wod-trail-view.jpghttp://herndonopinion.com/2016/01/04/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel/#_ftnref1http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/


4/25

1



January11, 2016

by

Jasbinder Singh


O!!"#IT$S SHARE% &ISIO# OF THE F"T"RE %O'#TO'#

With the Diamond Hotel problems behind it, the 2008-2010 Town Council set out to develop a

downtown master plan The ob!ective was to develop a shared vision o" the "uture downtown and

avoid the hei#ht and mass issues that had beset the Hotel

The downtown plannin# process was e$pected to be di""icult, because the resolution o" decades-

old con"lict, between those who wanted to maintain a small-town "eel and those who wanted hi#h

densities, wasn%t #oin# to be easy Consider the comments made by a member o" the town sta""

be"ore selectin# the members o" the Downtown &aster 'lan (D&') *teerin# Committee+

We are setting up a situation where opposing forces have to duke it out right on the

committee. That is a head-on approach and not easy or comfortable, but probably better

than setting up a situation where months and months of work proceeds under a majority

that wants significant redevelopment as per past plans, only to have the process then run

head on into major opposition when the whole thing gets to the PC andor the TC level for a

decision!" suppose that #owner and others ! may end up being the ones who come out

and oppose the final plan.$

This *eries shows that the con"lict remained potent at each step o" the development and

implementation o" the master plan

() %E&E*OP!E#T OF THE RFP

n ovember 2008, the town sta"" had e$pected that the highdensity scenario ./ would drop the

downtown density a bit/, but the "inal version o" the euest "or 'roposal contained the "ollowin#

two scenariosi+

reate !aster Plan A: Create &aster 'lan 3 with a density based on a ma$imum "loor

area ratio (43) o" 25 etain the current hei#ht limit o" 50% as a general r+le, but reduce

the hei#ht "or all areas that are ad!acent to residential uses/ ,Emhasis added.

reate !aster Plan /:This plan would reduce the hei#ht and density as compared to the

density under e$istin# 6onin# and compared to &aster 'lan 3 4or e$ample, the

con"i#uration mi#ht be limited to a 7-story ma$imum "or all structures Height ma0 1e

Herndons Unfinished Fight For A Small!o"n Feel # $art 2 January 11, 2016


5/25

2


limited to 4 3eetthrou#hout the downtown/43 "or development may be in the ran#e o"

10-15ii

The sta"" had also ased the council to provide some #uidance on de"inin# the phrase .as a

#eneral rule in the para#raph above The council did not do so 'erhaps, it !ust wanted the public

and9or the steerin# committee to establish the criteria

The Town sent the 4' to "irms speciali6in# in .town-scale downtown development and selected

:rban Desi#n 3ssociates o" 'ittsbur#h, '3 to develop the &aster 'lan ;ne its "irst tas was to

wor with the town sta"", the community at lar#e, and the staeholders to help develop a

consensus vision o" the "uture o" the downtown

2) THE O!!"#IT$ ARTI"*ATES ITS &ISIO#

&ision means a sort o" .what want to be when #row up uniue outcome %reat visions almostalways center on what is special about a place.*mall towns and cities o"ten "ocus on natural

"eatures or e$traordinary social amenities, lie stron# arts and cultural communities, or "oodie

havens, or uaint main streets built "or antiuin# and local music ;n ;ctober


6/25

+


The illustrations had lent a sense o" vibrancy to the citi6en%s e$pectations o" the "uture downtown

The sta"", in one o" the emails to the consultants, summari6ed this "eelin# by statin#, . /+s the

newspaper articles portray it, a couple of residents were blown away$ by the work. /ne of them

has been active for a number of years and "0ve never known him to like anything, let alone be

blown away. 1o there you have it!$

The illustrations were made a part o" the dra"t Downtown Herndon &aster 'lan dated Dec 10,

200= 4or Herndon citi6ens, the D&' with the "ollowin# .small town characteristics was its vision+

6+st 7 stories ma8 3or 5ommer5ial and mi8ed +se9 and 4 stories ma8 3or residential)

n an ;ct 7, 2011 email (that is, 8 months a"ter the approval o" the D&'), the sta"" veri"ied

this concept by asin# the consultants to . drop the .> stories ma$ cate#ory in "avor o" !ust

7 stories ma$ "or commercial and mi$ed use, and ? stories ma$ "or residential/ iii

A 2-stor0 5ommer5ial and mi8ed-+se 1+ildingalon# *tation *treet and W@;D trail,

representin# the view o" a person standin# near the Depot and looin# at the bac o" the

*ubaru dealership This buildin# was supposed to become a si#ni"icant part o" a continuous

commercial hubiv

;A ;4 THA BB:*T3T;* H3D *H;W 3WHAA CB;*A T;50 4T T3BB :BDE*, ;, EFA THA &'A**; TH3T THA4:T:A D;WT;W B;CG* W;:BD A 3* &3**FA 3* THAD3&;D H;TAB

" anythin#, "uture buildin#s were e$pected to be only sli#htly taller than the tallest e$istin# buildin#s

in the downtown The illustrations had two additional characteristics They were+

(1) classi"ied into two ;ptions, 3 and , with representin# the lower density scenario, and

(2) drawn to show how the open space would loo and "eel on di""erent buildin# blocs

The concept o" usin# 4loor 3rea atios (43s) to de"ine what could be built on a property sort o"

disappeared by usin# this approach The reuirement o" the 4' to develop two options based on

43 was no lon# valid or applicable This meant the Town would use a relatively new concept in

6onin# 4orm ased Code (see 'art ?)

7) APPRO&A* OF THE O!!"#IT$S &ISIO#

;n 4ebruary 22, 2011, the Town Council approved the hi#h-density scenario (llustrative 'lan+

;ption 3) o" Downtown &aster 'lan The preamble o" the accompanyin# esolution veri"ied that

the plan+

Was the 5omm+nit0 ision"or "uture o" downtown developed throu#h a community

based plannin# process,

e"lected the 5omm+nit0s re3erred ision"or the "uture downtown/,The resolution also articulated how the vision was to be implemented t stated that the D&' ./



7/25


should be interpreted as a vision with "le$ibility where various land uses may be substituted at

speci"ic sites while retainin#+

5onsisten50 as to the la5ement o3 1+ildings9parin#, public streets and spaces, and

arti5+larl0 stringent5onsisten50 as to the 3a;ade massing andheight o3 str+5t+res

and the architectural character and uality o" development/ (Amphasis added)

The esolution also stated that, ./the D&' adopted 4ebruary 22, 2011 shall #overn with re#ard

to densit0and other 3eat+res/ (Amphasis added)

4) O#&ERSIO# OF O!!"#IT$S &ISIO# TO FOR!-/ASE% O%E

4orm-ased Code was not even mentioned be"ore the D&' was approved in 4ebruary 2011 n

"act, the sta"" did not say a word about it until Iune 2011, when it made a 'ower 'oint presentation

to the TC Aven then, the sta"" did not articulate the basic concepts, and did not show how the

concepts were related to the D&'

Formmeans the uality o" a nei#hborhood t either provides "or #atherin# places that 1+ild so5ial

5aital and lo5al resilien5e, or maes "or a lonely, disconnected, nowhere Form-1ased 5odes

have been used to de"ine the public realm, to create #atherin# places and to help reconnect people

with each other They de"ine what mi#ht be considered a .home v D&'-de"ined new public places

included+

Walable downtown with streetscapes

'la6a lie areas such as open spaces (1) within the "ormer 3shwell property and (2)

between the Depot and 2-story buildin# described above (see the ima#e below)

$u-li' .ealm

visithttps&jspalaha.files.wordpress.com'()*()public-realm.jpg for 2oom view

http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/public-realm.jpghttp://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/


8/25

/


Ereen space alon# the W@;D Trail, and

Commercial spaces alon# Alden, *tation, &onroe and other downtown

streets

n accordance with the principles o" 4orm ased Codin#, these public spaces were supposed to be

codi"ied in the re#ulatory schemes

TH* &A3* :BDE* ; D44AAT D;WT;W B;CG* H3DT; C;4;& T; THA *'AC4AD ':BC *'3CA* 3D ;T THA;THA W3 3;:D

&a$imum Hei#hts o" buildin#s also de"ine public spaces and #ive them uniue character 3

downtown with 100% tall buildin#s, "or e$ample, would have a very di""erent "eel than a downtown

with ?0% tall buildin#s 3 di""erence o" 10% or 15% in hei#ht can have an enormous di""erence in the

"eel o" the space t is worth notin# that the City o" ew or, durin# 1=


9/25

6


(https+99!spalaha"ileswordpresscom9201>9019e$hibit-station-and-wod-trail-view!p#)

http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-station-and-wod-trail-view.jpghttp://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/


10/25

iThe sta""%s "ocus on the 43 and .hei#ht o" buildin#s was misplaced "or two reasons First, the use o" 43 maes a lotmore sense i" one wants to #uide the development o" individual lots than i" one wants to develop a very lar#e area (suchas the downtown) where consolidation o" lots mi#ht tae place and where lar#e open spaces bene"ittin# the public mi#htbe createdSe5ond, the then prevalent 6onin# ('D-&:) had been in place "or almost 20 years n spite o" permittin# hi#h density

and 50% hi#h buildin#s, it had not #enerated any si#ni"icant development The lar#est structure that was built under the

'D-&: 6onin# was the T' Center (at the corner o" *tation and Alden *treets) t was about 7? "t tall n 200=, o""ice

condos that occupied the upper "loors o" the buildin# went banrupt The then maret rents "or o""ices could not support

new development (in spite o" lar#e parin# subsidies provided by the Town see my article on the shared parin#

pro#ram) Conseuently, 1+ilding height was not and is still not a de5isie 3a5tor that a33e5ts the 3inan5ial

ia1ilit0 o3 3+t+re deeloments in the downtown)3ttractin# the ri#ht ind o" business to the downtown is Those who

advocate taller developments do so because they have other ob!ectives in mind (*ee, "or e$ample, the article on the

.4ree 3rt Center 3 Wonder"ul 4antasy or WhatJ

ii This scenario was based on the notion o" a .7-story downtown The hei#ht was pe##ed at a ?0-"oot hei#ht limit, based

on a possible but unrealistic concept o" 1>-20 "oot retail st "loor and two 10-12 "oot "loors above/

iii otice that the number o" stories "or institutional uses (the 3rt Center and the municipal #ara#e) was not speci"ied&ost important o" all, .mi$ed-use was not de"ined clearly in the D&'

i(t is im&ortant to note that the !o"n staff "as un'omforta-le "ith the lo" heights of some of the -uildings in some areas n its3u#ust 70, 200= *ta"" eport to the 'C it had opined that, ./a ?-story multi"amily buildin# alon# *tation *treet and theW@;D Trail/ would #reatly increase the return to the town 5omared to one-stor0 retail +se as depicted in ;ption 3We believe thesta"" should have said .2-story buildin#, because a 1-story buildin# was never under consideration "orthis location However, by e$pressin# this concern, the sta"" had indirectly veri"ied that the community had accepted only2-story (not, 7 or ?-story) structures "or this site

(The material in this article has been #leaned lar#ely "rom the documents provided on thehttp+99www"ormbasedcodeor#websiten #eneral, 4Cs are applied in two ways+ to a site to implement a development

pro!ect or to several areas as part o" a 6onin# code amendment or update This second cate#ory some3rial involves

recon"i#uration o" the 6onin# code to retain a set o" conventional 6ones "or .automobile-oriented suburban patterns while

addin# "orm-based 6ones "or .walable-urban patterns This is called a hybrid code because it mer#es the conventional

6onin# and "orm-based 6onin# provisions under one cover, in one set o" procedures
http://www.formbasedcode.org/http://www.formbasedcode.org/http://www.formbasedcode.org/


11/25

1



January18, 2016

by

Jasbinder Singh


CHANGES MADE TO THE DMP DURING LISA MERKELS TERM AS MAOR

Part 3 of the Series documents how (1) Number of Stories, (2) ui!din" #ei"hts, (3) $ocation %f &rts

'e!ated ses, () *he &rchitecture + assin" %f Structures, (-) *he #P' 'e.iew (of /uture Proosa!s),

and (6) the Pub!ic 'ea!m chan"ed durin" $isa ere!s first term as ayor

*he 4owntown aster P!an (4P) was aro.ed on /ebruary 22, 2011 *he 20125201 ounci! aro.ed

the Pattern oo (a re"u!atory document to im!ement the 4P) and created a P45*4 district co.erin" the

entire downtown on January 27, 2013 *he ounci! reoned the then *own5owned roerties on ay 29,

201 Part 3 e:amines;

a!i"n with !he

f"#$% hei&h! 'nd densi!(rescribed by the 4P (?!!ustrati.e P!an; %tion &)@, and


12/25

2


0+ Unde# !he P'!!e#n ,""1

he "attern #oo$% however% changed the mixed-use concept to allow residential use on upper floors.%n

a"e 1, it states that, =er f!oor office and residentia! uses wi!! be ermitted in these bui!din"s@ %n

a"e -, the Pattern oo defines mi:ed5use bui!din"s more accurate!y and e:ansi.e!y ?t says, =*his

bui!din" tye wi!! accommodate .arious retai!, restaurant, ser.ice, or office use on the "round f!oor with

'2'#!$en!sand offices on uer f!oors Mied-/se 0/i.din&s i.. #'n&e in hei&h! f#"$ !" !" f"/#

s!"#ies@ E$2h'sis Added5+*

Structures with uer f!oors dedicated to commercia! and rofessiona! uses

sha!! not e:ceed 3 stories abo.e "rade>@ *he hrase =sha!! not e:ceed@ does not ha.e much meanin" in

this conte:t ?t is ob.ious that if residentia! use is added to an uer f!oor, then the structure wou!d be

ermitted ha.e stories

1 ?t aears that there was some confusion about the hrase =aartment and offices@ because on Pa"e 17 of the Pattern

oo, the i!!ustration indicates the use as =aartment or offices@

2 Fenera!!y, !oca! "o.ernments can as de.e!oers to miti"ate the i!!5effects of their de.e!oments on the community


13/25

3


7+ CHANGES IN ,UILDING HEIGHTS

'+ Unde# !he DMP*he 4P did not secify the hei"ht of the bui!din"s &s discussed in Part 2 of this series, three story

bui!din"s wou!d ha.e been 3- ft to 0 ft ta!! and story residentia! bui!din"s wou!d ha.e been, at best,

- ta!!

0+ Unde# !he P'!!e#n ,""1

*he Pattern oo set the hei"ht of the i:ed5use and u!ti5fami!y bui!din"s at u5to -0 without "i.in"

any Hustification in the staff reorts and other ub!ic!y a.ai!ab!e documents N"!e !h'!the heights of the

parapet wall% decorative feature and structures to access the roof top were not included in this limit

Such features were ermitted to be as ta!! as 1 ft *herefore, it is reasonab!e to assume that some of the

future downtown bui!din"s wou!d be as ta!! 6 under the mandates of the Pattern oo

dro the =6 stories ma:@ cate"ory in fa.or of Hust 3 stories ma: for commercia! and mi:ed use and

stories ma: for residentia!@ ?t had not reached the decision about the ma: hei"hts for mi:ed used bui!din"s, yet *hethen5ayor, Ste.e 4eenedittis, was sti!! in the office and wou!d ha.e stron"!y obHected to the otentia! chan"e #e

was not aware of the behind the scene attemts to chan"e bui!din" hei"hts, thou"h

#erndons nfinished /i"ht /or & Sma!!5*own /ee! C Part 3 January 18, 2016
http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-7-building-height-diagram.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-7-building-height-diagram.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-7-building-height-diagram.pdfhttp://herndonopinion.com/2015/08/13/a-free-art-center-a-wonderful-fantasy-or-what/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/08/13/a-free-art-center-a-wonderful-fantasy-or-what/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/http://herndonopinion.com/2015/09/25/herndon-politics-backroom-deals-cost-residents-million/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-7-building-height-diagram.pdfhttp://herndonopinion.com/2015/08/13/a-free-art-center-a-wonderful-fantasy-or-what/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-7-building-height-diagram.pdf


14/25


)+ Af!e# !he Re6"nin& "f T"n-Oned L'nds

B.en thou"h the Pattern oo was a =re"u!atory@ document, it did not .est any de.e!oment ri"hts in

future roerty owners *he *own had a!ways !anned to reone the downtown roerties after creatin"

the P45*4 district and aro.in" the associated Pattern oo 'eonin", rior to se!!in" the !and to a

de.e!oer, accordin" to the town, wou!d a!!ow it to =contro!@ the de.e!oment by secifyin" roffers

de.e!oers wou!d ha.e to offer #owe.er, the reonin"5in5ad.ance wou!d a!so a!!ow de.e!oers to

de.e!o the roerties by ri"ht, a.oid often contentious ub!ic hearin"s associated with reonin"

actions, ay sma!!er roffers, and resumab!y reduce re"u!atory de!ays

*he reonin" a!so ro.ided the *own ounci! another oortunity to he! de.e!oers increase bui!din"

hei"hts in the fo!!owin" ways;

i5 F/#!he# In)#e'se in M'+ Hei&h!

?t increased the ermissib!e hei"hts of the bui!din"s by feet ?n other words, the ma:imum hei"ht (at

the araet base !e.e!) cou!d now be - rather than -0 ?f the araet, decorati.e features and other

structures that ro.ide access to the roof are inc!uded in the measurement of the hei"ht, !he $'i$/$

hei&h! )"/.d 0e 89

4urin" the ub!ic hearin", ayor ere! Hustified the increased hei"ht by retortin" that, =she has met

with man& developers who have stated that a few extra feet would be good for the town.* She seems to

ha.e for"otten or not cared that (1) the roosed 7 hi"h 4iamond #ote! had caused "reat contro.ersy

in 2008 and de!ayed the aro.a! of the hote! by 7 months and (2) the master !annin" rocess, in thefirst !ace, was initiated to a.oid rob!ems associated with ta!! bui!din"s and !ar"e bui!din" masses +o

one mentioned the fact that building heights had increased not from '0, to ',% but from as low as 2', to

',. ee ection d below

ii5 Redefinin& En&.ish ,'se$en!s 'nd Effe)!ie.( In)#e'sin& ,/i.din& Hei&h!s

*he reonin" modified the definition of Bn"!ish asement by statin" that u to 2E3 rdof the basement

cou!d be abo.e5"round 'nd sti!! not be counted as a story &ccordin"!y, a 12 ta!! basement wou!d not be

counted as a story e.en if 8 of it was abo.e5"round *his means a 5story, 6 hi"h bui!din" can now be

bui!t u to a hei"ht of -, if it inc!udes a 12 hi"h Bn"!ish basement *he toic of Bn"!ish asement had

ne.er come u for discussion durin" the * de!iberations rior to Ju!y 1, 2012

iii5 S!')1ed T"nh"/ses 'nd C"ns!#/)!ie In)#e'se in ,/i.din& Hei&h!s

*he 4P shows that =re"u!ar@ townhouses were s!ated to be bui!t a!on" the section of enter Street

between B!den and Aine Streets ?t wou!d ha.e been rather difficu!t to bui!d 0 ta!! =re"u!ar@

townhouses (/ortni"ht!y townhouses, for e:am!e, are on!y 30 ta!!) 4urin" the de.e!oment of the

4P, there was no mention of Staced *ownhouses *hey somehow aeared at the reonin" sta"e

Staced *ownhouses are characteried by 25story townhouses staced on to of 25story townhouses


15/25

-


e.en tried to increase the hei"ht to 1 ft durin" the 201- reonin" de!iberations

d+ Ne! In)#e'se in Pe#$i!!ed Hei&h!s

?n summary, deendin" on the tye of the bui!din", the 20125201 *own ounci!increased the bui!din"hei"hts in the downtown bui!din"s by 7 to 27 o.er the im!icit hei"hts of the 4P as shown the

fo!!owin" tab!e

S!#/)!/#eT(2e

Li1e.( Hei&h!Unde# DMP

A22#"ed Hei&h!s7;*7-7;*4 TC5

Ne! In)#e'se7;*7-7;*4 TC5

25story 2- - 27

35Story 3-50 - 1517

5Story 05- - 751

?f one considers 35story bui!din"s for main" comarisons, !he 7;*7-7;*4 C"/n)i. in)#e'sed

d"n!"n 0/i.din& hei&h!s 0( 3


16/25

6


$oss of Sma!! *own /ee!; ase of 2 Story structures



17/25

9


$oss of Sma!! *own /ee!; ase of 3, Story structures



18/25

8


*he dia"rams a!so show that future downtown bui!din"s wou!d be ta!!er than the F"#!ni&h!.(

T"nh"/sesand !he TPI Cen!e#by 2 and 20 resecti.e!y han"e in hei"hts and number of stories

was a!so accomanied by substantia! chan"es in ermitted uses at the enter Street, B!den Street,

Station Street and


19/25

7


and the ub!ic hearin"s, mana"ed by the staff, had dea!t with far !ess imortant issues ?n 201, durin"

the reonin" hearin", ounci!members #utchison and


20/25

10


e.entua!!y, such hei"hts and masses wou!d dominate #erndon sy!ine a!on" many downtown streets

inc!udin" Jacson Street, $ynn Street, B!den + onroe Streets at the Pine Shoin" center, and Pine,

enter, Station and Srin" streets In "!he# "#ds% !he d"n!"n "/.d 0e !#'nsf"#$ed in!" 'n

/#0'ni6ed en).'e+

*he *own a!so ro.ided new i!!ustrations, "i.en in B:hibit &,

(https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdf) to "uide the decisions ertainin" to the

massin", architecture and desi"n of the bui!din"s and the Gua!ity of materia!s Notice that these

i!!ustrations are com!ete!y different than reared for the 4P *he masses of most, if not a!!, of these

bui!din"s aear to be bi""er, !ar"er and hea.ier than that of the 4iamond #ote! Mou be the Hud"e

*he minutes of the meetin"s in 201 (when the hei"ht and massin" issues shou!d ha.e been raised)

show that none of the counci!members ased any re!e.ant and aroriate Guestions, esecia!!y if we

consider the fact that the hei"ht and mass issues had derai!ed the 4iamond hote! ?!!ustrati.e

ersecti.es from the 4P had been transferred o.er to the Pattern oo, but there was no discussion

of how de.e!oers cou!d use them, if at a!! *here was !itt!e or no discussion of how incomatibi!ities

between the ersecti.es of the 4P and those of B:hibit &, if any, were to be reso!.ed *he staff

sim!y had not de.e!oed the re!e.ant information and resented it to the counci! ?t is ob.ious that the

ayor or anybody e!se had not ased them to do so

demonstrates !he .ee.-"f-

de!'i. 'nd $'ssin& that is "enera!!y aroriate for the 4e.e!oment

*he 201 reonin" reso!ution, it aears, has handicaed the #P' by stron"!y su""estin" that B:hibit

& is the dominant "o.ernin" document *he timin" of the #P' re.iew a!so affects its abi!ity to

reGuire chan"es to a roosed desi"n ?t aears that the #P' wou!d conducts its re.iew after the

*own has sent months ne"otiatin" a finance, desi"n and bui!d contract ?t is not c!ear how it wou!d

ossib!y be ab!e to obHect to the unaccetab!e architecture or unaccetab!e massin" of the structures, if

the *own ounci! has a!ready ne"otiated the hei"hts and number of stories and the financin" of the &rtenterD ?t aears that, as in 2008, the #P' wou!d rea!!y not ha.e much say, if at a!!D *he Guestion

https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdfhttp://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-a.pdf


21/25

11


that has not been answered yet, is, =Bi.. !he '#)hi!e)!/#e% hei&h!s 'nd $'ssin& 2#esen!ed in Ehi0i!

A 0e '))e2!'0.e !" !he 2/0.i) !h'! "#i&in'..( did n"! '))e2! !he Di'$"nd H"!e.

*he second Guestion is, = *he edestrian access $'(consist of dedicated edestrian wa!ways,

!aas, edestrian friend!y shared use sace or any combination of the three>@ *his is, at best, a wea

https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2b-2-story-sketch.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2b-2-story-sketch.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttp://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/https://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2b-2-story-sketch.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2b-2-story-sketch.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-2-station-and-wod-trail-view-copy.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdfhttps://jspalaha.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/exhibit-6-public-realm.pdf


22/25

12


reGuirement it does not codify what was deicted in the 4P /or instance, it does not mandate that

=>the edestrian access sh'..consist of dedicated edestrian wa!ways>@ or that these saces sha!! be

of certain shae or sie, or, sh'..contain secific streetscaes or that the bui!din" setbacs sh'.. be

made !ar"er under certain conditions etc onseGuent!y, it is not ob.ious how the ub!ic saces shown inthe Pattern oo wou!d be rea!ied

i5 Be'1 S2e)ifi)'!i"n "f O2en S2')e A! !he F"#$e# Ashe.. P#"2e#!(

& sma!! cu!.ert runs throu"h the south5east ortion of the roerty *herefore, the area abo.e the cu!.ert

had to be et oen *he Pattern oo and the 'eonin" actions mandated that 11,000 sG ft of the sace

had be dedicated to oen sace, but that it could be shifted around onseGuent!y, the oen sace as

en.isioned in the 4P, more !ie!y than not, wi!! not materia!ie *he 4P a!so en.isioned a restaurant

in the northwest art of this !aa !ie oen sace howe.er, the staff durin" recent the * discussions

did not discuss if de.e!oers wou!d e.en be reGuired to bui!d a restaurant at this !ocation

?n short, it is hi"h!y uncertain that the ub!ic rea!m as en.isioned by the 4P and aro.ed by our

residents in 2011 wi!! become a rea!ity or that ub!ic "atherin" !aces wou!d function in accordance

with the ub!ics e:ectations

?n Summary, the 20125201 *own ounci!s actions were inconsistent with the directi.e of the

4owntown aster P!an ?t did not de.e!o a Pattern oo and create a P45*4 district that wou!d, =>

a!i"n with !he f"#$% hei&h! 'nd densi!(rescribed by the 4P (?!!ustrati.e P!an; %tion &)@ ?t a!so

did not retain e.en a semb!ance of )"nsis!en)( 's !" !he 2.')e$en! "f 0/i.din&s, arin", ub!ic

streets and saces, much !ess retain 2'#!i)/.'#.( s!#in&en! )"nsis!en)(as to the faade massin" and

hei"ht of structures and the architectura! character and Gua!ity of de.e!oment>@ as mandated by the

4P ?ts actions wou!d ermit de.e!oers to bui!d bui!din"s that wou!d be si"nificant!y ta!!er and more

massi.e than the 4iamond #ote! and turn the downtown into an urban enc!a.e



23/25

1


Herndons Unfinished Fight For A Small-Town Feel Part 4

February 1, 2016By

Jasbinder Singh

The author thanks former Councilmember Connie Hutchinson and Mayor Steve DeBenedittis for their

valuable comments.

PART 4 OF THE SERIES SU!!AR"

PRO#O$UE

Long before I had thought about riting this article! I had come to sense that the DM" had changed

substantially in Mayor Lisa Merkel#s first term. $hen I made such an assertion in one of our meetings!

Councilmember %race $olf had &uickly ste''ed u' to assert that they (their ma)ority on the council*

had made no changes to the DM". Her tart res'onse seemed to betray the truth. To other +incidents,

magnified my doubts-

Several eeks later! hen I stated that some develo'ers ere asserting that the DM" no longer

mattered! the ton staff avoed that the develo'ers ere rong. The shar' come back hadsuggested an unusual discomfort ith my statement..

short time later! I found that the to a''raisals of the ton/oned 'ro'erties ere based on

develo'ment densities that ere to to three times than those a''roved for the DM". 1 It as

hard to believe that the a''raisers could be so rong.

fe months later! I ere to find out that Mayor Lisa Merkel! during much of her tenure! had claimed!

sometimes very 'roudly! that herefforts to redevelo' the donton ill create a +small/ton feel,. $hile

some residents may have been se't aay by her unbridled enthusiasm! others ere sus'icious and

asked! , Isn#t her claim nothing more than the sales 'itch of a cheerleader0, Conse&uently! I decided to

e1amine the details and rite the 2/"art series.

In 3445 and 3464 the 'eo'le of Herndon came together to create a shared vision of hat they

anted their future donton to be- Three story commercial and mi1ed/use buildings along the

main streets! one or to 2/story residential a'artment buildings and a 3/story commercial center on

Station Street. Sketches ere dran to sho the look and feel of this revived donton! and the

Tons'eo'le ere ha''y and e1cited to have their vision come to life in the form of a Donton

Master "lan and its illustrations.

6 The to a''raisals ere based on inde'endent determinations by the a''raisers that beteen 344 and 744residential a'artment units in 2/story (82#/9:#* high buildings could be built on the ton/oned donton land.

Herndons Unfinished Fight For A Small-o!n Feel " #art $ February 1, 2016
http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/http://herndonopinion.com/2016/02/01/herndons-unfinished-fight-for-a-small-town-feel-part-4/


24/25

2


Mayor Merkel and her su''orters on the council started to make changes to the community#s

vision immediately after (some say! even before* taking office in 3463. They had made ma)or

changes by the time they 'roduced the "attern Book si1 months later. The changes ere not so

obvious to most 'eo'le. Small changes to key definitions! or im'ortant ords made big difference

in hat could be built in the donton.

The re;oning actions in 3462 and 3468 increased building heights again! in more ays than one!

changed the location of rts facilities! redefined uses by floor in some locations! added sketches

that reminded one of modern urban design! and hamstrung the H"


25/25

%


%hairman East&@ou kno! the minute the 'ublic sees 92 feet! e are all going to be lynched. I mean!

84 feet as A hen the hotel came in at 84 feet! the 'lace ent nuts. re e sure that e ant to have

a height limit of 92 feet in the Donton0 Is that hat that discussion turned out to be0 >o that you

see the number! do you really ant 92 feet0,

&i'e %hairman #eRe'he &I#m sure.,

%ommissioner (ettard+Ho many stories is that0,

&i'e %hairman #eRe'he&Mr. Chairman! I think the discussion from the ork session as based on

the total height alloed! and the 84 feet did not include 'enthouses. So! e ant to 'ut a ma1imum!

and I think this is hat e#re trying to do ' 'ut a ma1imum height on some of the elements that could

be an im'act! visually! ithin the Donton. So! I feel comfortable ith the 92 feet! understanding that#s

the ma1imum height to include slo'ed roofs! 'enthouses and the like.,

This as the e1tent of the discussion that took 'lace that day. >ote that Mr. ast had ob)ected not to aheight of 92# or even 84#! but to revealing that the ma1imum height as 92#. "erha's! the ord had

reached the commissioners that the Mayor! ton staff and the Ton Manager had not only set the

ma1imum height for a 2/story building at 84# but had also added another 62 for 'ara'et alls! other

accessory structures and )entho*sesafter talking ith the builders.

UNDER THIS SCHEME, A 4-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WOULD

BECOME A 5-STORY BUILDING, EXCEPT THAT THE PENTHOUSE WOULD

NOT BE COUNTED AS A STORY.

lso notice that Mr. Le

Herndon’s Unfinished Fight for a Small-Town Feel – Part 1 to 4

Documents