an advisory services panel report annandale virginia

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

AnnandaleVirginia

Urban LandInstitute$

AnnandaleVirginiaOpportunities for Revitalization

June 3–8, 2007An 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

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is toprovide leadership in the responsible use ofland and in creating and sustaining thrivingcommunities worldwide. ULI is committed to

• Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;

• Fostering collaboration within and beyondULI’s membership through mentoring, dia-logue, and problem solving;

• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;

• Advancing land use policies and design prac-tices that respect the uniqueness of both builtand natural environments;

• Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and

• Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address cur-rent and future challenges.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 35,000 members from 90 countries, represent-ing the entire spectrum of the land use and develop-ment disciplines. Professionals represented includedevelopers, builders, property owners, investors,architects, public officials, planners, real estatebrokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,academics, students, and librarians. ULI reliesheavily on the experience of its members. It isthrough member involvement and informationresources that ULI has been able to set standardsof excellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of the world’smost respected and widely quoted sources of ob-jective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2007 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.

Annandale, Virginia, June 3–8, 2007 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate 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’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member who has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

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 report isprepared 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 meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partici-

pants 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 toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffMarta V. GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community

Thomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Matthew RaderSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Romana KernsAdministrative Assistant, Advisory Services

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


On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanel extends its thanks to Fairfax Countyfor convening the panel to make recom-mendations for revitalizing Annandale.

The panel thanks the Board of Supervisors, theDepartment of Planning and Zoning (DPZ), De-partment of Housing and Community Develop-ment (HCD), Department of Transportation, Economic Development Authority, and, especially,Supervisor Penny Gross and Supervisor SharonBulova for their dedication to working with thecommunity to revitalize Annandale. The panel also thanks Jim Zook, Barbara Byron, and Mari-anne Gardner of the DPZ and Harry Swanson,Bob Fields, Bridget Hill, and Nicole Thompson of the HCD.

Finally, the panel thanks the more than 80 com-munity members who shared their time, insights,and hopes during the interview process. Everyone

who participated in the panel process providedvital insight and demonstrated the civic dedicationthat will contribute to Annandale’s continued suc-cess as a place to live, work, and play.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

Market Potential 12

Planning and Design 15

Development Strategies 24

Implementation 29

Conclusion 35

About the Panel 36

Contents


Panel ChairAlex J. RoseVice President, DevelopmentContinental Development CorporationEl Segundo, California

Panel MembersDonald R. BauerBauer Planning and Environmental Service, Inc.Irvine, California

Peter Elzi, Jr.Vice PresidentTHK Associates, Inc.Aurora, Colorado

Arun JainChief Urban DesignerCity of PortlandPortland, Oregon

Donna LewisPlanning DirectorMercer County, New JerseyTrenton, New Jersey

Benjamin R. MagelsenPresidentCreaterra, Inc.Salt Lake City, Utah

Maysa SabahConsultantULI Middle East CenterDubai, United Arab Emirates

Denise K. SchulzSenior Vice President, Division HeadLa Salle Bank, NA–Commercial Real EstateGlendale, California

Jack WierzenskiDirector, Economic Development and PlanningDallas Area Rapid TransitDallas, Texas

ULI Project DirectorMatthew RaderSenior AssociateAdvisory Services

ULI On-Site CoordinatorRomana KernsAdministrative AssistantAdvisory Services

ULI Panel and Project Staff


The Fairfax County Department of Housingand Community Development, in partner-ship with the Department of Planning andZoning and the newly formed Office of Com-

munity Revitalization and Reinvestment, invitedULI’s Advisory Services Program to convene apanel of land use experts to recommend strategiesfor revitalizing the Annandale Community Busi-ness Center. From June 3 to June 8, 2007, thepanel met in Fairfax County, interviewed morethan 80 Annandale stakeholders, and explored op-portunities and obstacles for continued growth inAnnandale. On the basis of its investigations, thepanel formulated economic, physical, and organi-zational solutions to advance the county’s goals.For the purposes of this report, the panel definedthe study area as the county-designated Annan-dale Community Business Center and CommunityRevitalization District, roughly bounded by Ever-green Lane on the east, Poplar Street and Mark-ham Street on the north, Hummer Road on thewest, and McWhorter Place on the south.

Background Annandale is located in northern Virginia alongLittle River Turnpike (Virginia Route 236), an ar-terial connector between the Capital Beltway andInterstate 395. One of seven Commercial Revital-ization Districts/Areas in Fairfax County, Annan-dale’s central spine contains an aging automobile-oriented commercial district surrounded byresidential neighborhoods composed primarily ofsingle-family homes and rental apartments. Thecommercial core stretches along Little RiverTurnpike from Heritage Drive to Evergreen Laneand spreads north and south along RavensworthRoad, Backlick Road, Annandale Road, and Co-lumbia Pike.

Annandale emerged in the early 19th century atthe intersection of Little River Turnpike, whichopened in 1805, and Columbia Pike, which opened

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

in 1808. By the 1850s, the village at the intersectionof these two roads acquired the name Annandale.From a crossroads village, Annandale has growninto a major intersection for traffic in FairfaxCounty and a connector between the Capital Belt-way and Interstate 395. Little River Turnpike, Co-lumbia Pike, Backlick Road, Ravensworth Road,and Annandale Road all carry high volumes of trafficand contribute to congestion in central Annandale.

Beginning in the 1950s, Annandale experiencedsignificant growth, and the existing commercialarea achieved its present dimensions. In recentdecades, the commercial area declined as majorretail operations selected sites close to the CapitalBeltway and at nearby retail nodes, includingTysons Corner and Bailey’s Crossroads. New en-trepreneurs, including many members of the Ko-rean community, identified an opportunity andbegan investing in land, buildings, and businessesin Annandale.

Today, Annandale contains more than 2 millionsquare feet of commercial space, including a concentration of Korean shops, restaurants, and service businesses that draw customers fromthroughout the Washington, D.C., metropolitanarea and beyond. Two supermarkets, bankbranches, and other retailers serve neighborhood

64

81

81

85

95

295

70

68

81

70

83

95

64

68

77

79

79

79

70

71 77

64

81

77

85

95

95

64

66495

95

270

97

695

AtlanticOcean

ChesapeakeBay

DelawareBay

N O R T H C A R O L I N AT E N N E S S E E

K E N T U C K Y

M A R Y L A N D

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

NEW JERSEYO H I O

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

V I R G I N I A

Washington D.C.Annapolis

Baltimore

Arlington

Richmond

Virginia BeachNorfolk

Newport News

Annandale

Fredericksburg

Front RoyalWinchester

Location map.


demand. In addition to Korean Americans, otherethnic groups, notably Latino, Middle Eastern,Vietnamese, and African communities, have begunto show interest in Annandale. Although retailrents, land prices, and vacancy rates remain com-petitive with the region’s most successful retailareas, many residents and commuters perceiveAnnandale to be a declining commercial area.

The Panel’s AssignmentDuring its five-day meeting, the ULI panel stud-ied Annandale and developed recommendations toaddress key issues presented by the sponsor. Thepanel’s work focused on the Annandale Commu-nity Business Center, an approximately 170-acrecommercial area centered on the intersection ofLittle River Turnpike and Columbia Pike. Thesponsor asked the panel to recommend strategiesfor revitalizing the area as a more vital, pedes-trian-oriented, mixed-use center compatible withadjacent residential areas. In support of this goal,the sponsor asked the panel to consider the follow-ing questions:

• How best should Annandale be developed as avital mixed-use center? What unique character-istics or identity should be developed to distin-guish Annandale?

• Are the recommendations of the current Com-prehensive Plan appropriate to achieve the re-commend vision? If not, what changes shouldFairfax County consider? The sponsor asked thepanel to pay particular attention to provisions toencourage the consolidation of small parcels.

• Does the Comprehensive Plan offer appropriateincentives to achieve the desired outcome andthat discourage development that is not consis-tent with the vision? If not, what changesshould the county consider?

• Should Annandale have a single communityfocal area, as envisioned in the ComprehensivePlan, or should the plan be amended to createmore than one focal area?

• What land uses are most feasible given the op-portunities and constraints?

The study area includesAnnandale’s commercialcore and adjacent areas.

495

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Little River TurnpikeMcWhorter Place

M

edfo

rd D

rive

John Marr Drive

Evergreen Lane

236

649

711

617

244


• If multiple focal areas are envisioned, shouldeach have an individual purpose or identity, or should these areas be viewed as an inte-grated whole?

• How can Annandale be enhanced as a “place”?What uses and designs should be pursuedwithin each area, and how is each of these areasdifferent from but supportive of the others?How should the edges and boundaries of An-nandale be treated, particularly with respect to adjacent stable residential communities?

• How should the stakeholders from various cul-tural backgrounds best work together to imple-ment a collective vision for Annandale?

• What opportunities exist—and what opportuni-ties can be created—to enhance pedestrian, bi-cycle, vehicular, and mass-transit connectivityand usage? In responding to this question, thepanel was asked to consider recommendationsof the 2005 Annandale Community BusinessCenter Circulation Study.

• How should the Annandale Community Busi-ness Center be connected to other regional ac-tivity centers? In responding to this question,the panel was asked to consider the potential toexpand bus service and to accommodate a tran-sit center as recommended in the 2003 RegionalBus Study.

• How can the existing commuter, local, and re-gional traffic patterns and land uses be inte-grated to create a high-quality, more-accessibleplace, and what enhancements are necessary todo so? How can the regional and local trans-

portation concerns be balanced with the desireddevelopment in the Annandale CommunityBusiness Center? How can mobility needs beaddressed while creating a pedestrian-oriented“town center”?

• What are the development ramifications relatedto the fact that Route 236 (Little River Turn-pike) runs through the middle of the Commu-nity Business Center? In addition to the Com-prehensive Plan options, should other options

be considered? For example, what might be theeffect of widening Route 236 to six lanes in con-junction with turn lanes and access manage-ment as a substitute for a service drive as cur-rently required in the Zoning Ordinance? Doalternative solutions exist to this issue?

• What steps can to taken to encourage full andactive participation from the Korean businessand residential communities in the reinventionof Annandale?

• Successful urban places occur largely because ofpublic gathering places that may, among otherthings, host events or provide opportunities forpassive recreation. What kinds of such spacesshould be planned for Annandale?

• What connectivity should occur among thesespaces and from these spaces to the surround-ing community? How and where can the countybest create such public places or spaces? Whichshould be emphasized and how?

• What implementation strategies should thecounty consider to facilitate implementation of

Annandale offers anexciting mix of ethnic andnational retail.

10

damentals of demand, supply, rental and for-salepricing, construction costs, and rates of return.

Planning and DesignAnnandale must integrate and balance the cir-culation needs of regional commuters, local busi-nesses, visitors, and residents. Dense, walkableneighborhoods can come in many forms. The com-munity must define what “density” and “walkabil-ity” mean for Annandale. The panel offers frame-work recommendations on how to achieve awalkable community.

ImplementationAnnandale has been studied extensively, andmany good, on-point recommendations have beenmade. It is time for execution—not further study.

• Political will must be exercised to achieve re-vitalization goals. Political leaders must makethe hard choices relating to priorities, engage-ment, investment, interjurisdictional coopera-tion, catalytic projects, and advocacy and actupon those choices.

• Financial and legislative tools exist to help solveAnnandale’s core challenges. When they apply,the county and community must be willing touse them.

• The development review process needs to be re-visited. Extensive review and approval periodsstymie efforts to achieve redevelopment goals.Developers will find other, more receptive com-munities for their efforts and dollars.

• Revitalization will require broader communityengagement. The panel believes that engage-ment is not taking place at the levels and to the extent necessary and offers strategies todeepen engagement.

Summary of RecommendationsThe panel’s recommendations highlight the follow-ing key themes for redevelopment in Annandale.

• Future development strategies must build onAnnandale’s assets: a civically invested com-munity, ethnic diversity, and a healthy ethnicretail environment.

the panel’s recommendations, ensuring that thepublic policy goals are met and maximizing pri-vate sector investment opportunities?

Summary of Key Findings To help achieve the community’s goal for an eco-nomically vital, physically integrated communitybusiness center in Annandale, the panel suggestsa consistent, long-term strategy that engages theentire Annandale community and encourages in-cremental development. Following are the panel’skey findings.

Market PotentialAnnandale offers attractive income, homeowner-ship, education, and age demographics but has notgenerated the expected attention from nationalretailers and developers as a result of such demo-graphics.

• National retailers and developers are unlikelyto come to Annandale.

• Alternative opportunities exist, includingsmaller, regionally focused ethnic retailers andrestaurants, professional service firms, neigh-borhood-serving retailers, and commuter-focused retailers.

Development StrategiesRedevelopment and revitalization are cumulative,incremental processes that require long-termcommitment from public and private investors.

• The public sector will need to undertakezoning and planning changes, infrastructureinvestments, and other incentives to supportrevitalization.

• High land costs, fragmented land ownership,and small lot sizes impede redevelopment andinvestment in Annandale. Catalytic projects are necessary at key locations to encouragerevitalization.

• The panel identifies several options for suchprojects in Annandale, including a major, mixed-use development or a mixed-use transit center.

• All redevelopment efforts, including the cat-alytic projects, must satisfy key real estate fun-

An Advisory Services Panel Report


• Although high rental and land costs as well asfragmented ownership and small parcels con-strain development, market demand for com-mercial and residential land in Annandale canovercome these constraints.

• Successful revitalization in Annandale shouldengage all of Annandale’s stakeholders: resi-dents, business owners, investors, propertyowners, commuters, and the area’s many ethnicconstituencies, especially its large, regionallyimportant Korean American community.

• The community needs to work together to cre-ate a unified vision for Annandale’s future andspecifically define what words like “town cen-ter,” “community,” “walkability,” and “density”should mean for Annandale.

• All stakeholders need to better embrace Annan-dale’s ethnic diversity and create solutions thatbreak down cultural barriers to improve thefunctioning of residential and commercial neigh-borhoods alike.

• Expectations for Annandale’s future must beframed by an ever-evolving understanding ofthe local and regional real estate markets andthe unique economic characteristics of Annan-dale’s ethnic business community.

• Future development must balance Annandale’srole as a regional transportation hub and com-muter corridor with the presence of a commu-nity business center.

• By investing in infrastructure improvements,particularly transit and circulation, Annandalecan create land assemblies to capture expectedmarket demand and to facilitate the creation ofa catalytic mixed-use town-center development.

• Redevelopment in Annandale must be an in-cremental, cumulative process over time andshould build strategically on public and privateinvestments supported by the market.


The Annandale study area, defined by thecounty as the Annandale Community Busi-ness Center and Annandale Community Re-vitalization District, has evolved from pri-

marily a community retail center into a regionallysignificant ethnic retail node. Forty years ago, thecommunity relied on the study area for finance,shopping, community activities, and other func-tions. Over time, major retailers relocated to newareas with larger land parcels, and the core’s retailand community significance diminished. Ethnic re-tailers, including a significant Korean Americanpopulation, began to invest in land, buildings, andbusiness activities in Annandale.

On the basis of an analysis of the available eco-nomic, demographic, and real estate sector data,the panel concluded that the study area enjoyssteady demand for retail, office, and residentialproduct and that Annandale dominates the re-gional market for Korean goods and services.Thus, Annandale offers significant opportunitiesfor real estate development, redevelopment, andinvestment. Given the strategic location of Annan-dale within the Washington, D.C., region and theparticular demographics of the immediate area,

these market trends should be constantly moni-tored to capitalize on new opportunities.

Employment, Population, andHousehold GrowthEmployment growth drives demand for office andindustrial development and encourages populationgrowth; population growth generates demand forresidential and retail development. On the basis ofpast trends, employment and population growth inthe Washington, D.C., Metropolitan StatisticalArea (MSA) and Annandale’s market area willcontinue to be strong in future decades. The mar-ket area is a panel-defined subset of the Washing-ton, D.C., MSA (see market area map). The panelestimates that employment in the market areawill grow by nearly 50 percent over the next tenyears. At 450 square feet of commercial space peremployee, this employment growth will demandover 1 million square feet of new commercialspace in addition to the 3 million square feet thatcurrently exist in the competitive market area.

The data also reveal that population and house-hold growth over the past decade in the marketarea did not reflect employment growth in themarket area; the market area has grown by only559 persons and 41 households per year since2000. Constraints such as high land costs and frag-mented ownership certainly contribute to limitedresidential growth; however, these constraints donot negate the strong and substantial demand forcommercial space in the market area.

Retail MarketOn the basis of available data, the panel concludedthat strong demand exists for retail space in An-nandale’s market area. The market area has a me-dian household income of $75,485. The marketarea currently generates $4.8 billion in retail ex-penditures, which will grow to almost $5.0 billion

Market Potential

Market area map.


by 2017. Based on sales per square foot and me-dian store sizes, this increase will create a demandfor 558,608 additional square feet of retail spacein the market area over the next decade. Giventhe study area’s concentration of retail space andtraffic patterns, it will likely capture at least 50percent of the market area’s expected growth—280,000 square feet—over the next decade. Thisgrowth will be in addition to the study area’s ex-isting 1.2 million square feet of retail space. Whenassessing new retail development opportunities,the panel believes that current rents of $35 to $40per square foot for higher-quality retail space in thestudy area reflect and support high land values.

Retail growth in Annandale will likely focus ongrocery and specialty foods, restaurants, clothing,specialty furniture and home furnishings, and otherspecialty retail and services. Big-box retailers (re-tailers that dominate in particular categories andoccupy 20,000 to 100,000 square feet) are not likelyto locate in the study area, which lacks adequatelysized land parcels close to main circulation routes.Unlike smaller retail users, big-box users cannot

acquire land and develop within their economicmodels with Annandale’s high land prices. More-over, many national retailers are already repre-sented in the region and could be reluctant to lo-cate multiple facilities in proximity to each other.

Office MarketEmployment growth will generate annual de-mand for nearly 8 million square feet of officespace in the Washington, D.C., MSA over the nextdecade. Fairfax County will expand its base ofover 72 million square feet of office space by morethan 2 million square feet of new office space an-nually over the next decade. Annandale’s marketarea will capture a relatively small portion of thatdemand, approximately 285,000 square feet, orless than 15 percent of the county total. The studyarea may capture less than 20 percent of themarket area demand, 68,000 square feet of officespace annually.

The panel understands that ethnic businesses inAnnandale prefer ownership to leasing and that

Figure 1Employment Trends

Total Annual Growth Projected Annual GrowthArea Employment 1996–2006 2007–2017

Washington, D.C., MSA 3,791,710 74,440 79,830

Fairfax County, Virginia 824,309 20,412 19,820

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; THK Associates, Inc.

Figure 2Population and Household Trends, 2007–2017

Total Total Projected Annual Projected AnnualArea Population Households Population Growth Household Growth

Washington, D.C., MSA 5,373,120 2,022,160 85,310 34,650

Fairfax County, Virginia 1,052,520 383,420 16,560 6,430

Competitive Market Area* 384,332 145,639 780 420

* As depicted in the market area map.Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; THK Associates, Inc.


office condominiums are being well received atprices in the range of $400 per square foot. There-fore, the panel estimates that as much as 40 per-cent to 50 percent of the office demand could beprogrammed as condominium ownership.

Hotel MarketCurrently, Fairfax County has 14,000 hotel roomsin 80 properties, functioning at 74 percent occu-pancy. With an employment base of 824,309, thatmeans approximately 60 jobs per hotel room cur-rently. Benchmarked against national tends, thestudy area has an unsatisfied demand for approxi-mately 110 rooms today, which will grow to 150rooms by 2017 in response to additional office de-velopment. A 100- to 110-room hotel could locatein the study area near the Capital Beltway, and asecond “boutique” hotel could locate in the rede-veloped core area within a decade. A “boutique”hotel is a small-scale hotel with unique image,style, and service.

Residential MarketProjected household growth indicates the Wash-ington, D.C., MSA will have an estimated annualdemand for 36,900 new housing units over thenext decade. In the market area, current and pro-jected demographics indicate a low ratio of indi-viduals to households. Therefore, the panel esti-mates that creation of 420 households annuallywill generate demand for 441 housing units annu-ally. Limited land supply and high land values,however, will require that this demand be satis-fied with attached and rental product. Of the an-nual demand for 441 housing units, the panelprojects that 194 will be for townhomes and con-dominiums and 198 will be for multifamily rentalunits. The panel also understands that the studyarea includes large, extended families that differfrom the prevailing demographic. An opportunitymay exist for a housing type different from whatthe market provides at this time.

Using the market area’s median income of $75,000,a household earning the median income can afforda $414,700 home. An active residential project inthe study area could expect to sell 60 units annuallyat prices ranging from $450,000 to over $500,000.Rental product could expect to absorb 85 units an-nually with average rents over $1,100 per month.The average condominium or townhouse unit shouldbe 1,300 square feet, and the average rental unit,950 square feet. New residents are most likely tobe local business owners, younger professionals,and couples. Although the study area currentlylacks opportunities for higher-density housing toaccommodate these residents, proposed projectssuch as those at the bowling alley and Kmart sitesindicate that projects are emerging that may ac-commodate this demand.

Industrial/Flex/R&D Market Employment growth will generate a demand fornearly 5.5 million square feet of industrial space in the Washington, D.C., MSA annually over thenext decade. Fairfax County will have an annualdemand for nearly 1.4 million square feet ofspace. The market area will capture approxi-mately 214,880 square feet of industrial/flex/research and development (R&D) space, only 15 percent of the county total.

The low capture rate reflects Annandale’s lack ofappropriately sized and located parcels for indus-trial/flex/R&D use, incompatible land uses, andzoning regulations. The panel estimates that only5 percent of the county’s industrial/flex/R&D mar-ket will come into the study area, approximately10,000 square feet annually. At a .4 floor/area ratio(FAR, the maximum built area divided by the landsize), demand exists for half an acre of industrial/flex/R&D land annually in the study area.


Right now, many consider Annandale more aplace to drive through than a place to driveto. Aging, automobile-oriented land use andarchitecture, increasing traffic congestion,

and limited transit accessibility contribute to a de-teriorating atmosphere. Nevertheless, the emer-gence of a strong Korean retail community, recentpedestrian improvements along John Marr Drive,signs at key entrances to the commercial area, andthe establishment of Tollhouse Park have begun tocreate a sense of place.

The panel’s recommendations encourage stake-holders to think big in improving Annandale’sphysical design by addressing traffic congestion,encouraging better urban design and architecture,creating public spaces, increasing transit use, andconnecting the commercial area to adjacent resi-dential neighborhoods. The community has ex-pressed a desire to realize these types of improve-ments and to create a mixed-use town center inAnnandale. Recent efforts to stimulate desireddevelopment by allowing higher FARs, improvingpedestrian routes, and encouraging mixed-usedevelopment have not yet produced the desireddevelopment activity.

The challenge at hand is to use tools that willconvert the existing automobile-oriented environ-ment into a walkable place while recognizing andimproving the vital role that Annandale plays inthe regional circulation system. The goal is to cre-ate appropriate transportation elements and de-sign strategies to improve the streetscape, light-ing, signage, and hardscaping and to blend anddevelop a denser, more pedestrian-friendly envi-ronment and mix of uses. The panel expects thatsuch density and mix of uses will build support foradditional transit investment and services that, inturn, will help reduce congestion and enable An-nandale better to fulfill its role within the regionalcirculation system.

Managing TrafficThe panel recommends an aggressive strategy toreduce congestion by improving the pedestrianenvironment, establishing pedestrian connectionsbetween business and residential areas, facilitat-ing commuter traffic flow around Annandale, im-proving local traffic flow, and increasing transitaccessibility and visibility. Like the other six Com-mercial Redevelopment Districts/Areas in FairfaxCounty, Annandale currently appears to be moreimportant as a conduit for commuters than as avibrant destination. Neighboring Fairfax City,however, has demonstrated that a well-designedroad system can manage commuter traffic byslowing it down and distributing it onto severalstreets around the edge of the central businessdistrict. In Annandale, the traffic managementstrategy should seek to manage commuter trafficand improve the pedestrian environment whilecapitalizing on heavy traffic flows to boost retailand residential demand.

For many visitors, traffic congestion on LittleRiver Turnpike (Virginia Route 236) defines theAnnandale experience. The Annandale commer-cial area developed along Little River Turnpikeand later extended along intersecting arterialstreets. Today, traffic congestion is greatest inthe stretch of Little River Turnpike between JohnMarr Drive and Markham Road, a bottleneck witha concentration of signalized intersections, leftturns, and heavy traffic flows. The bottleneck cre-ates an unpleasant environment for both trafficand pedestrians. The panel noted that the sites forAnnandale’s two most-active development propos-als, the bowling alley site and the Kmart site, arenot situated on Little River Turnpike; they avoidcongestion on Little River Turnpike and are ac-cessible from less-traveled adjacent streets.

Annandale’s extensive history of traffic studiesdemonstrates a long-term concern about how tobalance Little River Turnpike’s roles as regional

Planning and Design


commuter artery and local commercial street. In1968, a study recommended a grade separation ofLittle River Turnpike to resolve traffic conflictswith the intersecting arterials between MarkhamRoad and John Marr Drive. Today, Little RiverTurnpike carries 45,000 vehicles per day, a volumeprojected to grow to 65,000 vehicles per day overthe next 20 years. Although the existing service-drive system has helped minimize interference

with the main lanes and provides much-neededlandscaping, the inconsistency of service drivescreates large multi-legged intersections thatconfuse pedestrians and drivers alike and add tocongestion and traffic disruption.

A high volume of left-turn movements to Colum-bia Pike and Annandale Roads from Little RiverTurnpike and side friction from driveways not

Heavy peak-hour left-turnmovements contribute tocongestion on Little RiverTurnpike.

Peak-hour traffic inAnnandale is balancedduring the morning andafternoon.

495 1,548/1,689

2,189/2,423

140/938

690/1,385

1,287/1,576

1,330/1,179

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive


John Marr Drive

Ever

gree

n La

ne

236

649

711

617

244

AM/PM

495

391/309

61/52188/164

348/248174/126

44/236

69/159 26/52

43/74

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive


John Marr Drive

Ever

gree

n La

ne

236

649

711

617

244

AM/PM


served by service drives further affect capacity.During the morning peak hour, left turns fromLittle River Turnpike totaled 391 onto HummerRoad, 188 onto Columbia Pike, 344 onto John MarrDrive, and 174 onto Evergreen Lane. All theseintersections, with the exception of EvergreenLane, operate at a level of service (LOS) D. TheAmerican Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials “Green Book” definesLOS D as “approaching unstable flow.” By 2030,left turns are projected to increase by one-thirdif the current situation is not addressed. Trafficflows in the evening peak hour are similar tothose of the morning; directional split of throughtrips is minimal between the morning and even-ing peak hours.

Traffic congestion, aggravated by inconsistentimplementation of the service-drive system, con-flicting turning movements, and the frequency ofsignalized intersections, presents a significantbarrier to development and pedestrian use in thestudy area. Heavy traffic flows on Little RiverTurnpike nearly preclude pedestrian crossingfrom north to south in the commercial area. With-out significant change, traffic congestion alongLittle River Turnpike will discourage investmentin Annandale.

In recent years, Fairfax County and the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation have undertakenstudies to address congestion on Little RiverTurnpike. Possible solutions have included widen-ing Little River Turnpike to six lanes plus two-way service drives with parking; building an in-terchange at Annandale Road, Ravensworth Road,Backlick Road, and Little River Turnpike; andcreating a one-way pair, making Little RiverTurnpike one-way westbound, and a southernloop road along John Marr Drive and McWhorterPlace one-way eastbound. The panel believes thata one-way pair will negatively affect commercialuses and will not support development of a towncenter. Retail development trends indicate thattwo-way streets improve access for traffic andpedestrians, whereas a one-way system is seenprimarily as a conduit for traffic.

The panel recommends creating a two-way looproad system around the core, similar to therecommendations in the 1997 Hunter Study

commissioned by the Fairfax County Departmentof Housing and Community Development. Theproposed two-way loop system would create aloop around the entire core area, using John MarrDrive, Columbia Pike, Poplar Street, MarkhamStreet, McWhorter Place, and Backlick Road.Columbia Pike would be closed as a traffic arterybetween Poplar Street and Little River Turnpike.The two-way loop would reduce left turns fromLittle River Turnpike by distributing trafficheaded to Annandale Road, Columbia Pike, Back-lick Road, and Ravensworth Road to the periph-ery of the commercial area. The existing four-lanecross section of Little River Turnpike should bemaintained and enhanced with a completed front-age road system that has pedestrian facilities andlandscaping through the core. The closure ofColumbia Pike between John Marr Drive andLittle River Turnpike will eliminate the con-gestion of the closely spaced intersections ofAnnandale Road and Columbia Pike with LittleRiver Turnpike.

Within the area circumscribed by the two-wayloop, new land bays will be opened for develop-ment and should be enhanced with pedestrianamenities connected to one another. Streets

Inconsistent servicedrives create dangerousand complex intersections.

within the new land bays will serve the uses cre-ated within the land bays. These may serve localusers or commuters from elsewhere who have An-nandale destinations. Heavy traffic flows will bedistributed to the edge of the district along thetwo-way loop.

Accommodating PedestriansAnnandale’s pedestrian environment is inconsis-tent and uninviting. The two blocks of improvedsidewalks along John Marr Drive built and main-tained by Fairfax County demonstrate the poten-tial of an improved pedestrian environment. Thepedestrian network has been studied extensively.In March 2007, the Department of Public Worksand Environmental Services inventoried side-


walks on Annandale’s nearly eight miles of curbline. Although the inventory indicates that nearly85 percent of the curb line has sidewalks, the exis-tence of sidewalks does not necessarily make awalkable environment.

Several factors contribute to the unpleasantpedestrian environment in Annandale. Inconsis-tent service drives along Little River Turnpikebreak up continuous sidewalks. Heavy trafficflows make it dangerous for pedestrians to crossmajor roads. Automobile-oriented retail designforces pedestrians to navigate large surface park-ing lots, randomly placed buildings, and unattrac-tive trash facilities.

The panel recommends several strategies to im-prove the pedestrian experience in Annandale.

495

Regional Commuter Traffic

Local Traffic

Bowling Alley Site

Tollhouse Park Site

Kmart Site

Key:

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road


Poplar Street

M

edfo

rd D

rive

John Marr Drive

Evergreen Lane

Mar

kham

Stre

et236

649

711

617

244Bowling Alley

Site

Tollhouse ParkSite

KmartSite

495


Local Traffic

Bowling Alley Site

Tollhouse Park Site

Kmart Site

Key:

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road


Poplar Street

M

edfo

rd D

rive

John Marr Drive

Evergreen Lane

Mar

kham

Stre

et236

649

711

617

244Bowling Alley

Site

Tollhouse ParkSite

KmartSite

495


Local Traffic

Bowling Alley Site

Tollhouse Park Site

Kmart Site

Key:

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road


Poplar Street

M

edfo

rd D

rive

John Marr Drive

Evergreen Lane

Mar

kham

Stre

et236

649

711

617

244Bowling Alley

Site

Tollhouse ParkSite

KmartSite

The two-way loop willdistribute through traffic(“Regional CommuterTraffic”) around the com-mercial area and open upland bays for potentialtown-center development.

Heavy traffic, wide roads,and limited sidewalks cre-ate a challenging pedes-trian environment inAnnandale.

19

The county should implement the proposed two-way loop and create a system of low-traffic, pedes-trian-friendly streets within the loop. The countyshould establish signalized, well-marked, safepedestrian crossings across Little River Turnpikeand the two-way loop to provide pedestrian con-nections between the commercial area and adja-cent neighborhoods.

As much as possible, sidewalk and roadway con-figurations should minimize occupation of thesame space by vehicular and pedestrian traffic.Where possible, sidewalks should be widened andheavily landscaped to buffer pedestrians from ad-jacent busy roads. Sidewalks should be createdalong major routes, connecting neighborhoods tothe business area within the two-way loop withsignalized and marked pedestrian crossings at thetwo-way loop. Traditional urban building styles,with facades at the sidewalk line, will also help

create a friendlier pedestrian environment withinthe two-way loop.

Encouraging TransitAnnandale is served by four Metrobus lines and aFairfax Connector bus route. The bus routes runat 30-minute peak-hour headways, with one ex-ception; Metrobus 16 runs down Columbia Pike tothe Pentagon at ten-minute headways in the peakhours. The primary routes for bus service are Lit-tle River Turnpike, Annandale Road, ColumbiaPike, and John Marr Drive. All bus stops are atthe curb on these busy roads and lack attractiveor comfortable waiting areas.

The panel recommends several strategies to in-crease bus transit use by attracting “choice rid-ers,” those potential riders with the option tochoose between public transit and private automo-bile travel. Development should be encouraged at

Annandale, Virginia, June 3–8, 2007

Annandale is served byseveral local and regionalbus routes.

495

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Rave

nswo

rth R

oad

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road


M

edfo

rd D

rive

John Marr Drive

Evergreen Lane

236

649

711

617

244

Metrobus 3AMetrobus 16A, 16B, 16D, 16E, 16LMetrobus 29HFairfax Connector 401


residential densities greater than 50 units per acre,sufficient to support ten-minute transit headwaysbased on national benchmarks for transit-orienteddevelopment. When development densities beginto increase significantly, ten-minute headwaysshould be established on all routes to improve con-venience. Residential uses should be supported bycommercial and entertainment uses to encouragea pedestrian lifestyle. The highest-density devel-opment should be nearest to transit hubs, such asthe proposed transit center, so that riders, giventhe availability of frequent and reliable transitservice, are less inclined to use the automobile.Lower-density development, greater than 12 unitsper acre but less than 50 units per acre, can sup-port 20-minute peak headways and 30-minute off-peak headways for transit service. Creating a transportation system that balances pedestrian,transit, and vehicular travel will help create an environment that automobiles share comfortablywith pedestrians.

In addition to encouraging more-frequent transitservice, the panel encourages efforts to maketransit more accessible. Currently, complicatedrouting and scattered bus stops prevent potentialriders from understanding when and where tocatch a bus. The panel recommends adopting the2003 recommendation of the Washington Metro-politan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to cre-ate an Annandale transit center near the intersec-tion of Little River Turnpike and Columbia Pike.The proposed center would support existing linesand newly proposed services, including routes to East Falls Church, a rapid-bus line along Columbia Pike, and expansion of the Dunn Loring/Merrifield Circulator to 16 lines.

The panel recommends developing the transit cen-ter as a catalyst for additional town-center devel-opment at the 7200 Columbia Pike site, a propertycurrently owned by Fairfax County on ColumbiaPike north of Poplar Street. Public investment indeveloping the transit center could stimulate pri-vate investment in adjacent transit-supportive,high-density land uses. The panel also recom-mends creating structured parking at the transitcenter that can serve transit riders during the dayand town-center users during evening and week-end off-peak hours. The transit center’s ground

floor should house neighborhood- and commuter-serving convenience retail, and the upper floorsshould house the daycare center currently operat-ing on the site. Additional space could house othercommunity services, including workforce develop-ment programs, cultural facilities, and communitymeeting space.

The panel concurs with WMATA’s conclusion thatneither an extension of the existing Metrorail sys-tem nor a light-rail transit is warranted in thenear future. WMATA did conclude that a hybridrapid bus, using signal preemption, could decreasetravel time. The panel encourages the county toconsider extending the proposed modern streetcarline from its proposed terminus at Bailey’s Cross-roads to Annandale. Currently, many cities areconsidering modern streetcar proposals for eco-nomic development and redevelopment reasons as much as for movement of people. The streetcarcould terminate at the proposed transit center orelsewhere in the redeveloped commercial area.

Land Use and Urban DesignA well-designed town center in Annandale shouldconcentrate people and activities to create a highlyactive and desirable place. A successful town cen-ter should integrate public spaces, community-serving uses, commerce, retail opportunities, andresidential uses. Its development should both re-spond to market demand and be phased to buildcumulative energy and appeal.

Ideally, the development of such a town centershould build on existing infrastructure, minimizedisplacement, and stay within reasonable marketabsorption realities. Successful redevelopmentwill require careful management and staging of infrastructure improvements to address concernsfrom the community and displaced business andproperty owners.

Public/private partnerships should be used earlyand to the maximum extent possible. In Annan-dale, the county should make a commitment toinvest in the two-way loop, the transit center, orsome other catalytic project and use this invest-ment to leverage private investment in new devel-opment in the town center. Effective public/privatepartnerships require a strong commitment from


each party to make its promised investment andmust tie private development to public infrastruc-ture investments. Neither public nor private in-vestment should be made without a firm commit-ment by the other party.

Fairfax County can catalyze revitalization in Annandale and attract private development inter-est by implementing any or all of the following in-vestments as stand-alone projects or as potentialjoint-development projects with the private sec-tor. Projects such as the following could create acatalyst for development:

• Transit center (50,000 square feet with struc-tured parking for 425 cars);

• Community center (45,000 square feet on two to three acres);

• Open space/public plaza, with landscaping andwater features (one acre); and

• Acquisition of property/right-of-way for two-way loop.

Additionally, the county should encourage othercommunity service providers, including the publiclibrary and Northern Virginia Community Col-lege, to locate their services in a central part ofthe commercial area conveniently accessible bypedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Concen-trating activities in the commercial area will beginto establish the community-center atmosphere de-sired by residents. The county should strategicallyacquire properties to encourage development inspecific areas of Annandale and use its existingproperties, such the 7200 Columbia Pike site,where possible.

The Annandale study area currently lacks a largeopen space for public gatherings and interaction.The Tollhouse Park at the intersection of LittleRiver Turnpike and Annandale Road provides apublic space but does not achieve the critical massof public activity desired by the community. Sev-eral studies, including the Hunter Study and thePedestrian Facilities Study, have referenced theneed and community desire for a public space.Town-center development could be encouragedaround Tollhouse Park to increase the park’s roleas a public activity center and create a connection

to future development on the south side of LittleRiver Turnpike. Initial redevelopment effortsshould focus on the north side of Little RiverTurnpike and expand to the south after success onthe north side and in response to market demand.

The community must establish specific land usegoals for Annandale through a comprehensive, col-laborative visioning process. Those goals shouldtake into account the types and levels of marketdemand previously described and respond toshifts in market demand over time. The panel dis-covered that stakeholders had many different vi-sions of what uses should be encouraged in An-nandale and how those uses should be distributedin the proposed town center. The market-potentialfindings detail what types and how much of theseuses Annandale will have the opportunity tochoose. In this report, the panel presents one op-tion of how land uses could be distributed (see il-lustration in following section) and demonstratescore principles that should guide future develop-ment efforts:

• Create an activity center for Annandale by es-tablishing a public space and transit center sur-rounded by diverse mixed uses within the two-way loop.

• Use landscape features and less-intense landuses on the outer edge of the two-way loop tobuffer adjacent residential neighborhoods fromthe commercial area.

• Create visible and safe pedestrian crossings overthe two-way loop system to link the commercialarea and adjacent residential neighborhoods.

• Cluster high-density mixed uses and public ac-tivity centers on the land bays within the newtwo-way loop system.

• Retain existing strip retail where appropriateto support uses that require convenient automo-bile access, particularly supermarkets. Overtime, private investment in remaining strip re-tail should be encouraged and incentivized toachieve a cohesive and attractive “end-to-end”urban environment.


Possible Town-Center LocationsThe panel believes that implementation of thetwo-way loop system is the critical step in encour-aging town-center development, regardless of thelocation of the town center. In addition to lessen-ing the impact of through traffic on the commer-cial area, the two-way loop system will open uplarge land bays for development in the heart ofthe commercial area. These land bays will be sur-rounded by low-traffic, pedestrian-friendly streetsand will be linked to adjacent neighborhoods withsafe pedestrian crossings. The panel recommendsthat the highest-density land uses be concentratedat the center of the two-way loop with less-inten-sive uses adjacent to the surrounding residentialneighborhoods.

Town-center development should be encouragedin an incremental and market-responsive manneraround catalytic projects the county and its pri-vate partners pursue. The combination of (a) pub-lic catalysts, such as the transit center/mixed-usedevelopment previously described; (b) private in-vestment and development projects that are re-

sponsive to current market conditions; and (c) landthat can be made available in the future to ac-commodate additional complementary public andprivate uses should guide the community in deter-mining the appropriate location for its town-centerdevelopment. The panel believes that the follow-ing three sites within the two-way loop systemand north of Little River Turnpike currently holdpotential for a town center:

• Bowling alley site: Located on Markham Roadnorth of Little River Turnpike, the bowlingalley site is currently the subject of a proposedmixed-use project by a private developer. Thesite is within the proposed two-way loop and ac-cessible to existing bus routes on Little RiverTurnpike. The site is adjacent to other largeparcels that could be redeveloped incrementallyto expand the town center.

• Kmart site: Located on John Marr Drive northof the Little River Turnpike, the Kmart site liesoutside, but adjacent to, the two-way loop. Pri-vate developers are currently interested in thissite. It is adjacent to large parcels that could be

495236

649

711

617

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive

McWhorter Place Little River Turnpike

mbia Pike

Rav

ensw

orth

Roa

d

Annandale Road

Back

lick

Roa

d

J

ohn

Mar

r Driv

e

Town Square

Community Center

Transit CenterFire StationExisting

Safeway

Post Office

ExistingGiant

Existing Strip Retail to Remain

Residential to Remain

Mixed-Use Residential/Retail

Mixed-Use Office/Residential

Parking

Pedestrian Areas

Key:

495236

649

711

617

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive


mbia Pike

Rav

ensw

orth

Roa

d

Annandale Road

Back

lick

Roa

d

J

ohn

Mar

r Driv

e

Town Square

Community Center


Safeway

Post Office

ExistingGiant





Parking

Pedestrian Areas

Key: 495

236

649

711

617

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive


mbia Pike

Rav

ensw

orth

Roa

d

Annandale Road

Back

lick

Roa

d

J

ohn

Mar

r Driv

e

Town Square

Community Center


Safeway

Post Office

ExistingGiant





Parking

Pedestrian Areas

Key: 495

236

649

711

617

Hum

mer

Roa

d

Herit

age

Driv

e

Annandale Road

Backlick Road

Columbia Pike

Gallows Road

Medford Drive


mbia Pike

Rav

ensw

orth

Roa

d

Annandale Road

Back

lick

Roa

d

J

ohn

Mar

r Driv

e

Town Square

Community Center


Safeway

Post Office

ExistingGiant





Parking

Pedestrian Areas

Key:

This concept depicts howa town center coulddevelop at the PoplarStreet site with the transitcenter and communitycenter.


developed incrementally to expand the towncenter.

• Poplar Street site: Located at the center of thetwo-way loop, the Poplar Street site is the op-tion that requires the most initial public invest-ment. The Poplar Street site would be anchoredon the north by the proposed transit center andon the south by an expanded Tollhouse Park. Acommunity center would also be built at Toll-house Park. The project would be led by publicdevelopment of the park and transit center.

The county should select among the sites based on the progress of private development proposals,consistency with the community’s vision as ex-plored in the community visioning process, andavailability of public investment for required in-frastructure. Whichever site the county picks forthe town center, it should encourage incrementaldevelopment around the initial project and createa public gathering space.


Strong market demand exists for commer-cial and residential development in Annan-dale, including a regional market for Ko-rean and other ethnic business. The panel

feels that viable development strategies will needto take into account the following:

• To date, attempts to spur development by in-creasing potential densities have not effecteddesired change and have inflated land values.

• Annandale’s strong ethnic business sectors con-tribute significantly to market demand and playa key role in future development.

• Projects proposed for the Kmart and bowlingalley sites demonstrate that developers areinterested in Annandale, even with the con-straints of small lot size, fragmented ownership,and high land prices.

• Land values are higher in Annandale than sur-rounding areas and discourage many develop-ers from investing.

• Korean and ethnic business owners highly valuethe security of owning a business location andthe long-term earning potential of that loca-tion, potentially even more than the sale valueof land.

OpportunitiesAnnandale offers many opportunities for futuredevelopment, including a vibrant ethnic retail andoffice environment that attracts customers fromthroughout the region, high rental rates that offerattractive returns to investors, and easy connec-tions to major roads that link Annandale to the re-gion. Established competition from regional retailcenters at Tysons Corner, Bailey’s Crossroads, andother areas means that Annandale is not likely todevelop a significant concentration of national re-tailers. Nevertheless, the small-scale and ethnic

retail uses currently present in Annandale pro-vide a strong foundation for redevelopment and amajor competitive advantage in attracting othersimilar retailers.

The panel recommends that the study area be re-developed as a mixed-use town center focused onserving local residents and diverse, regional eth-nic markets. A variety of ethnic businesses shouldbe encouraged to locate in Annandale to create aunique sense of place. The county should workwith retailers to provide a range of services thatmeet the needs of local residents as well as shop-pers from throughout the region.

Obstacles and Impediments toDevelopmentKey market forces that shifted retail services awayfrom Annandale historically remain today. Annan-dale’s small land parcels, traffic congestion, andproximity to established regional retail centersmake it an unlikely location for a new mainstreamregional retail center. In addition, the ethnic busi-ness owners and landowners who are among An-nandale’s greatest economic assets have not en-gaged significantly in the revitalization planningprocess. To make progress in land assembly andredevelopment, the county must engage these keyplayers in the process of creating a cohesive towncenter. Conversations with stakeholders makeclear that current cultural barriers are not insur-mountable. Failure to create a working relation-ship among all ethnic groups in Annandale willcontinue to hamper redevelopment.

High local land prices and rental rates also hinderland assembly and redevelopment. The panellearned anecdotally that land prices stand at $80to $100 per square foot and retail rents at $35 to$40 per square foot per year. Reported land priceshave increased from approximately $25 per

Development Strategies


square foot to current prices over the last fouryears. According to interviewees, commer-cial land in Bailey’s Crossroads sells for $50 persquare foot.

Land prices are a function of end use. A retailstore in a given location will likely garner a cer-tain sales volume and profit margin. Those factorsdetermine, in part, how much rent a property cangenerate. The rent and anticipated return to theproperty owner determine the property value.The same basic premise applies to all types of landuses. A developer determines whether a propertycan be purchased at a given cost based on the con-struction cost for the development and the ex-pected rents.

The panel struggled to rationalize the marketforces affecting land values in Annandale. Retaillease rates for deteriorated property in Annan-dale are the same rates as for Class A office spacein competitive areas. Following the cited valuationprinciple in reverse would suggest storeownersare doing approximately twice the sales volume inAnnandale than at a location where land valuesare half the price.

The panel concluded that ethnic property ownersmay value land on the basis of factors other thanthose in a prototype development model. Thepanel understands that ethnic retailers may be in-clined to hold onto property for its long-term earn-ing potential more than for its current or futureland value, thus limiting the availability of landand driving up prices for other parcels. Often, ex-tended families rely on the opportunity to work infamily businesses. This model can also contributeto low turnover in property ownership, anotherconstraint on land supply, and must be consideredwhen evaluating redevelopment issues such as re-location and displacement of existing uses.

Another likely force driving higher land valuesis speculation based on an overactive real estatemarket. In many areas of the country, real estatespeculation over the last four years has causedland prices to rise. In Annandale, widespreaddistribution of increased planned developmentpotentials may have further fueled speculative

investment and accelerated land values beyondmarket demand.

Regardless of what is ultimately developed—whether in a town-center setting or on a parcel-by-parcel basis—the market will determine ap-propriate densities. Simply establishing higherdensity allowances will not create the additionalmarket demand to justify denser development.To the extent that market demand exists, as thepanel has noted, FAR allowances should be ad-justed in a manner that balances (a) desired den-sity, (b) market demand, and (c) market-levelrents. Basing FAR allowances on those factorswill help establish market-responsive land prices.

Development ProgramThe panel recommends development of Annan-dale as a regional international market. Consid-ering the land cost issues previously describedand the panel’s findings regarding expected de-mand, the panel believes that FARs between 1.5 and 2.5 are appropriate for catalytic andtown-center-style mixed-use development in thestudy area. Continually increasing constructioncosts will likely cause future development to bewood-frame construction, thus capping maximumconstruction heights at four to six stories. The

Successful town centerscombine and overlay avariety of programmedand informal uses.

TransitCenter

Level 2Office

Condominiums

Level 3 and 4Condominiums

Gallery andAntiquesLevel 2

Office

Retail andCommercial

Services FlowerMarket

JewelerRealtor

Bank

BoutiqueHotel Level 3

ApartmentsDressShop

5Restaurants/

PubsCivic

Theater

Sweet/Chocolate/

Coffee ShopIce

CreamShop

Town Plaza

Street-Level Retailand Street Theater


Predevelopment Phase

m Initiate regulatory changes: regulate signs, reevalu-ate the planned development potentials currently inplace, and explore transfer of development rightsand other implementation tools.

m Create a detailed but general master plan that canguide development of the town center based on thecommunity-visioning process, the panel’s estimates ofmarket demand, and viable development proposals.

m Initiate a feasibility study for Columbia Pike circula-tion changes.

m Initiate feasibility studies for streetcar and multi-modal transit center.

m Begin an ongoing communications outreach pro-gram with town-center businesses and all ethniccommunities and businesses.

m Work with stakeholders to refine the developmentprogram and sources of funding for a mixed-useeducation, social services, community, and recre-ation center as a town-center catalyst.

m Work with stakeholders to design a public plazaassociated with the mixed-use community center.

m Explore joint development agreements with othercounty agencies.

m Explore right-of-way improvements and strate-gies for funding parking to support Phase I public developments.

m Initiate town-center development standards.

m Initiate public financing mechanisms.

PHASE I: Development Program

m Develop a central public plaza gathering space of 1 to 1.5 acres with associated retail and passiverecreation elements.

m Develop a 35,000-square-foot community centerwith an additional 10,000 square feet of small-floor-plate retail to house displaced retail businesses.

PHASE I: Infrastructure Improvements

m Implement ongoing regulatory changes, such assignage improvements, and reevaluate planneddevelopment potentials.

m Initiate Phase II implementation studies to reconfig-ure circulation and reinforce public open-spaceconnections to the central public plaza.

m Vacate Columbia Pike connection and initiate itsredesign as a pedestrian right-of-way between thetransit center and the town center.

PHASE I: Implementation

m Create public/private partnership to assemble devel-opment lots and build the community center.

m Select or acquire a site for the future transit center.

m Build the town center’s “main street.”

PHASE II: Development Program

m Develop the transit center (3-acre site) with 50,000square feet of programmed development includingstructured parking for 425 cars.

m Develop 50,000 square feet of ground-floor retail.

m Develop 300 high-density residential units with amarket-sensitive mix of rental and for-sale units.

m Develop 120,000 square feet of office.

PHASE II: Infrastructure Improvements

m Develop access improvements to transit center.

m Initiate circulation improvements for town-centerarea north of Little River Turnpike.

PHASE II: Implementation

m Initiate Phase III site development process andagreements.

m Extend open-space connections.

PHASE III: Development Program

m Develop 100,000 square feet of ground-floor retail.

m Develop 450 high-density residential units with amarket-sensitive mix of rental and for-sale units.

m Develop 120,000 square feet of office.

m Develop a 50- to 75-room hotel in the town center.

PHASE III: Infrastructure Improvements

m Complete circulation improvements for town-centerarea north of Little River Turnpike.

PHASE III: Implementation

m Initiate final site development process, agreements,and design.

m Complete town-center “main street.”

Proposed Development Process


suggested density and building height will helpenclose streets and public spaces, create a senseof place, and establish a pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment.

This recommendation should not be read as an en-dorsement of the past practice of FAR increases.Entitlements, including increased densities throughhigher maximum allowable FARs, and other in-centives should target key project areas to sup-port incremental development that is responsiveto market demand and integrated with publicproject components, such as the suggested transitcenter. Additionally, where developers exhibit in-terest in market-supported, larger-scale develop-ment, the county should consider increasing densi-ties not only on the proposed project sites but alsoon adjacent sites. This leveraging of actual activ-ity and investment will help create critical massand momentum.

Flexibility and responsiveness to market demandwill be vital in implementing any developmentprogram. The panel understands that some par-cels have already been assembled for develop-ment. To the extent that market forces offerdevelopment opportunities, the county shouldencourage the development and seek to make itcomply with the design vision established by thecommunity. Based on market conditions, develop-ment in one part of the project area may delay de-velopment in other project areas. Because criticalmass is essential in the early stages of the rede-velopment of the study area, maximum effortsshould be made to cluster development projectsaround public investments such as the publicspace and the transit center.

The recommended town-center development pro-gram is based on a ten-year projection of marketdemands and features needed to encourage pedes-trian town-center development. The program em-braces and leverages the recommended transitimprovements, the two-way loop, and the result-ing land bays that will create access and assem-blies for development. The program does not ac-count for displacement of any existing retail space,which should be replaced as appropriate and in-

corporated into new buildings that contribute tothe town-center environment.

Recognizing the work required to engage stake-holders and invest public resources in infrastruc-ture enhancement, the panel encourages thecounty to work toward the development of theprogram on an incremental basis. The develop-ment program will work best with strong civicand political support, but it can be scaled to ac-commodate any development plan all stakeholdersagree upon.

PhasingBased on market conditions, the panel stronglyrecommends a development program planned intwo-year segments. The proposed developmentprocess (see sidebar) describes the action steps ineach two-year phase, assuming selection of thePoplar Street town-center site with the transitcenter, community center, and public plaza as cat-alytic projects. A similar phasing process wouldbe applicable to any town-center location selectedby the community.

The proposed development process demonstrateshow a town center can be developed in a phased,deliberate manner. Outcomes will depend on mar-ket demand, community and political will to focus

Figure 3Recommended Development Program During the First Decade of Development

Land Use Square Feet

Retail 279,304

Office 682,396

Hotel 71,554

Residential: Condominium (600 units) 754,000

Residential: Rental (850 units) 765,000

Industrial/Flex 109,322

Total 2,661,575


development and public investment on the se-lected location, and commitment to make thenecessary public investments to complement theprivate investment. These action items could berearranged in response to market conditions and a carefully crafted implementation process. In allcases, the county should pursue the developmentof a town center in Annandale as a long-term, con-sistent, incremental process.

Left to right, top to bot-tom: Incremental, oppor-tunistic development canstart with small parcelsand grow in response tomarket demand, asshown in this sequence ofillustrations.

Public/Green Space

Buildings

Key:

Public/Green Space

Buildings

Key: Public/Green Space

Buildings

Key:


Over the past decade, many attempts havebeen made to develop and implement a vi-sion for a revitalized Annandale. To date,they have not been successful for a variety

of reasons:

• Quality-of-life issues have hurt residential areasand reduced development interest.

• Government structure has been cumbersomeand confusing for potential developers.

• Landownership is fractional.

• The multiethnic character of the area’s popula-tion makes communication difficult.

• Proximity to Washington, while an asset, alsoinvites through traffic.

Opportunities exist, however, that planners anddevelopers have not completely seized:

• Ethnic groups seem willing to collaborate withother stakeholders and other ethnic groups.

• Capital is available for the right developmentproject.

• Annandale’s multiethnic character presents op-portunities as well as challenges.

Efforts to date seem to have focused on increasingplanned density as a way of sparking private in-vestment. Even with density increases, however,the desired walkable town center has not devel-oped. The panel believes that a new vision, devel-oped through an inclusive, comprehensive commu-nity process, will yield a plan that both theresidential and development communities can em-brace, vastly improving its chances for success.Zoning and financing should be treated as tools toimplement a specific vision that the entire Annan-dale community develops and owns.

Establish a Unified VisionDespite the numerous planning efforts that havebeen executed over the past decade, the panelcould not discern a clearly articulated vision forthe study area that can be embraced and sup-ported by the community. Although FairfaxCounty has had success in large greenfield proj-ects like Reston Town Center, redevelopment inAnnandale is far more complex and fine-grained.Interviewees used many single adjectives but didnot express a comprehensive picture for the fu-ture. An artist attempting to illustrate the visionwould be forced to use a collage rather than a sin-gle image. The land uses in the study area are dis-parate, unconnected, and dated. Many of the usesare incoherent because of the lack of clear, expres-sive signage.

The suggested town-center-focused developmentprocess is but one manifestation of a vision for thefuture of Annandale. However, it is the panel’s vi-sion. Redevelopment within the study area mustbe a product of a vision created and embraced bythe community, whether that product reflects thepanel’s vision or an alternative. Attempts to sparkredevelopment by changing the maximum devel-opment potential for various sites must not beconfused with the essential step of defining andarticulating a community vision. Incentivizing ac-tivity may be important, but it is a tool, not an endin itself. The seemingly arbitrary benchmark in-centives for land assembly contained in the Com-prehensive Plan have stymied redevelopment bylandowners who already own parcels that arelarge by Annandale standards.

A clear vision with focus areas and correspondingincentives needs to be developed, articulated, andmarketed through a public process. The entirecommunity needs to be marching in the sameband, which should have a single “drum major.”

Implementation

The structure of the land development review andapproval process is too complex and fragmentedfor all but the heartiest and most-experienced de-veloper. Therefore, the panel believes that an “im-plementation czar” should be empowered to guidedevelopers through the redevelopment process.Each of the relevant offices should assign a pointperson to assist the czar. Together they should beempowered to interpret the community-developeddesign standards and to work with the variouscommunity boards and elected officials to ensurethat developers entering the process in good faithare rewarded with prompt approvals. Integrated,ongoing communication is essential on all levels.

The panel believes that the county executive shouldappoint the czar with input from the Mason andBraddock district supervisors. The czar’s firstassignment should be to reexamine the land de-velopment process to ensure that it responds topublic and private needs. This position requires a specific set of interpersonal and business skillsand should not be a simple bureaucratic appoint-ment. Furthermore, continuity and consistencyare of critical importance to the developmentcommunity.

Improve the Quality of LifeQuality-of-life issues in neighborhoods surround-ing Annandale’s central spine and core commercialareas affect development interest in Annandale.

The panel heard the community express concernabout quality-of-life issues in the residential areasabutting the core. The panel believes that theseissues must be addressed to encourage redevel-opment and to stabilize the residential neighbor-hoods. The negative quality-of-life issues identi-fied include housing overcrowding, overparking,public nuisance behavior, gangs, litter, and loiter-ing. The panel believes that the new multidiscipli-nary strike force team focused on code violations,properly empowered and financially supported, is a good mechanism to address these issues.

The county may need to change ordinances to elim-inate on-street parking for commercial vehicles orto require resident permits for on-street parking.Land development ordinances should limit theamount of visible impervious ground cover forsingle-family homes and require that all vehiclesbe parked on a paved area. The preponderance ofcommercial vehicles parked on residential streetsis more than a visual issue. It is a matter of publicsafety challenging effective emergency response.Clearly, where overcrowding in residential areashas occurred, it has increased tensions withinneighborhoods, compromising the community’sability to collaborate on visioning and to achieveredevelopment objectives.

An active police presence would also be helpful.The panel heard that the police bicycle patrol hasbeen suspended because of budget constraints.The day-to-day presence of police in residentialneighborhoods best addresses loitering, gangs,and other nuisance behaviors. The panel believesthat investment in community policing, increasedenforcement, and involvement of appropriate so-cial service agencies will more than pay for itselfin increased development and property values.

The presence of day laborers standing on publicstreets and private property as they wait for workcreates an image that is not compatible with theinvestment necessary for revitalization to occur.The best way to address this issue is to increasejob opportunities. An appropriate location for aday-laborer center where laborers could find bothwork and social services, as necessary, should beidentified and considered.


Bilingual signage createsa welcoming face for allAnnandale shoppers.


The enforcement of these issues requires the high-est level of authority. As noted, ordinances willneed to be changed and changes in state law mayeven be required. Therefore, a single person re-porting directly to the county executive needs tolead the effort. This person must have the full co-operation of the county supervisors. The plan andits execution must start in a targeted area withinthe study area and be quickly replicable in otherareas. The enforcement community must maintainvigilance to avoid regression.

Create Cultural ConnectionsThe panel heard the multiethnic character of An-nandale described as both a positive and a nega-tive factor. The Korean business community andthe day laborers are the most visible ethnic popu-lations. Other substantial ethnic populations arepresent in Annandale, including Vietnamese, Mid-dle Eastern, African, and Latino communities.The challenge is to provide opportunities for theseemingly disparate groups to come together asone community.

One low-cost strategy is to establish a program tochange business signs by making them more at-tractive and multilingual. Many complained thatbusiness signs were not in English, which wasperceived as being unwelcoming to other ethnicgroups. English-language signs could create thesame perception. A small grant program and amultilingual staff effort could result in increasedbusiness for everyone. Along the same lines, thepanel recommends that the county translate thisreport and other county documents into Korean,Spanish, and other languages, as appropriate, andpost them on the County website to encouragebroad community input.

Establish and Adhere to a PublicProcessThe public process involved in this type of rede-velopment effort is almost as important as theplan itself. For this process to be successful, itmust contain certain critical elements. First, theprocess must be transparent. All stakeholdersneed to be informed about the process andstrongly encouraged to participate in it. For the

vision to be successful, the entire community mustdefine and embrace it. To harness that level ofcommitment and energy, everyone needs to feelthat their voice is heard and their opinion consid-ered. Although expecting that the final planadopted will include everything that everyonemight want is unreasonable, all stakeholders canreasonably expect that they will be given the op-portunity to explore the various options and haveinput on the merits of those options.

Clearly, past efforts to engage all members of thecommunity were less successful than hoped. Wideparticipation in the process and a commitment toachieve widespread engagement are essential;past failures or disappointments in communicationand engagement efforts should not be an excuse tostop trying.

Encouraging participation by younger members ofthese constituency groups, who are presumablymore multilingual, could minimize language barri-ers, as could using alternative-language newspa-pers, radio, and television to communicate infor-mation. Centers of worship, and their leaders, canplay a key role in encouraging and facilitating en-gagement as well as surmounting communicationbarriers and feelings of mistrust. Several multi-ethnic and interfaith groups have demonstratedan intention to become involved and interact withthe larger community. Existing multiethnic com-munity organizations, such as Good Spoon and

Leadership, planning,strong policies, andenforcement will lead tosuccessful redevelopmentin Annandale.

ThoroughPlanning

ConsistentControl

Leadership

EffectiveEnforcement

QualityDevelopment


the community. It is not a one-time or short-termprocess.

Invest in the FutureAs is true in many redevelopment areas and ef-forts, the long-term realization of the dream de-veloped by and for Annandale will require part-nerships between the public and private sectors inmany forms. The county and the community havealready identified incentives to developers, suchas increased allowable densities. In the future,however, such incentives should be tied to proj-ects that reflect market demand and support thecommunity’s vision for development, along withspecific community objectives for particular sitesand desired uses. Where appropriate, other toolsmust be identified and used.

At some level, the county will want to anticipatethe need for the creation of tax increment financ-ing (TIF) districts or community facility districts.Being proactive in analyzing the amount of moneyavailable through these instruments in advance ofany specific requests will bolster the county’s andthe community’s efforts to “sell” the vision to thedevelopers they wish to attract. In fact, to the ex-tent possible, the county should put in place nowthe framework for these vehicles or begin theprocess for implementation immediately.

In Annandale, a TIF district could be used tofinance new infrastructure, including the two-way loop, the transit center, or other catalyticprojects. Of course, this tool as not a completepanacea. Reasonable and prudent assumptionsunderlying the necessary financial modeling todetermine the size of this pool of potential fundingare essential in order to not overpromise and un-derdeliver, leading to the need for renegotiationand disappointment.

Community leaders must recognize that imple-mentation involves the completion of significantpublic improvements. The panel suggests that thecounty identify funds that might be available toimplement the panel’s recommendations. One ex-ample could be the establishment of a land bank to purchase and hold land in Annandale for futurepublic or private uses. The panel recommends thatland-banking efforts target key site acquisitions

Kaleidoscope, should be capitalized upon as re-sources to engage the broader community.

The panel suggests hiring a professional facilitator(a consultant, not a planner or government official)to assist the community in designing, implement-ing, and managing the visioning and engagementprocess. Such a person should have demonstratedability to facilitate clear communication and coop-eration among those with differing backgrounds,interests, needs, and even languages. Hiringsomeone who has this specific skill set is prudentand in line with the goal of using the appropriateresources to achieve a successful outcome.

A second area that may require attention is theoverall approval process. As the process existstoday, approval for any particular project can takeanywhere from six months to three years, and theprocess itself contains excessive uncertainty. If ef-forts to attract developers and development toAnnandale are to be successful, a greater level ofcertainty must be available.

The panel was unable to determine specific pinch-points in the process. Nevertheless, the facts thatthe project approval time frame varies widely andthat many view the approval process as an im-pediment should be sufficient reason to examineclosely the existing processes and ensure thatthey provide a consistent and predictable path toproject approval and implementation. Tools suchas specific development regulations and designguidelines help provide a necessary level of cer-tainty. After the community vision is adopted, au-thorities can choose from many existing guidelinemodels to find one that best facilitates executionof that vision.

The vision and implementation plan must be ar-ticulated in a results-oriented manner with clear,measurable milestones and clearly defined deliv-erables. The plan must include near-term andlonger-term goals. The county should promoteachievement of near-term milestones to buildenthusiasm and momentum. Because the rede-velopment process will unfold over many years,sustained political will and continuous communityengagement by all stakeholders will be essentialto achieve the objectives and to ensure the suc-cessful implementation of the vision adopted by


that can accommodate the town center and cat-alytic public projects suggested by the panel. An-other example would be using the county’s powerto allocate existing revenue streams for the acqui-sition of parks and green space that might be in-corporated into Annandale’s ultimate plan.

In all likelihood, these particular revenue sourceswill not be sufficient for full plan implementation.Additional sources of funding for infrastructurewill need to be recognized. Considering the extentof redevelopment activities recommended by thepanel, as much as $500 million to $600 million inadditional value might be created within the studyzone. After allowing for the replacement of exist-ing values, with a tax rate of $.89 per $1,000 invalue, a 50 percent tax rebate could support $60million to $70 million in bonding capacity, based onthe ten-year numbers in the “Market Potential”section of this report.

In addition to the public sources mentioned, pri-vate institutional sources of equity and debt fundsalso appear to be available for projects that arewell conceived and based on supportable assump-tions. The panel learned that national and regionallenders such as Wachovia, Bank of America, andING are all active in the county.

Engage the Business CommunityThe panel heard that high land costs have madeseveral projects appear economically infeasible.One method of mitigating this situation would bethe formation of partnerships between currentlandowners and developers. In this scenario, thecurrent owner could contribute land in exchangefor an ownership interest in the completed prop-erty. This “ownership interest” might take theform of the landowner owning a unit within thecompleted structure in which his or her businesswould continue to operate.

The local community must recognize and antici-pate the need for some kind of business relocationassistance. Mitigating efforts should be consid-ered through the approval process and the adop-tion of the development strategy. The total effectof these relocations will lessen as the redevel-opment process moves forward. Additionally,

when providing relocation assistance, considera-tion must be given to the economic viability ofbusinesses subject to displacement. Because ofcurrent underuse of sites, a direct one-to-onerelationship does not exist between new spacecreated and space being eliminated. Nevertheless,plans must be adopted to address this need overtime.

Adopt an Incremental ApproachRecognizing that market forces ebb and flow overtime and further recognizing the challenges Fair-fax County may have in allocating financial re-sources at a county level, the panel emphasizesthat the revitalization strategies and steps it hasarticulated are all scalable. In other words, al-though a community vision is the starting pointand catalytic public and private projects are es-sential, the catalytic projects need not all be builtat once. They must flow from the vision and bebuilt in response to market demand. Assumingthat all of the elements can come together and bebuilt all at once is both unrealistic and incorrect.Committing to the vision and facilitating publicand private projects over time that are consistentwith that vision are what will result in the desiredrevitalization.

Pursue Catalytic ProjectsAlong with executing the recommended transitand circulation improvements, the panel encour-ages the county to take a leadership role in thetown-center development by pursuing key cat-alytic projects. Any or all of these projects willdemonstrate public commitment to redevelop-ment efforts and provide a center for future incre-mental development. Key catalytic projects in-clude the following:

• Transit center with mixed-use retail and com-munity services: The transit center could beconstructed on the publicly owned site currentlyused for the daycare center. The daycare centercould be relocated onto the upper floors of thetransit center to create a mixed-use facility.

• Community center with ground-floor retail:This facility could provide a place to centralize


community services in the town center that hasconvenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.

• Public plaza, with landscaping and water fea-tures: This project could be conceived as an ex-pansion of the existing Tollhouse Park and couldbe adjacent to the community center to createthe basis for incremental development of thetown center.

• Acquisition and implementation of the two-wayloop system.


Annandale, like all communities, is not like“somewhere else.” Redevelopment effortsshould build on the particular character ofAnnandale’s diverse demographics and

create a special place in the region. Leaders mustwork to overcome language and cultural barriersto engage fully all members of the community invisioning and realizing the future.

The panel believes thatpotential users of land andbuilt space in Annandaleexist who are not heretoday, but who could be.Most important, Annan-dale has a strong and grow-ing business communitywith an established re-gional presence. Thesebusinesses, and their cus-tomers, must play a keyrole in Annandale’s future.The core challenge the county must address is howto capture those users and resolve the issues thatchallenge their long-term success, including in-frastructure, land pricing and assembly, and com-munity process and engagement.

The panel believes that a systematic redevel-opment program founded on solid goals, guidedby public engagement, and realized throughpublic and private investments will achieve thecreation of a town center in Annandale. Thepanel has suggested concrete projects to cat-alyze revitalization, including roadway improve-ments, a community center, expanded transitservice and a transit center, and a diverse setof public and private uses that can form thenucleus of an Annandale town center, as well as other private development initiatives evi-

dencing confidence in the Annandale market.These projects should be pursued to demon-strate public commitment to creating a differentkind of Annandale. The panel has also offeredfeasible strategies to increase community en-gagement, finance public improvements, andwork with local business and property owners of diverse cultural backgrounds.

Now, the Annandale com-munity must grab the op-portunity and run with it.“Running with it” meanscoming together to create a unified vision for Annan-dale; “no” and “not inter-ested in participating” mustbecome unacceptable re-sponses. Annandale mustquickly and definitively as-sess the choices that it has;make decisions and press

into action the resources and processes necessaryto alter the physical environment; court and sup-port landowners and investors already willing toinvest in Annandale’s future; and make a public/private catalytic investment in a unique town-center component to start the process, engage,and ultimately inspire the community.

Finally, success will come only with robust politi-cal will and a commitment to use all available re-sources to make the vision and plans more thanjust reports on shelves. The panel is confidentthat its recommendations can be realized andthat the Annandale community is very capable ofagreeing upon a plan of action and executing it.The time to start is now.

Conclusion


Alex J. RosePanel ChairEl Segundo, California

Rose serves as vice president, development, forContinental Development Corporation in El Se-gundo, California. He is responsible for managingall acquisition, development, and construction ac-tivities for the suburban office/R&D park devel-oper, whose holdings cover 4 million square feet inSouthern California’s Los Angeles County SouthBay market and in the city of San Francisco. Roseoversees acquisitions and new project development;planning and execution of all tenant improvement,core and shell renovation, and new constructionwork; major facilities maintenance and upgrades;project budgeting and cost controls; internal proj-ect management; and architect, engineer, and con-tractor management.

Over the past 11 years, Rose has overseen the development and acquisition of nearly 1 millionsquare feet of Class A office and medical space, as well as the physical transformation of over 1million square feet of single-tenant R&D facilitiesinto multitenant office space, restaurants, retail,and entertainment uses. Rose’s current projectsinclude the repositioning and conversion of a400,000-square-foot office park to medical uses, redevelopment of a 108-acre chemical plant siteinto 900,000 square feet of promotional and life-style retail, redevelopment of obsolete retail prop-erty into medium-density residential-over-retailmixed use, and new development acquisitions inexcess of $150 million. Prior to assuming the de-velopment and construction responsibilities, Roseserved as director of property management. Healso has extensive experience in title insurance andis a licensed California attorney, with experience ingeneral civil and bankruptcy litigation practices.

Rose received his MBA from the University ofSouthern California (USC), his JD from South-

western University School of Law, and his BA inpolitical science from University of California, LosAngeles (UCLA). He is a trustee of the UrbanLand Institute, a member of the District CouncilCommittee, Small Scale Development Council,and Los Angeles District Council Executive Com-mittee. He is a past chair of ULI’s Commercialand Retail Development Council and vice chair ofULI’s National Program Committee. Rose haschaired and served on numerous national ULI Ad-visory Service Panel assignments focusing ondowntown and transit-corridor redevelopmentand revitalization and office development issuesand has participated in several ULI office sectorworkshops.

Rose has been a member of numerous other com-munity, industry, legal, and UCLA- and USC-affil-iated groups. These include the Los Angeles Con-servancy, El Segundo Employer’s Association (abusiness-community-based organization focusingon community infrastructure improvements),Leadership Manhattan Beach, and New SchoolsBetter Neighborhoods (a private and public citi-zens advisory board that is researching and devel-oping standards and methodologies for the devel-opment of over 100 new community-asset publicschools in the Los Angeles metropolitan area).

Donald R. BauerIrvine, California

Bauer is owner and founder of Bauer Planning &Environmental Services. With more than 28 yearsof experience in urban and regional planning, hehas expertise in strategic planning, economics,and design for new communities and large-scaledevelopment programs. His emphasis on the qual-ity of life, environmental integrity, and long-termeconomic value and return of new developmentshas resulted in a number of national and interna-tional projects.

About the Panel


Bauer’s experience includes residential villagesand commercial complexes for the Irvine Com-pany; large mixed-use projects in Baltimore,Washington, D.C., Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Dal-las, Orlando, and Denver; new towns such as TheWoodlands, Texas; and resort communities includ-ing Ventana Canyon in Tucson and the Cojo-Jalama Ranch in Santa Barbara. His internationalwork includes projects in Indonesia; the summernational capital of Saudi Arabia; the new nationalcapital of Nigeria; Colombia; China; Kao Shung,Taiwan; and the Bahamas.

Bauer is a member of the American PlanningAssociation. Between 1992 and 1996, he was ULIDistrict Council coordinator for Orange County,California. Bauer studied sculpture and architec-ture at the University of Oregon and participatedin an exchange program at the University ofFlorence, Italy. He is a frequent university guestlecturer.

Peter Elzi, Jr.Aurora, Colorado

Elzi has been with THK Associates, Inc., since1981. During that time, he has assisted clientswith development decisions concerning all typesof land uses, including golf course, residential, of-fice, industrial, hotel/motel, and related opportuni-ties. Elzi has completed over 75 golf course feasi-bility and cash flow studies during his career. Overthe last 20 years, he has examined projects inmore than 50 major metropolitan areas around thenation. He is especially adept at examining mar-ket strategies for various types of properties.

His recent projects include analysis of golf courseand residential potentials; lot pricing strategiesfor a luxury development on the Big Island ofHawaii; examination of moderate-priced housingon a 200-acre site in Bayamón, Puerto Rico; andanalysis of office and industrial potentials for a400-acre business and industrial park along theemerging E-470 corridor in southeast Denver.Within the last year, Elzi has been retained as anexpert to assess damages to a 1,800-acre site inBrighton, Colorado, resulting from a condemna-tion; the damages related to a downzoning in Boul-der County, Colorado; and lost opportunity from

discriminatory zoning related to manufacturedhousing in Pueblo County, Colorado.

Before joining THK, Elzi was involved in the realestate appraisal and brokerage fields. He is cur-rently a state certified appraiser (Colorado), whichis a benefit to many clients. Elzi was recentlyelected to a four-year term on the board of direc-tors for the East Cherry Creek Valley Water andSanitation District and appointed to the ParkView Metropolitan District.

Elzi received his BS in business administration,majoring in real estate and construction manage-ment, from the University of Denver, Colorado, in 1977.

Arun JainPortland, Oregon

Jain joined the city of Portland as its first chiefurban designer in January 2003. In this role, headvises Portland’s mayor and the city (city coun-cil, public agencies, private developers, designers,and citizens) on issues surrounding the physicalquality of Portland. A key aspect of his work isto integrate public investment in infrastructureand private investment in buildings to createwonderful places. A frequent member of severalmayoral task forces and advisory committees,Jain’s team instigates, creates, and directs visions,ideas, and solutions to ensure good urban designand an appealing, sustainable public environmentin Portland.

Jain has over 25 years of international experienceas an urban designer in practice and academia. Heholds two master’s degrees from the University ofPennsylvania’s Urban Design Program and taughtfor more than ten years at the University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley. He remains an invited teacher,critic, and speaker by universities, public agen-cies, and development groups around the world.

Also a mentor on development issues in severalinternational forums, Jain was recently electedthe U.S. representative to the International Fed-eration of Housing and Planning’s board. He isalso on the Innovation and Editorial Boards of aEuropean Union–funded research program on


more diverse developments—mixed use, clustereddensity, infill, and brownfield.

Jordan Village is his most interesting and chal-lenging project to date. It is the redevelopment of a 263-acre former Superfund site in Midvale,Utah. At completion, the project will include 2,500residential units and approximately 500,000 squarefeet of office, flex industrial, and retail uses. JordanVillage is one of the most sensitive and complexredevelopment projects in the country and hasbeen designated by the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) as one of ten national demonstra-tion projects for its “Ready for Reuse” initiative.

Magelsen started his real estate career in Kenne-wick, Washington. While there, he cofounded andoperated Desert Crest Development, where he en-titled, developed, and built several projects. Thelong entitlement time frames in Washington pre-pared him to have the patience later to face more-challenging projects in other areas of the country.While in Washington, he also held a real estate li-cense and contractor’s license, and served as thevice chair of Kennewick’s Board of Adjustments.

In 1996, Magelsen relocated to Utah where he isan active member of Urban Land Institute’s Utahchapter. He serves as a member of the ExecutiveCommittee, and his company is a Founding Spon-sor of the Utah chapter. He is also a member ofULI’s National Small Scale Development Council.Magelsen is a member of the International Con-ference of Shopping Centers and the Congress forNew Urbanism.

Recognized as an industry leader in brownfieldand Superfund revitalization, Magelsen has beeninvited to speak and give presentations for ULI,Envision Utah, EPA, and the Utah leagues ofcities and towns. He has also served on a steeringcommittee for Envision Utah’s Brownfield Devel-opment toolbox, which he assisted in authoring.Additionally, he has coauthored a redevelopmentmodel with Envision Utah, which is being used tohelp cities understand and analyze the relation-ship between their regulatory environment andredevelopment potential.

urban development challenges in 18 countries.Professionally and philosophically, Jain contin-ues to search for better balances between the en-vironmental, economic, and ethical dimensions of sustainability.

Donna LewisTrenton, New Jersey

Lewis is the planning director for Mercer County,New Jersey’s capital county. She has served Mer-cer County for 16 years. The Planning Division isresponsible for growth management and redevel-opment, open space and farmland preservation,and transportation planning. Mercer County is aleader in applying cutting-edge transportationconcepts, most notably through the creation of aTransportation Development District and throughdevelopment of an Access Management Plan. Ithas a strong redevelopment effort focused on boththe city of Trenton and the first-generation suburbs.

Lewis serves on the Transportation ResearchBoard Access Management Committee, the Cen-tral Jersey Transportation Forum Steering Com-mittee, and the Delaware Valley Regional Plan-ning Commission. She holds bachelor’s degrees inpolitical science and English from the College ofNew Jersey and a Master of City and RegionalPlanning from Rutgers University.

She is a New Jersey–licensed Professional Plan-ner and a member of the American Institute ofCertified Planners. She is an adjunct professor at the College of New Jersey.

Benjamin R. MagelsenSalt Lake City, Utah

Magelsen is founder and president of Createrra,Inc., a Utah-based land development companywith holdings in Arizona, Washington, and Utah.Createrra specializes in the acquisition of under-used property and profitably returns it to its high-est and best use.

Magelsen has over 16 years of development expe-rience. Throughout his career, his work has gradu-ated from traditional greenfield development to


with the Urban Plan, taking an urban planningcurriculum into Los Angeles high schools. She hasalso served in various positions on the board ofCREW-Los Angeles.

Her civic involvements include having served onthe board of the Echo Park/Silver Lake Peoples’Child Care Center and as an officer of severalSouth Pasadena Girl Scout Troops. She has workedwith Operation Hope, tutoring in Los AngelesUnified School District middle schools. As a breastcancer survivor, one of her other passions is fund-raising for this cause, frequently participating inthe Avon Breast Cancer Walk as well as the an-nual Relay for Life.

Jack WierzenskiDallas, Texas

Wierzenski has worked for Dallas Area RapidTransit (DART) since 1991. He is responsible fordeveloping and implementing strategies to cap-ture the economic development opportunities andbenefits around DART’s transit system. He servesas DART’s primary point of contact to the devel-opment community and its 13 member cities to fa-cilitate and implement transit-supportive develop-ment initiatives.

Before coming to DART, Wierzenski served aschief of transportation planning in Prince WilliamCounty, Virginia, and worked for the cities ofAustin and Galveston, Texas. He received hismaster’s degree in urban and regional planningfrom Texas A&M University in 1983 and a BA ingeography and political science from the Univer-sity of Minnesota in 1981. Wierzenski has servedon the National Railvolution Conference SteeringCommittee since 1997. He is a member of UrbanLand Institute and has participated in several Ad-visory Services Panels, as well as the creation ofthe North Texas District Council.

Maysa SabahDubai, United Arab Emirates

Sabah is a consultant for ULI’s Middle East Cen-ter in the United Arab Emirates, where she ishelping promote and implement the ULI mission.Sabah has substantial international experience.She has worked in New York as an affordablehousing consultant for the Phipps Houses Group;in Abu Dhabi as a researcher for the Arab Mone-tary Fund; in Boston as an analyst for Mass Hous-ing and as a project manager for the FenwayCommunity Development Corporation; and inBeirut, Lebanon, as an architect for Dar Al Han-dassah (Shair & Partners).

She holds an MPhil in Real Estate Finance fromthe University of Cambridge, a Master in CityPlanning degree from the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, and a Bachelor of Architecturefrom the American University of Beirut.

Denise K. SchulzGlendale, California

Schulz has been involved in the financing of realestate development for almost 30 years. She ispresently the senior vice president/division headfor the Los Angeles region of LaSalle Bank’sCommercial Real Estate Lending Division. Priorto joining LaSalle, she worked for Bank of Amer-ica, where she ran the Los Angeles region of theHome Builder Division and the Los Angeles RealEstate Specialty Unit. Before her employment atBank of America, Schulz held positions with sev-eral premier real estate lending institutions andworked on the private development side. Amongthe financial institutions were Wells Fargo Bankand Sovran Bank.

Her educational background includes a bachelor’sdegree in psychology from Pacific Christian Col-lege. She graduated from the Pacific Coast Bank-ing School through the University of Washington.

Schulz is an active member of ULI, having been amember of the Executive Committee of the localDistrict Council, the Blue Flight Residential De-velopment Council, and the Gold Flight Commer-cial & Retail Development Council and working

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

an advisory services panel report annandale virginia

Documents