loudoun county virginia - urban land...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

Loudoun CountyVirginia

Urban LandInstitute$

Loudoun CountyVirginiaLand Use Recommendations for the Ashburn Subarea

October 16–21, 2005An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadershipin the use of land in order to enhance the

total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research that an-ticipates emerging land use trends and issues andproposes creative solutions based on that research;provides advisory services; and publishes a widevariety of materials to disseminate information onland use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 28,000 members and associates from 80 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-

resented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials,planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor-neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students,and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the expe-rience of its members. It is through member in-volvement and information resources that ULIhas been able to set standards of excellence indevelopment practice. The Institute has long beenrecognized as one of America’s most respectedand widely quoted sources of objective informa-tion on urban planning, growth, and development.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2006 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

Loudoun County, Virginia, October 16–21, 2005 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the real es-tate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-cally include several developers, a landscapearchitect, a planner, a market analyst, a financeexpert, and others with the niche expertiseneeded to address a given project. ULI teamsprovide a holistic look at development problems.Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-ber with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written reportis prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meet

with key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs

Nicholas GabelAssociate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Kim RuschGraphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


ULI’s Advisory Services panels are only pos-sible through the combined efforts of alarge number of people. Both personallyand on behalf of the Urban Land Institute,

the panel members and staff would like to thankall of those involved in making this report possi-ble. The Loudoun County Department of Eco-nomic Development worked tirelessly to providethe panel members with exceptionally comprehen-sive briefing materials and excellent support andcoordination of services. We are grateful to LarryRosenstrauch, director of the Department of Eco-nomic Development, and Robyn Bailey, managerbusiness infrastructure, for overseeing this com-plex process and to Tricia Simons, research ana-lyst, for producing a briefing book of the highestquality and assisting in extensive interview co-ordination and logistics.

As the chair of the Loudoun County Board of Su-pervisors’ Economic Development Committee,Lori Waters worked as a liaison between the De-partment of Economic Development and theBoard of Supervisors and was quite instrumental

in making the panel a reality. Special thanks go tothe other members of the Board of Supervisors,including Chairman Scott York, Vice ChairmanBruce Tulloch, and Supervisor Steve Snow. Thepanel would also like to thank Charles Yudd of theLoudoun County Department of County Adminis-tration for providing a detailed site overview forthe panelists. Other Loudoun County depart-ments also played key roles in providing informa-tion and support for the panel, including the Officeof Management and Financial Services, the De-partment of County Administration, the Depart-ment of Building and Development, the Depart-ment of Planning, and the Loudoun County PublicSchools. The Industrial Development Authority’shelp and guidance are also greatly appreciated.

Finally, the panel extends its deepest thanks tothe many stakeholders and community, business,and institute leaders who volunteered their timeand valuable insights during the on-site interviewprocess.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword 7

Economic Overview 11

Market Potential 17

Planning and Design 19

Implementation 24

Conclusion 27

About the Panel 28

Contents


Panel ChairJames M. DeFranciaPresidentLowe Enterprises Community Development, Inc.Aspen, Colorado

PanelistsMorey BeanPartnerColorado Architecture Partnership, LLPColorado Springs, Colorado

Daniel M. ConwayPresidentTHK Associates, Inc.Aurora, Colorado

Steven R. JenkinsPartnerHaynes and Boone, LLPDallas, Texas

R.J. NutterAttorneyTroutman Sanders, LLPVirginia Beach, Virginia

Lyneir RichardsonVice President of Urban Land DevelopmentGeneral Growth Properties, Inc.Chicago, Illinois

Virginia ScottManaging DirectorJones Lang LaSalleWashington, D.C.

Mark VietsPrincipalPeckham, Guyton, Albers & Viets, Inc.Westwood, Kansas

ULI Project DirectorsMichael PawlukiewiczDirector of Environment and Policy Education

Jason ScullySenior Associate

ULI On-Site CoordinatorsRomana KernsDepartment Coordinator, Policy and Practice

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff


Home to Washington Dulles InternationalAirport and large internationally knowncorporations—including America Online,Independence Air, MCI, and United Airlines

—Loudoun County is one of the fastest-growingcounties in the country. Its proximity to Washing-ton, D.C.’s hot real estate and employment markethas helped fuel this growth.

From 1999 to 2004, the Washington, D.C., metro-politan statistical area was at the top of the list ofsix metropolitan regions nationwide experiencingpositive job growth. With 314,000 jobs added, ithas over two-thirds more jobs than either Hous-ton or New York, the next two regions on the list.As of July 2005, the unemployment rate for theWashington, D.C., metropolitan statistical areawas 3.5 percent, while the national rate was 5.2 percent.

Between 1790 and 1960 the county’s population re-mained stable—between 20,000 and 25,000 people.However, in each decade since 1960 the populationhas risen by at least 50 percent. Today Loudoun’spopulation is about 250,000 people and growing.

The Study AreaWith this rapid growth has come increased de-mand for improved transportation services, esca-lating land prices, and rapid suburbanization ofrural land uses. In the midst of the county’s ongo-ing debate on how to plan for and manage the ef-fects of growth, the county purchased a 101.8-acre site for use by the public schools. This site islocated along the Route 625 corridor (the corridoris aligned along Waxpool Road, which merges intoFarmwell Road to the east) in the Ashburn plan-ning subarea.

The previous owner of the site originally plannedto build a private educational facility for Muslimchildren called the Islamic Saudi Academy. How-ever, those plans failed to materialize and the

Foreword

county bought the property. Only two baseballfields on eight acres of land in the southwest cor-ner of the project were built.

Of the ten planning subareas forming LoudounCounty, Ashburn has the highest population concen-tration (57,599 in 2004) and is the second fastest-growing subarea. According to a study by theLoudoun County Department of Economic Devel-opment, the Route 625 corridor is zoned for flexspace that mixes office and industrial uses. As theland in the corridor becomes developed, more ofit is being used for offices.

The land south of the site is being used for officeand industrial purposes, with MCI’s corporateheadquarters on its southeast border. Immedi-ately south of the site, MIE Properties owns 77 acres on which are sited four one-story build-ings totaling 216,480 square feet; MIE Propertieshas received the county’s approval for a com-bined 660,680 square feet of flex industrial spacein ten buildings. At present, the four existingbuildings are being rented out to contractors andbusiness service providers, including a dance stu-

Loudoun County, Virginia,location map.

81

8

70

6881

70

83

95

6

66

270

A

ARLINGTON

A

CLARKE

C

CULPEPER

C

FAIRFAXFAUQUIER

F

FREDERICK

G

LOUDOUN

L

PAGE

P

PRINCEWILLIAM

P

RAPPAHANNOCK

R

SHENANDOAH

S

WARREN

W

ADAMSBEDFORD

CLANCASTER

DFRANKLINFULTON

G

YORK

ALLEGANY

ANNEARUNDEL

BALTIMORE

CALVERT

C

CARROLL C

CHARLES

D

FREDERICK

G

HARFORD

HOWARD KE

MONTGOMERY

PRINCEGEORGE'S

Q

T

WASHINGTON

W

BALTIMORECITY

B

BERKELEY

B

MPSHIRE

H

JEFFERSON

L

MORGAN

N

Annapolis

C

Washington

N

Baltimore

Front Royal

H

Winchester

N

YorkChambersburg

Hanover

U

Frederick

Hagerstown

Martinsburg

M

Martinsburg

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

M A R Y L A N D

V I R G I N I A

W E S T V I R G I N I A


The Panel’s AssignmentGiven the development pressures and rising landvalues, the county is faced with a number of op-tions for the 101.8-acre site. The county asked theULI Advisory Services panel to determine thebest use or uses for the land and the best mecha-nisms for pursuing those uses. To guide that pro-cess, the county posed four options to the panel:(1) sell the land, (2) retain or exchange the land,(3) retain land for an educational use, and (4) de-velop the land for economic development.

Surrounding those general options are more-specific questions regarding the timing of anyactions taken to sell or develop the land, the po-tential uses or mixes of uses on the land, thestructure of deals and financing of future devel-opment, and the phasing possibilities for anyfuture developments.

Summary of RecommendationsThe panel’s analysis of the county’s four optionsform the basis of its recommendations.

Sell the LandThe panel does not recommend a sale of the landin the sense of offering the entire parcel for sale in the marketplace.

The county acquired this property at a very favor-able price, and although the prospect of a sale—with an attendant large gain—is tempting, use ofthe parcel as recommended would better servecommunity interests while still realizing a profit.

Loudoun County isdivided into ten planningsubareas; the study areais located in the Ashburnsubarea.

The panel’s study area isa vacant piece of landbordered by FarmwellRoad on the north, Wax-pool Road to the east andsouth, and Ashburn Vil-lage Road on the west.

7

28

7

15

1

50

5

340

4

15

70

8

66

9

270

A

CLARKE

C

FAIRFAXFAUQUIER

F

FREDERICK

G

MONTGOMERY

P

JEFFERSON

L

NORTHWEST

15 NORTH

LEESBURG

ROUTE 7 WEST

SOUTHWEST 15SOUTH

DULLES

ASHBURNPOTOMAC

STERLING

AIRPORT

dio and a swimming pool where swimminglessons are taught.

At the northwestern boundary of the site is a 26-acre area being developed to provide office condo-miniums and retail support services. Some of theretail has already been constructed and includes abank, a car wash, and a convenience store. At thenorthern boundary is another retail area withsmall professional office spaces. Also to the northof the site are two subdivisions, Cameron Chaseand Ashburn Village. With 5,055 units (1,489 de-tached single-family homes, 2,424 attached single-family homes, and 1,142 multifamily homes), Ash-burn Village is one of the largest of the county’splanned unit developments.


Existing conditions sur-rounding the study area.

burg in the western side of the county, whereasmost of the residents live on the east side (eastof Route 15).

In addition, ten acres (including those now usedfor playing fields) can be retained for recreationaluses and integrated with the recommended educa-tional uses mentioned in the next paragraph. Thecurrent playing fields may be relocated, as a func-tion of master planning the site, but such useshould be included in the final site plan.

Pursue Educational UsesThe panel recommends dedicating approximately30 to 45 acres for educational uses. The panel fur-ther suggests that these uses could include a fa-cility dedicated to education in the sciences andtechnology, compatible with and supportive of thecharacter of biotech and technology developmentin the county (such as the Howard Hughes Med-ical Institute, MCI, and AOL). In particular, a sci-ence and technology academy covering all gradesfrom elementary through middle and high schooland a limited university presence might be appro-priate. This academy could establish interactiverelationships with the companies located on thesegment of the site reserved for economic devel-opment purposes (as discussed in the next para-

Flex/IndustrialSpace

Low-DensityResidential



To Greenway


Retail/Professional

MCI CorporateHeadquarters

Retail/Professional

Study Area

Farmwell Road

Smith

Switc

h Roa

d

Waxpool Road

Lake

Ashb

urn V

illage

Boule

vard

Red RumDrive

Retail/ProfessionalUnder Construction

Waxpool Road

625

Open Space

Open Space

Sale of a portion of the property on an incrementalbasis, however, is advised.

Retain or Exchange the LandThe panel recommends that the site be retainedby the county, selling off portions in accordancewith a master site plan and using the balance forpublic needs.

A portion of the property, approximately five to15 acres, could be used for county administrativeand service needs. Currently, most of the countyservices are located at the county seat in Lees-


TimingAll uses on the site should be developed in re-sponse to public needs and market opportunities.Furthermore, the development should be theresult of thoughtful planning, based on marketresearch and public requirements. The countyshould not set artificial timing goals, either fast or slow, but should use this land asset in responseto the cycle of need and opportunity.

ImplementationWithin the framework of these basic guidelines,the panel recommends that the use of the land beimplemented according to the following sequence:

• Determination of public needs

• Selection of a developer partner (RFQ, RFP,negotiation, and so on)

• Approval of a master site plan

• Development

This report is divided into four sections thataddress the economic conditions of the county,examine the market potential for the study areato make land use recommendations, envisagedesign opportunities for site, and discuss thetools necessary for implementing the panel’srecommendations.

graph). Relationships between the academy andthe industries on site could provide valuable re-search experience, apprenticeships, internships,and other opportunities for students. Opportuni-ties exist for public/private relationships in thisendeavor, and the private sector should be invitedto participate at an early planning stage.

Develop for Economic PurposesThe panel recommends that approximately 45 to60 acres be used for economic development. Suchuses would include technological and biotech facili-ties and associated offices, with limited supportingretail. These uses should be integrated with publicuse facilities (such as government offices) in a co-herent master site plan.

This “development” component should be mar-keted to the private sector pursuant to a mastersite plan and established development criteria.The county is advised to use a request for qualifi-cation (RFQ) process to screen potential develop-ers and users, and then make a selection from theshort list through a request for proposal (RFP).This approach will allow the private sector tobring its creative skills to bear in formulating themaster site plan so as to include all suggested usesin the most suitable mix.

The county should not undertake any direct eco-nomic development because it would competewith the private sector and is not the proper roleof government.


Understanding the socioeconomic trendsaffecting the study area helps establishthe potentials and pressures for futureland uses. Research has established that

Loudoun County is experiencing some of themost substantial growth of any region in theUnited States, and this expansion is likely to con-tinue through future decades. Loudoun Countyis a significant part of the dynamic Washington,D.C., metroplex and it is increasing its role as ahost to the headquarters of some of America’smost prestigious high-growth companies.

As recently as 1970, Loudoun County includedjust 37,150 people—just 1.2 percent of the pop-ulation of metropolitan Washington, D.C. As of2005, Loudoun County has approximately 250,000people—118,030 of whom are employed through-out the region—and represents 4.7 percent of theWashington, D.C., regional population of approxi-mately 5.2 million people.

Significantly, Loudoun County has increased itscapture of metropolitan Washington, D.C., em-ployment growth from 1.8 percent in the 1970sand 1980s to 11.5 percent in the 1990s and 2000s.Also, Loudoun County now captures 17 to 20 per-cent of the Washington, D.C., region’s populationand housing growth. Loudoun County is projectedto continue its growth as the greater Washington,D.C., area continues to evolve as one of America’smost dynamic metropolitan regions.

The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is pro-jected to enjoy an average increase of 60,000 newjobs per year over the next decade, which willcause the population base to grow by more than79,000 people per year. The Metropolitan Washing-ton Council of Governments projects that LoudounCounty will grow annually by 6,600 jobs and by19,200 people in 4,700 households. By 2015, LoudounCounty will include almost 380,000 people.

Conditions in AshburnThis level of growth is projected to continuethrough the next decade and will have a tremen-dous effect on the study area and its surroundings.In 2000 the Ashburn subarea—one of ten planningsubareas that make up Loudoun County, and thesubarea in which the study area is located—washome to 22,581 people. By 2004, Ashburn’s popula-tion had more than doubled to 57,600 people (fig-ure 1). During that same period, the population ofLeesburg (the county seat of Loudoun County)grew from 31,840 people to 44,824 while the totalLoudoun County population grew from 169,599to 229,429.

Ashburn today represents 25.1 percent ofLoudoun County’s population, but it is capturing45 percent of its growth. By comparison, Lees-burg represents 19.5 percent of the total LoudounCounty population and is capturing only 7 percentof the annual growth. With Loudoun County pro-jected to grow at a rate of 13,230 people per year,the population of the Ashburn subarea will likelyincrease by 6,000 people per year, and by 2015 ap-proximately 200,000 people will live in Ashburn.

Population Growth in the County Another significant socioeconomic characteristicof Loudoun County’s population base is that todayapproximately 20.9 percent is between the ages offive and 18 years—primary and secondary schoolage levels (figure 2). A total of almost 52,000schoolchildren live in Loudoun County today,and if the same growth ratios hold true, this num-ber will increase to almost 80,000 elementary andhigh school students by 2015. This projectedgrowth has tremendous implications for schoolplanning through the next decade, because asmany as 2,800 new students per year will be in-troduced into the Loudoun County school system.At the opposite end of the spectrum, only 12.1 per-cent of the Loudoun County population is over 55

Economic Overview


Figure 1Population by Loudoun County Subarea

Population Population Share of 2004 Percentage ChangeSubarea 2000 2004 Population 2000–2004

Ashburn 22,581 57,599 25.1% 155.1%

Dulles 7,795 17,923 7.8% 129.9%

Leesburg 31,840 44,824 19.5% 40.8%

Northwest 6,499 7,742 3.4% 19.1%

Potomac 39,115 42,387 18.5% 8.4%

Route 15 North 2,506 3,024 1.3% 20.7%

Route 15 South 2,403 2,680 1.2% 11.5%

Route 7 West 12,354 16,642 7.3% 34.7%

Southwest 6,056 6,721 2.9% 11.0%

Sterling 27,450 29,887 13.0% 8.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Loudoun County Department of Economic Development; Loudoun County Fiscal Impact Committee.

As of 2005, LoudounCounty has approximately250,000 people, repre-senting 4.7 percent of theWashington, D.C., regionalpopulation; however, thecounty captures between17 and 20 percent of theregion’s population andhousing growth.

LOUD

OUN

COUN

TYDE

PART

MEN

TOF

ECON

OMIC

DEVE

LOPM

ENT


years of age, compared with the national averageof 22.3 percent. Facilities for seniors will not com-mand nearly the same level of attention as ele-mentary, middle, and high schools.

Today Loudoun County has 42 elementary schools,12 middle and intermediate schools, eight high schools,and the Monroe Technical Center. Given the currentrelationship of population to school ratios (which islikely to stay near its current level), Loudoun Countyneeds to anticipate the construction of 22 elemen-tary schools, six middle schools, and four high schoolsover the next decade. With the Ashburn subareacapturing 45 percent of population growth, manyof those new schools will need to be located therealong with other amenities for children, such asparks, playgrounds, and playing fields.

Commercial Development Trends inLoudoun CountyLoudoun County experienced success in attract-ing business developers during the economic ex-pansion of the 1990s. As a result, the county was

transformed from a bedroom community to an em-ployment center. The county’s inventory of officeand industrial space includes 24.9 million squarefeet and has 10.8 percent of Northern Virginia’ssquare footage (figure 3).

Figure 2Age of Loudoun County Residents, 2004

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Loudoun County Department of Economic Development; Woodes& Poole Economics, Inc.

55-plus years12.1%

Less than 5 years9.9%

5 to 18 years20.9%

19 to 54 years57.1%

Home to Washington DullesInternational Airport andlarge, internationallyknown corporations—including America Online,Independence Air, MCI,and United Airlines—Loudoun County is one of the fastest-growingcounties in the nation.

LOUD

OUN

COUN

TYDE

PART

MEN

TOF

ECON

OMIC

DEVE

LOPM

ENT


Figure 3Northern Virginia Rentable Commercial Space Inventory, 2003

Rentable Building Area (Square Feet) Percent NumberJurisdiction Office Flex Industrial Total of Region of Buildings

Alexandria City 17,634,642 1,076,186 4,782,411 23,493,239 10.2% 630

Arlington County 33,366,091 193,734 1,575,834 35,135,659 15.3% 306

Fairfax County* 94,425,080 15,703,605 21,278,546 131,407,231 57.2% 2,017

Fauquier County 163,691 171,670 260,748 596,106 0.3% 11

Loudoun County 10,161,188 7,321,522 7,437,939 24,920,649 10.8% 563

Prince William County* 3,102,576 3,060,164 7,973,619 14,136,359 6.2% 391

Total 158,853,268 27,526,881 43,309,097 229,689,243 100.0% 3,918

Distribution 69.1% 12.0% 18.9% 100.0%

Number of buildings 2,367 546 1,005 3,918

* Includes independent cities.Source: CoStar Realty Information Inc., compiled by Loudoun County Department of Economic Development.

Figure 4Loudoun County Nonresidential Building Permit Trends, 1994–2004

Square Feet PermittedYear Office Industrial Retail Other* Total

1994 – 67,166 161,429 459,978 688,573

1995 201,790 131,034 425,850 172,025 930,699

1996 355,684 262,625 533,283 695,943 1,847,535

1997 468,391 777,366 121,278 841,337 2,208,372

1998 1,843,364 913,249 1,158,478 1,098,211 5,013,302

1999 1,708,919 1,217,589 532,130 1,882,646 5,341,284

2000 2,034,389 3,207,333 879,981 1,877,463 7,999,166

2001 843,831 1,361,026 461,018 1,809,405 4,475,280

2002 156,392 415,072 529,918 800,216 1,901,598

2003 413,835 468,860 731,472 1,600,998 3,215,165

2004 231,920 1,287,078 799,673 1,529,523 3,848,194

Total 8,258,515 10,108,398 6,334,510 12,767,745 37,469,168

Distribution 22.0% 27.0% 16.9% 34.1% 100.0%

* Includes schools, hospitals, churches, airport support facilities, hotels, self-storage, and the like.Source: Loudoun County Department of Building and Development, compiled by Loudoun County Department of Economic Development.


The majority of Loudoun’s office and industrialland is located in the eastern portion of LoudounCounty along six distinct corridors: Route 7,Route 28, Route 625 (near the location of the site),Route 606, the Dulles Greenway/Route 267, andRoute 50.

Those corridors include a total of almost 13,000acres zoned for office and industrial uses, of which32 percent has already been developed. Analysis ofthe developed sites reveals a trend toward under-development, with only 14 percent coverage—wellbelow the maximum of 40 percent allowed by thecounty zoning ordinance. If this trend of underde-velopment continues, only 87 million square feetwill be built instead of the 137.0 million squarefeet allowed.

A substantial amount of vacant usable land, ap-proximately 3,000 acres, is available within thenext three years, which is the time frame that willlikely meet the next business growth cycle. How-ever, only 500 of those acres are subdivided withinfrastructure and being offered for sale to busi-nesses and developers. The balance of the land isavailable for sale in large tracts and build-to-suitor lease options.

Loudoun County added 18.4 million square feetof office and industrial space, averaging 1.5 millionsquare feet per year during the 11-year expan-sion period between 1994 and 2004. Additionally,retail sectors added 6.3 million square feet dur-ing that period (figure 4).

The area surrounding the study area demonstratescharacteristics of much of the inventory of com-mercial space that exists in Loudoun County. To-day the Ashburn submarket has 22.5 million squarefeet of commercial space that represents 39.3 per-cent of Loudoun County’s total supply of commer-cial space. The commercial land permitted for de-velopment in 2004 in the Ashburn submarket was2.2 million square feet, which represents almost56 percent of the total development permitted inthe county (figure 5).

With Loudoun County projected to grow by anannual average of 6,600 jobs per year over thenext decade, after normalization of vacancies ademand will likely be generated for the absorptionof 700,000 to 750,000 square feet of office space an-nually and 1.0 million to 1.4 million square feet ofindustrial space annually, including approximately700,000 square feet of flex space.

Figure 5Loudoun County Nonresidential Building Permit Trends by Planning Subarea, 2004

Total Square FootageSubarea Office Industrial Retail Other* Total Distribution

Ashburn 138,192 705,039 273,656 1,035,205 2,152,092 55.9%

Dulles 0 201,117 394,003 60,745 655,865 17.0%

Leesburg 13,064 7,000 10,881 17,982 48,927 1.3%

Northwest 0 0 0 1,968 1,968 0.1%

Potomac 28,086 0 0 149,824 177,910 4.6%

Route 15 North 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Route 15 South 0 0 0 3,088 3,088 0.1%

Route 7 West 0 0 13,250 24,628 37,878 1.0%

Southwest 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Sterling 52,578 373,922 107,883 236,083 770,466 20.0%

Total 231,920 1,287,078 799,673 1,529,523 3,848,194 100.0%

Distribution 6.0% 33.4% 20.8% 39.8% 100.0%

* Includes schools, hospitals, churches, airport support facilities, hotels, self-storage, and the like.Source: Loudoun County Department of Building and Development, compiled by Loudoun County Department of Economic Development.


Loudoun County GovernmentAdministration FacilitiesLoudoun County general government facilitiescurrently include almost 620,000 square feet andhouse 2,200 employees. The county leases 27 per-cent of the total and owns 451,745 square feet.With the growth of 130,000 people expected overthe next decade, Loudoun County will need to addapproximately 265,000 square feet of administra-tive facilities. It may be desirable to locate some of the service-oriented functions in a more conve-nient location in the Ashburn subarea where morethan 50 percent of the county’s commercial con-struction and 45 percent of its residential devel-opment occurs.

Economic trends indicate continued growth withcontinued population and job increases, whichtranslates into an increase in needs for servicesand schools. Although a significant projected de-mand exists for economic uses, enough land andspace are currently available to satisfy that de-mand. A portion of the study area should be setaside to address the projected needs for servicesand education. Land on the site will still be avail-able for economic growth as well, and these usescan be combined with innovative applications.

Loudoun County, Virginia, October 16–21, 200517

In light of the substantial growth in the countythat is expected over the next ten years, thepanel encourages the county to take a long-term approach and a broader view of the op-

portunities the site provides. The panel has di-vided the site into four land uses that it believesare appropriate given the current and projectedland use trends: government services; educationaluses; recreational needs; and technology, biotech,and flex uses (figure 6).

Government ServicesAs the county continues to grow, more need willarise for government services, especially in thepopulation-heavy eastern side of the county andin Ashburn. The study area can provide land forthe county (administration, social services, andeven storage). This use presents the county theopportunity of moving out of leased space andinto county-owned space.

As mentioned previously, the county currentlyowns 620,000 square feet of space, and the needfor space is projected to grow to 875,000 squarefeet over the next five to ten years. Consideringthis projected need, the panel recommends a por-tion of the site be used for 200,000 to 250,000square feet of county-owned and operated space inthe form of two- to four-story buildings.

Educational UsesThe county has a unique opportunity to use thesite for a specialized public school. The panel en-visions creating a math, science, and technologyacademy for grades one through 12 and providingoptions for continuing education. Taking advan-tage of the heavy concentration of biotech andhigh-technology industries in the area, the acad-emy could integrate the educational process withbusinesses and industries located both on and offsite. The academy, working with the county and

with local private sector businesses, could createan environment of synergistic interactions thatwould be beneficial to all parties involved.

The panel prefers the use of the words “academy”and “campus” to describe the proposed educa-tional facility because such terms help define theschool as a “destination”—a place where creativeminds can gather from all areas of the county. Thepanel further envisions that graduates from theacademy would be highly qualified technicianswith the skills needed to work at the local biotechand high-technology businesses. However, theireducational experiences would also prepare thegraduates to continue at prestigious colleges anduniversities, majoring in science and engineeringfields. The panel recommends that 400,000 to450,000 square feet be dedicated to the academyand that the academy be housed in one-, two-,and possibly three-story buildings.

The site’s location near many major populationand employment centers can further help solidifythe concept of the academy as a destination. The

Market Potential

alternative is to use the land for traditional educa-tional purposes. Embracing the latter alternative,the panel believes, would be a missed opportunityfor both the county and the school district. Thepanel believes that a tremendous opportunity ex-ists here for creating an innovative, unique educa-tion experience involving the interaction of busi-ness, industry, and education.

Recreational NeedsAlthough eight acres of the site have already beendedicated to playing fields, the panel notes thatonly a small portion of that land is being used. Thepanel recommends a modest increase of two acres,bringing the total amount of land available forballparks to ten acres.


Technology, Biotech, and Flex UsesThe panel recommends a broad range of commer-cial and industrial uses for the site. Those uses in-clude, but are not limited to, companies that spe-cialize in technology and biotech industries, smallconsultancies, business incubation facilities, start-up companies, and corporate headquarters. In ad-dition, such uses will require ancillary service re-tail and restaurants to support both workers onsite and those from nearby companies. As men-tioned earlier, annual need for 1.3 million squarefeet of commercial area is projected in the Ash-burn submarket. The site’s share of this demandcould take the form of 600,000 to 700,000 squarefeet in buildings ranging in height from two toeight stories. And depending on the degree towhich the county embraces vertical construction,the possibility exists of providing up to 1 millionsquare feet of commercial space.

ParkingThe panel’s recommendations are based on theassumption that surface-level parking will beused. However, the panel encourages the countyand real estate development community to evalu-ate the merits of underground or structured park-ing. Creative opportunities exist for other parkingscenarios, but exploration of those opportunitieswill depend on the desire to use the site in themost-efficient ways possible.

Figure 6Market Potential Recommendations Summary

Size/Requirements Building Height Use (Square Feet) (Stories)

Government services 200,000–250,000 2–4

Educational uses 400,000–450,000 1–3

Tech/biotech/flex space 600,000–700,000 2–8


Planning and Design

In considering the possible arrangement andplacement of buildings on the subject site, thepanel examined how access into and out of thesite can be handled. The panel then looked at

the topography and stormwater runoff patternsand how they will need to be addressed. Finally,the panel studied the potential ways in which therecommended land uses can interact on the sitegiven the amount of land allocated to each use.

AccessAt present the site has only three curb cuts thatlead into the property and no roads through it.Just below the project’s southern border are apair of curb cuts, one at the west end (along Ash-burn Village Boulevard) and the other at the eastend (along Waxpool Road). The panel recommendssharing those cuts with the adjoining properties

and using them as the entry and exit points for aneast-west road through the site. Moreover, an ex-isting curb cut on Farmwell Road at the north-ern end of the property could form another roadthrough the property that would link up with an-other existing curb cut on Waxpool Road.

In addition to facilitating the circulation of carsinto and through the project, the panel believesthat making the site appealing to pedestrians andfoot traffic is important. The existing topographyand riparian corridors that run through the mid-dle of the site and define the site’s northwesternboundary present an opportunity for creating atrail system through the subject site that wouldthen connect it to the adjacent properties—aswell as the Washington and Old Dominion Trail,Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia FarmResearch Campus, and other industries and busi-

Existing floodplains andriparian corridors on andadjacent to the site couldbecome part of a trailsystem or a major land-scaping feature for theproject.


nesses in the county—and even to the PotomacRiver.

Floodplains, Stormwater Retention, andRiparian CorridorsAlthough the floodplains and existing ripariancorridors on and adjacent to the site could becomepart of a trail system, the panel also sees potentialfor those areas to become a major landscaping fea-ture for the project. The illustration at center leftshows where these riparian areas are located onthe site. Immediately west of the site on the otherside of Ashburn Village Road is a substantial lakethat serves as part of a stormwater managementsystem for the Farmwell Hunt subdivision. Simi-larly, a lake or water feature in the stormwater re-tention area north of the site along Farmwell Roadcould easily be installed and could act as a center-piece for the entire project.

Placement of Land UsesThe illustration at lower left presents a visual sum-mary of the acreage distributions recommended inthe market potential section of this report. The cir-cles in the diagram overlap to show that the usescan be mixed, and the panel hopes that the useswill be mixed to the maximum extent possible.

Although the final configuration and arrangementof land uses and buildings on the site will be deter-mined through an RFQ/RFP process, the panelsuggests that the county buildings be located atthe northern end, close to two of the existing curbcuts. This location will provide a convenient accesspoint off Farmwell Road for people to come and goto the buildings for various county services. Thelargest and most visible element of the projectwill be the economic development component, andtherefore the panel has located it at the intersec-tion of Farmwell and Waxpool roads for maximumvisibility and accessibility.

With building height limits of 100 feet and depend-ing on whether structured parking or surface park-ing is used, the possible floor/area ratio rangesfrom 0.4 to 0.6, or possibly as high as 0.7. Depend-ing on what types of buildings are chosen andhow parking is incorporated into the site, the ex-

Auto Access

Auto Access

Auto Access

Auto Access

Trail

Trail

Trail

Study Area

Study Area

Lake

Riparian Corridor/StormwaterRetention and Runoff Areas

With a floodplain and astormwater retention areaadjacent to the northwest-ern boundary of the studyarea, the panel took intoconsideration the site’svegetation and ripariancorridors in making itsrecommendations.

In creating differentdesign scenarios for thestudy area, the panelcarefully examined autoand pedestrian accessinto and through the site.

Acreage per recom-mended use within thestudy area.

Recreation10 acres

Education30–45 acres

CountyAdministration

5–15 acres

Economic Development Component 45–60 acres

Study Area


isting zoning allows for a lot of space to be built onthe study area.

DesignA few themes and “big ideas” guided the panel’screative process for visualizing the site’s design.The panel took inspiration for the site from RafaelViñoly’s plans for the Howard Hughes MedicalInstitute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus just afew miles away. Although the construction costsneeded to achieve Viñoly’s vision make the cre-ation of something comparable on site unfeasible,the panel believes that endless possibilities existfor architects and designers to work with JaneliaFarm’s themes, aesthetics, and ideas on the sub-ject site.

One of the main themes for Janelia Farm is thatits buildings reflect a strong sense of creativityand innovation. Likewise, the concept of innova-tion should be a major design theme for the studyarea, and the built environment should seek to en-hance the creative and innovative potential of itstenants. One important means of doing so is tomake sure that the project’s architecture encour-ages interaction among people on the site as wellas fostering interaction between the site and therest of the world.

Another important theme for both Viñoly and thepanel is the integration of the natural world andthe built environment. The stormwater retentionareas and riparian corridors should be integratedinto the overall site design and planning of build-ings on the subject site. Options such as naturetrails, careful landscaping, and building orienta-tion must be considered.

Crucial to the success of any development on thesite is that it become a focal point for LoudounCounty. The site needs to be a destination and acrossroads for ideas. The means to convey thisidea is through architecture.

Bringing in a star architect—a “starchitect”—ora well-known architecture firm to design a portionof the site can be a profound means of communi-cating to the world that this destination is impor-tant. A similar strategy was used at InnovationPark in neighboring Prince William County with

the Center for Innovative Technology designed byArquitectonica. Any such architectural project onthe site must also create linkages with the adja-cent properties.

Finally, Joel Kotkin, author of The City: A GlobalHistory, identifies three key ingredients of suc-cessful cities: they must be safe, be busy, and havesacred spaces. Kotkin defines sacred spaces assymbolic, public, and communal places that inspirea sense of reverence. Plazas, parks, monuments,and graveyards are examples of such sacred spaces.As Loudoun County continues to grow, the panelbelieves it will become very important that devel-opers include an element of sacredness in the sitedesign and architectural plans for the study area.

Design ScenariosConsidering the various attributes, constraints,and topographic features as well the panel’s landuse recommendations of mixing education facili-ties, county services, and high-technology/biotechfirms on the study area, the panel envisioned threepossible design scenarios. The scenarios are notrecommended land plans. Rather, they are meantto inspire and provide examples of what is possi-ble. Each of these design themes carries with itthe of goal creating something that is special forthe county and that can further elevate the county’sreputation as a leader and center for technologyand science.

Scenario 1: A Signature Campus ofInternational SignificanceMany great college campuses are built in a quad-rangle formation, and quads act as focal points inthis scenario for the study area. In this scenario,the three uses of the site (education, county ad-ministration, and private business) are mixed to-gether in a college setting. Serving as the gate-way or “face” of the project, one large buildingwith two wings faces Farmwell Road. Cars enterthe site from this busy street, and their first viewsof the site are of this building and the “outdoorroom” formed by its wings.

The college campus design theme provides a meta-phor for creation and innovation, yet the quadsframed by the buildings also serve as additionalplaying fields. The presence of an actual school on


the site adds an air of authenticity to this arrange-ment, so that education, industry, and recreationare brought together to create synergistic effectsfor all parties.

In this arrangement, the panel envisions under-ground parking or structured parking and iconicbuildings with a maximum of five floors. Althoughvariables such as building height and the econom-ics of parking must be investigated under such ascenario, future developers should keep in mindthat less surface space devoted to parking freesup more space that can be devoted to people andbuildings.

Scenario 2: A Farmers MarketThe director of Janelia Farm uses a farm meta-phor to describe the development. Janelia Farmis meant to provide fertile ground for the mindsthat come to work there. While Janelia Farm pro-vides space for scientists conducting basic research,the land devoted to economic development in thestudy area would be devoted to finding and sell-ing applications derived from that basic research.In this scenario the panel imagines the site as afarmers market.

This design scenario takes its inspiration fromGranville Island in Vancouver, British Columbia,a former warehouse district that was transformedinto an arts and shopping regional attraction. Thearchitecture on the island is composed of indus-trial elements—galvanized metal, concrete, oldwarehouses, and a range of inexpensive buildingmaterials arranged in a pedestrian-friendly man-ner. A graphic arts school located in the midst ofthis setting immerses its students in a dynamicand highly creative environment.

Like Granville Island, the farmers market designscenario would be an exciting, interactive, andentertaining environment for tenants, students,and visitors alike. Careful integration of ancillaryuses such as restaurants, dry cleaners, and otheremployee support services into this pedestrian-friendly space would add to the vibrancy of the“farmers market” while freeing up time thatworkers would otherwise spend in their carsdriving to errands or lunch.

Farmwell Road

Smith

Switc

h Roa

d

Waxpool Road

Red RumDrive

Playing Fields

Landscaping/Vegetation Mixed-Use BuildingExisting Off-Site BuildingStudy Area

Farmwell Road

Smith

Switc

hRo

ad

Waxpool Road

Red RumDrive

NewLake Parking

StructurePlaying Fields

Academy BuildingLandscaping/Vegetation Mixed-Use BuildingNew Off-Site Building

Scenario 1: A signature campus of international significance.

Scenario 2: A farmers market.


One of the ways in which this scenario seeks to re-flect and encourage innovation is through the cre-ation of buildings for each of the “ten faces of inno-vation”—the subject matter of a recently publishedbook of the same name. Written by Tom Kelley,the general manager of IDEO, a major designfirm, the book describes ten personas or roles thatpeople can adopt to enhance creativity within theworkplace. The educational component in thefarmers market is arranged so that students canbe taught in ways that are suited to their personasand learn how to relate to others with differentpersonas. The academy would consist of ten sepa-rate buildings, each devoted to a persona. Thosebuildings would then be arranged around threecommon buildings where the students can cometogether. The common buildings would symbolizeKelley’s three stages of innovation—learning, or-ganizing, and building—and could potentially bemixed-use spaces shared by some of the privatecompanies on site.

Scenario 3: The Natural Capital CampusThis design scenario takes as its predominant themea respect for life and the natural world. The curvedbuildings on the site are meant to be reminiscentof sliced DNA strands. Each of the recommendedland uses is mixed together in this scenario. Theriparian and floodplain corridors through the siteare enhanced and rehabilitated to a more naturalstate. The buildings are connected to each otherthrough a series of trails that are designed to re-mind the walker of a refreshing nature hike. Thenatural world is expressed on the site through theexperience of walking through the site.

Although sustainable building practices should beconsidered for this site under any scenario, thosepractices are highlighted and emphasized in thisthird design scenario. The natural elements on thesite, such as landscaping, softscaping, and low lev-els of impermeable surfaces, will help limit storm-water and act as a natural filtration system.

y

Playing Fields

Farmwell Road

Smith

Switc

h Roa

d

Waxpool Road

Red RumDrive

New Lake

Academy BuildingCounty BuildingEconomic DevelopmentComponent BuildingLandscaping/Vegetation Mixed-Use BuildingExisting Off-Site BuildingNew Off-Site BuildingTrail

Scenario 3: The natural capital campus.


To ensure successful implementation of themaster plan for the study area, the panelrecommends a focus on three fundamentalcomponents: the identification of needs by

public stakeholders, the creation of an integratedmaster plan, and the selection of a master developer.

Identification of Needs by PublicStakeholdersIn order to ensure that the selection of the mas-ter developer and resulting master plan ade-quately account for the needs of the school board;the county; and the Department of Parks, Rec-reation, and Community Services, each publicstakeholder, through its own processes and pro-cedures, must be fully prepared to express itsparticular needs.

The School BoardThe panel acknowledges the needs set forth bythe school board in its October 14, 2005, letter toULI. That letter asked the panel to consider set-ting aside 25 acres for a career and technical cen-ter, another 20 acres for an elementary school, andbetween ten and 20 acres for athletic fields.

However, in order to distinguish this site fromother school sites and to take advantage of the in-teractive resources this particular site has the po-tential to offer, the panel has proposed the previ-ously discussed math, science, and technologyacademy. The architecture, curriculum, and pro-grams available at this academy should focus onchallenging those already excelling in science andtechnology while also nurturing those studentswhose aptitude in science and technology is stilldeveloping.

Key employers in the area, local universities, andfoundations within Loudoun County have ex-pressed an interest in the advantages and oppor-tunities such a program would have for their firmsand the county. Indeed, those partners (coming

from both the private and public sectors) shouldbe invited to collaborate with the school board indeveloping the format and goals of the academy.

For the academy to become reality, however, lead-ership and commitment from the school board arerequired. The panel recommends that an amend-ment regarding the academy be added to theschool board’s six-year capital improvements plan(CIP) and that funds be added to the CIP budgetto plan for the academy.

The panel recognizes how well the CIP funds havebeen managed and how this success has affectedthe county’s bond ratings. To a large extent thissuccess is the result of respecting the six-year cy-cles specified in the CIP. The panel further recog-nizes that the insertion of a project into the planwithout respect to the six-year cycle can disruptthe budgeted flow of funds, thereby jeopardizingthe county’s high bond ratings. For this reason,the panel believes that money has to be insertedinto the plan as quickly as possible so that minimaldisruption affects that already existing financingprocess. So that planning for the site can proceedin an orderly fashion and build off the momentumof the panel process, the panel recommends thatthe school board complete its evaluation of its needsand commitment to the academy within one year.

The Department of Parks, Recreation, andCommunity Services The panel acknowledges the extraordinary needfor ballfields and recreational areas within thevicinity of this site. As mentioned earlier, thepanel has recommended increasing the area dedi-cated to this use to ten acres. Currently eightacres have been set aside; however, despite thehigh level of demand for more recreational spaces,only about three of those acres appear to be actu-ally used for fields. The remaining land either isundeveloped or is used for parking and supportfor those fields. The opportunity to share parkingwith adjacent users and to incorporate the ball-

Implementation

Loudoun County, Virginia, October 16–21, 200525

fields into the recreational needs of the proposedacademy can result in an increase in the number ofballfields for the public and additional space forthe academy. Furthermore, through the sharing offacilities and careful site design, the recreationalfacilities can add to the level of economic vitalityon site—attracting people and providing opportu-nities for them to spend money.

Therefore, the panel believes that the location ofthe ballfields should be determined during thedevelopment of the master plan and that the De-partment of Parks, Recreation, and CommunityServices should determine the number and typeof recreational fields it would propose within aten-acre area. In order that the planning for thesite can continue, the panel recommends that theDepartment of Parks, Recreation, and Commu-nity Services complete its plans for the numberand type of fields desired on ten acres and includethe costs for such recreational uses within its bud-get to the county board of supervisors withinone year.

The County GovernmentThe panel has also acknowledged the opportu-nity presented by this site to accommodate theextension, relocation, or both of all or a part of thecounty administrative services. The panel furtheracknowledges that many county-owned buildingsare operating at capacity and that the countyspends in excess of $4 million a year on leasedspace. The site, the panel believes, presents thecounty with an opportunity to reexamine its needsfor space. Located within a planned growth corri-dor for the county, the study area can accommo-date the need for expanded municipal services.

Moving county services would not be a smallundertaking and would entail many wide-rangingimplications and ramifications for the entire Lou-doun community. Therefore the panel recommendsthat the board of supervisors appoint a task forceto consider this proposal and study all of the op-tions and opportunities carefully. If all or a portionof the county’s administrative services are relo-cated to this site, the panel would recommend thatthe board add this project to its six-year CIP bud-get so that the project proceeds in an orderly fash-ion. So that the planning for this site can proceed,the panel suggests that the board complete its

analysis of this opportunity within a one-yeartime frame.

Creation of and Commitment to anIntegrated PlanThe project’s success relies on creating an inte-grated master plan for the entire site as expedi-tiously as possible. The master plan should ac-count for both the public component (school board,county, and parks) and the private component.

A high potential exists for self-sustaining and eco-nomically viable business and technological useson the site. The land values attributed to the prop-erty, the lack of development constraints, and thehigh demand for land by growing companies eagerto enter or expand their presence in LoudounCounty make this site a valuable economic oppor-tunity for the county. The panel believes, however,that this economic development opportunity canbe enhanced and distinguished if integrated into acoordinated plan with focused educational andgovernmental services. The synergy of uses willbe essential in making the project a distinctivedestination and resource for the county.

In order to achieve this enhanced opportunity, thepublic and private uses should be integrated bythe use of distinctive, high-quality complementaryarchitecture, pedestrian connectivity throughoutthe site and with adjacent properties, coordinatedlandscaping and entryways, and shared parkingand amenities. The panel recommends that a mas-

Given the rapidly growingpopulation of childrenunder the age of 18 in the Ashburn subarea, the panel recommendsthat 400,000 to 450,000 square feet (about nine to ten acres) of the studyarea be devoted to educational uses.


ter plan be developed consistent with those objec-tives and that public and private users of this sitecommit to a fully integrated plan.

Selection of a Master DeveloperThe panel strongly recommends that the publicstakeholders harness the experience and exper-tise of a qualified, private sector master developerselected through an RFQ/RFP process to createa master plan that accounts for the integration ofpublic and private uses envisioned for the site. Amaster developer must be a firm with the exper-tise to work with a variety of stakeholders to cre-ate a common vision for a mixed-use site; overseethe master planning of the site, including any re-zoning, entitlements, and establishment of a gov-erning framework (design guidelines, covenants,and the like); manage the horizontal development(infrastructure) process; and serve as the land-owner’s agent to negotiate deals with developersand end users.

Several compelling reasons exist for the panel’srecommendation of the use of a master developerfrom the private sector. First, a qualified private

sector master developer will have the requisiteexperience and expertise in planning and imple-menting mixed-use real estate projects on sitessuch as the study area. Second, a master devel-oper will be able to anticipate the needs of the pri-vate sector and market the private component ofthe project to the types of users that can fulfill thevision for the site. Finally, the involvement of amaster developer will lend credibility to the proj-ect with consultants and lenders.

In selecting a master developer to create the mas-ter plan for the site, the county board of supervi-sors should proceed in the following fashion:

1. The board of supervisors should develop a re-quest for qualifications to solicit interest fromthe most qualified and most experienced mixed-use developers. The developer must have priorexperience in public/private partnerships andpossess sufficient financial depth and bondingability to prepare, develop, and implement themaster plan.

2. The county should then solicit a request forproposals that is based on the determinationof needs by the major stakeholders (the schoolboard; the board of supervisors; and the Depart-ment of Parks, Recreation, and Community Ser-vices) as well the input of several highly quali-fied master developers.

3. The RFP should outline sufficient incentivesand assurances to the master developer to en-courage the best responses to the RFP.

4. Following selection of the best proposal, thecounty should negotiate final terms and neces-sary arrangements with the master developer,grant the necessary entitlements to the masterdeveloper consistent with the winning proposal,and then convey the private portion of the siteto the master developer.

Finally, the panel recommends that interestedparties keep in mind the ten principles for suc-cessful public/private partnerships established bythe Urban Land Institute.

Ten Principles for Successful Public/Private Partnerships

1. Prepare properly for public/private partnerships

2. Create a shared vision

3. Understand your partners and key players

4. Be clear on the risks and rewards for all parties

5. Establish a clear and rational decision-making process

6. Make sure all parties do their homework

7. Secure consistent and coordinated leadership

8. Communicate early and often

9. Negotiate a fair deal structure

10. Build trust as a core value


The panel was asked by the Loudoun CountyDepartment of Economic Development tohelp determine what the county should dowith a centrally located 100-acre site the

board of supervisors purchased in 2004. The panelnotes that purchasing this site was a shrewd busi-ness decision and that the land appears to havedoubled, if not tripled, in value. Selling the landis, of course, an option; however, the panel doesnot believe that option is advisable. After exam-ining growth patterns and economic and popula-tion projections, the panel is of the clear view thatLoudoun will need much more land for futurepublic uses.

In addition to public uses, an ongoing need existsin the county to stimulate economic developmentopportunities. It is the panel’s opinion that thoseneeds can be met together with a level of controland influence that is usually not available to mostpublic entities. Usually, governments must makereal estate development decisions in a reactivemode, responding to the needs of developers whoare willing to make deals and contributions to thecommunity. However, in this case, Loudoun Countyowns the land and can direct what goes on the landand specify the preferred uses. Therefore thecounty is in a unique position, but this positiondoes not mean that the county should go into thereal estate development business. Instead, thepanel recommends the creation of a public/privatepartnership with a master developer. A masterdeveloper will be able to add private sector cre-ativity, innovation, and energy; yet, in a public/private partnership, the county maintains a highdegree of influence and control over the process.In this situation the county is not reacting to a de-veloper’s plan; rather, the county is a partner andis helping to shape the final outcome.

The crucial first step in this process is for thecounty to identify its expected public use needs(administration, education, recreation). The panel

process can create a great deal of momentum thatthe county can build on. The panel believes that afocused, thoughtful effort can help people reachanswers on questions of public use needs, deter-mine whether the academy idea makes any sense,evaluate what the county service needs are foreastern Loudoun, and decide how to integratelimited recreational uses—all within a year.

With the educational component, in particular, thepanel strongly recommends looking at somethingtruly different that builds upon the technologicaland science community that currently exists in thearea. The school board should seriously examinethis idea and further assess its feasibility.

The county government needs to assess whetherservices can be relocated from their present lo-cations to the subject site or satellite facilitiescreated to accommodate the growth in easternLoudoun County. The need for recreational fa-cilities also needs a much closer examination.The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Com-munity Services must determine how best tomeet the growing countywide need for recre-ational services.

Although the panel believes the assessment ofneeds should take place within the course of ayear, the panel strongly cautions against settingarbitrary timelines and goals. Everything shouldbe done in response to needs and opportunities.When the assessment of needs is complete, thecounty can approach the development communityto solicit proposals, land plans, and financial ideasfor meeting those needs in a public/private part-nership. Working in conjunction with a masterdeveloper, the subject site can be developed on atime frame that is responsive to the needs of thepublic’s side of the partnership as well as the op-portunities that will arise on the private sector’sside of the partnership.

Conclusion


James M. DeFranciaPanel ChairAspen, Colorado

DeFrancia is a principal of Lowe Enterprises Com-munity Development, Inc., a national real estatedevelopment company engaged in commercial, in-dustrial, and residential development, and presi-dent of its community development division. Hehas been involved in real estate development formore than 25 years; prior to that, he served as anofficer in the U.S. Navy.

DeFrancia is a trustee of the Urban Land Insti-tute, a member of the Northern Virginia BuildingIndustries Association, a former Virginia repre-sentative to the Southern Growth Policies Boards,and a former member of the board of the Metro-politan Washington Airports Authority. He hasbeen a guest lecturer or panelist for the BankLending Institute; the Lincoln Institute of LandPolicy; the Graduate School of Design, HarvardUniversity; George Mason University; and GeorgeWashington University.

DeFrancia is a 1963 graduate of the U.S. NavalAcademy, with postgraduate studies in businessand finance at the University of Michigan.

Morey BeanColorado Springs, Colorado

Founding partner of the Colorado Springs–basedColorado Architecture Partnership, Bean is anarchitect and planner with experience rangingfrom the design and execution of innovative uni-versity research parks to new urbanist commu-nity design. Colorado’s Architect of the Year for1999, Bean serves on the Colorado Growth TaskForce of the American Institute of Architects(AIA), and is an adviser to the mayor of ColoradoSprings and city of Colorado Springs on design

matters. He is also the lead architect in the Inno-vation Center for the University of Colorado, Col-orado Springs, in cooperation with the Pike’s PeakCommunity Foundation.

Bean is a member of the AIA and Urban Designcommittee chair of the Colorado South Chapter ofthe AIA.

Daniel M. ConwayAurora, Colorado

Conway is a real estate marketing and researchauthority specializing in commercial/industrial andresidential developments. Conway has more than30 years experience as an urban land economist.For the last 20 years as president and director ofeconomics and market research for THK Associ-ates, he has conducted numerous commercial, in-dustrial, and residential economic feasibility andmarket studies, as well as socioeconomic impactassessment and financial planning studies.

Projects of particular interest include an interna-tional market center and industrial market analy-sis for the Dove Valley Business Air Park in Ara-pahoe County and a residential and related usesmarket analysis for several major developmentsin Douglas County, including the 1,342-acre ParkerCity site, both in Colorado. Specific communitieswhere Conway has completed a wide range of re-search and analysis include Las Vegas and Reno,Nevada; Oxnard, Palm Springs, and Carmel, Cali-fornia; Kansas City, Missouri; Oklahoma City andTulsa, Oklahoma; Austin, Texas; Albuquerque andSanta Fe, New Mexico; Seattle, Washington; andPhoenix and Tucson, Arizona.

Conway has served on several ULI advisory ser-vices panels, including panels for Florida StateUniversity Research Park and Kennedy SpaceCenter Research Park.

About the Panel


Steven R. JenkinsDallas, Texas

Jenkins is a partner with Haynes and Boone, LLP,a Dallas-based law firm ranked among the top 100law firms in the country and among the leadingtechnology-oriented law firms in the world. Jenk-ins’ experience includes more than 30 years repre-senting large, sophisticated clients in complex realestate transactional matters and managing majorclient relationships. Prior to joining Haynes andBoone in 1995, Jenkins was for many years themanaging partner of another large, Dallas-basedlaw firm. His expertise includes all aspects of realestate development, including acquisitions andsales, municipal and land use regulatory matters,leases, partnerships, joint ventures, financing,REITs, construction, and property management.

In the land use planning area, Jenkins has beenactively involved for many years in a number ofthe most significant private and public land useplanning initiatives in the Dallas, Texas, area. Hehas represented private and public companies inland use planning initiatives for many of the mostsignificant real estate developments in Dallas, in-cluding regional malls, major office developments,hotels, corporate headquarters facilities, and re-search facilities. Jenkins has also been actively in-volved in a leadership role in many citywide andareawide public land use planning initiatives, in-cluding a complex planning process involving theentire city of Dallas. In addition to actively prac-ticing law, Jenkins has served as chairman of theJoint Committee on City Planning, director of theGreater Dallas Planning Council, and director ofthe Real Estate Council.

R.J. NutterVirginia Beach, Virginia

Nutter is a partner in the law firm of TroutmanSanders, LLP, and his principal office is in Vir-ginia Beach, Virginia. Nutter is the chairman ofthe firm’s Zoning and Land Use Practice group,which is composed of more than 20 attorneys insix of the firm’s seven U.S. offices. In that capac-ity, he is responsible for developing and imple-menting land use issues and goals to guide thefirm’s clients and the members of the practicegroup.

Nutter received his undergraduate and J.D. de-grees from the University of Richmond. His pri-mary experience has been in representing bothlocal governments and private developers in mat-ters dealing with land use, real estate, municipalcorporations, annexation, and environmental law.Nutter was named as one of Virginia’s Legal Eliteby Virginia Business magazine in 2004.

Some of his most recent significant land use en-gagements have been the necessary approvals andzoning amendments to accommodate a 2 million-square-foot urban town center; a 2,000-acre plannedresort community on Virginia’s eastern shore; a$1 billion marine terminal, the largest private ter-minal in the United States; and a $200 millionplanned medical campus.

Nutter has served on various land use committeesfor various localities throughout southeast Vir-ginia that were responsible for drafting new statelegislation and local ordinances for resort revital-ization and oceanfront renewal, drafting new com-mercial guidelines for development, and establish-ing criteria for telecommunications facilities. He isa frequent speaker on land use, annexation, andreal estate law for the American Planning Associ-ation, Virginia Municipal Legal, National BusinessInstitute, and the Virginia Association of Zoningofficials, and various other private organizations.

Lyneir RichardsonChicago, Illinois

As vice president of urban land development,Richardson heads the initiative of General GrowthProperties to undertake retail and mixed-useddevelopment projects in cities across the country.The Urban Land Development Group targets op-portunities that have a retail component of at least100,000 square feet and are located in densely pop-ulated cities, gentrifying communities, and down-town redevelopment districts.

Prior to joining General Growth Properties, Rich-ardson held positions as president of LakeShoreDevelopment Co., vice president of Thrush Con-struction Co., and attorney at the First NationalBank of Chicago.

Richardson is a graduate of Bradley Universityand the University of Chicago Law School. He is

a member of the International Council of Shop-ping Centers and the Urban Land Institute. Healso serves as vice chairman, Illinois Housing De-velopment Authority Trust Fund Board, and is amember of the board of directors of the Boys andGirls Club of West Cook County.

Virginia ScottWashington, D.C.

Scott is a managing director in Jones Lang LaSalle’sPublic Institutions practice in the Washington,D.C., corporate office. She is a leading contribu-tor to the firm’s government specialty, providingstrategy, financing, and negotiating services to pub-lic sector clients. She is currently working withthe U.S. Air Force to develop a programmaticstrategy for enhancing the value of their under-used real estate assets across the United States.

Scott has worked for Jones Lang LaSalle in a vari-ety of capacities over the past ten years, includingthe underwriting of various investment opportuni-ties, assisting in managing investment portfolios,and in the marketing and disposition of assets forkey public and private sector clients.

Scott provided local market and land use redevel-opment advice to a confidential client on plans toredevelop a 44-acre site along Washington, D.C.’sAnacostia River, preparing redevelopment alter-native schemes aimed at creating a vibrant andeconomically attractive market-stable environ-ment that addressed the District’s redevelopmentgoals. Her responsibilities included land valuationanalysis, economic impact studies, zoning and leg-islative analysis, phasing planning, and prelimi-nary marketing and stakeholder strategies. Shealso developed presentation material and a termsheet for meetings with the mayor’s office andother District planning officials.

Additionally, Scott has acted as a key member ofJones Lang LaSalle’s team to plan and developCantera, a 650-acre mixed-use development proj-

ect near Chicago, Illinois. Her responsibilities in-cluded performing financial analysis, developingproject pro formas for specific development sites,assessing tax increment financing impacts, and co-ordinating the annual budgeting process for theproject team and client. Scott also researched areazoning authorities and related fees to assist in ne-gotiating with the local municipality.

Mark VietsWestwood, Kansas

Viets received his bachelor of science and masterof architecture degrees with final honors fromWashington University in St. Louis. He is a princi-pal of Peckham, Guyton, Albers & Viets Archi-tects and Planners. PGAV is a 100-person firmwith offices in Kansas City, Kansas, and St. Louis,Missouri. The firm has a special interest in large-scale office and institutional development world-wide. Many of these projects include waterfrontplanning and design in such places as Kansas City,St. Louis, New Orleans, Chicago, and Barcelona,Spain. Clients include Stowers Medical Institute,Irvine Industrial Estates, Universal Studios aswell as 44 colleges and universities.

Viets currently serves on the Kansas State Build-ing Advisory Commission, as appointed by thegovernor, and he is a director of the U.S. Bankcorporation. He has served as chairman on sev-eral planning commissions, boards of zoning ap-peals, and boards of structural appeals, as wellas serving as airport commissioner and city coun-cil member.

Within the ULI organization, Viets has served onnumerous advisory panels and has been a trustee,chairman of the Publication Committee, and chair-man of the Kansas City District Council. He iscurrently a ULI Foundation governor and anhonorary member.


loudoun county virginia - urban land...

Documents