Reston 2020 Comment to Reston Task Force on Open Space, Parks, Recreation, and Governance, Reston Task Force Meeting, September 28, 2010, Dick Rogers

Open Space, Parks and Recreation

     I have attended a variety of meetings of the sub-committees of the Task Force (TF). Here are my observations on the issues of open space, parks and recreation.

1.   Different definitions and standards. The 2020 group, of which I am part, laid out the standard of 25%.  However, the Vision Committee, in laying out the TF Principles, did not use a numerical figure.  It says “expand and enhance” open space.

     A variety of ideas have been tossed out in the sub-committees, such as:

·         The Town Center sub-committee has wrestled with the Fairfax County Parks Authority (FCPA) urban open space standard and found it irrelevant.

·         Various other standards in various zoning categories  (PDC and PDM) of 15 and 20% have been mentioned.

In my view there probably should not be a uniform standard for each Transit Oriented Development area since they differ greatly.  But the absence of any common measure makes discussion and comparison hard.

     Complicating the discussion is any agreed Task Force definition of open space.  For example, the Town Center sub-committee has debated how it could include storm water ponds—not generally counted toward open space—in its open space category. The various sub-committees have debated whether wider sidewalks can be counted as open space.  

     The Town Center reports devotes considerable discussion to open space, while Herndon-Monroe has none,except for the commendable preservation of the wetlands.

         

Suggestion: Adopt some common reference point and terminology.  Ask an “impartial” and experienced intermediary like Sandi Stallman of FCPA to come again and review the individual sub-committee reports.  The basic point is whether the projected open space will meet the needs of the potential residents.

2.   Impact on existing Reston Association (RA) and FCPA properties:  development projections of the various sub-committees seem to imply considerable pressure on the existing facilities of RA and FCPA:

·         Perhaps 30,000-50,000 additional residents, who will have considerable impact on “free” RA open space and trails.

·         The Town Center sub-committee states it does not see room there for large athletic facilities (baseball, soccer or football fields).

·         The Weihle sub-committee has had to rule out some potential active athletic areas because the owners have other plans for the open space.

Comment: The use of valuable TOD land for large open space recreation may not be the best use of the land. Indeed, the Vision Committee’s principles talk of the need for such recreation areas “outside the transit areas.”

     But who will provide it?  RA? Lake Fairfax, maybe other FCPA less-developed properties?  There needs to be an assessment and inventory and some idea of who will pay for it eg proffers, or should it be written into the Master Plan? Should this all be pushed off until phase 2 or should it be dealt with sooner?

3.  Governance: This relates closely to the above issues. How will recreational facilities in the RCIG area and town Center be maintained and administered?  One can put this off till implementation but there have been several ideas put forth by Joe Stowers, Dave Edwards and Gerry Volloy to encourage dialogue.

Suggestion. What is needed is the beginning of discussion soon among the interested entities.