Statement to the Reston
Planning and Zoning Committee
By Terry Maynard,
Co-Chair, Reston 20/20 Committee
Re the Proposed
Reston PRC Zoning Ordinance Amendment
May 15, 2017
Good evening. I am
Terry Maynard, 2217 Wakerobin Lane, speaking on behalf of the Reston 20/20
Committee.
First, thank you for taking your time to listen to the many
voices of Reston on the County’s proposed PRC zoning ordinance amendment.
Most importantly, the PRC zoning amendment proposal removes
all concrete zoning constraints on high-density residential construction in
Town Center, a situation that can lead to serious unforeseeable
circumstances. We must rely on Board
discretion. Just look at the Board
approval given to a FAR 4, 26-story office building to replace the Town Center
Office Building that is dramatically inconsistent with the Reston plan and its
own TOD policy.
As we read it, the PRC amendment would allow the addition of
more than 28,000 residents to our community, virtually all in high-density
housing in the half of Reston Town Center north of the toll road. In
2010, about 8,000 people lived in the Town Center PRC after nearly a quarter
century of development. In the last 7
years, residences for another 8,000 people have been built or approved in there. Longer term, Board approval of the zoning
ordinance would allow about 45,000 people to live in Town Center. This would be in addition to the 45,000
people or so who could be added to the non-PRC portions of Reston’s station
areas under the Reston plan and other zoning codes.
I would like to speak to you briefly about how this
development will affect infrastructure and commercial development issues in
Reston.
Transportation
may present the most pressing infrastructure challenge as this unfolds in the
PRC. County data shows that, of the two-dozen
Board-approved Reston station area transportation projects, only one sidewalk
improvement at Wiehle Station has been completed. Of the dozen projects in the RTC PRC area,
none except the Town Center Parkway tunnel has begun and one has been put on
hold. The Soapstone Connector won’t be
put out for contract until 2025. None of
this includes the still concept-level intersection improvements postulated by
RNAG and the absence of any planned bus transit expansion for the PRC.
Yet station area development, including development in the
RTC PRC and its approval continues unabated.
All of the additional residential development also has
implications for planned commercial
development in the Town Center PRC. Approval
of the zoning ordinance amendment could unhinge the planned balance between
residential and commercial development there and the desirable effect it has on
reducing driving.
Worse yet, developers—never ones to miss an
opportunity—could use the high, if not unconstrained, residential construction
limits to leverage even higher or unlimited commercial development in the PRC. This alone suggests the urgency of a concrete
upper limit on station area PRC density, not just Board discretion.
One particular concern in this process is the availability
of essential retail facilities, not to mention amenities such as theaters, restaurants,
etc., for a population approaching 90,000 in Reston’s station areas, including
the 45,000 in the Town Center PRC. Two
supermarkets and one pharmacy are not adequate, and to the extent that there is
a shortage of these and other essential and desirable shopping in the PRC will
mean more residents driving.
All this suggests that the County and the community need to
understand the implications for Reston of the zoning ordinance amendment and
quite possibly amend it so that it is consistent with Reston’s vision and planning
principles. This will take time, not the
head-long rush the County and Board seem to be in to get this amendment passed
with three public meetings in three weeks this month.
What’s the rush?
Based on future analysis of the implications of the
allowable development for infrastructure and other community needs, some
amendments to the proposal that might be considered are:
- Raising the overall residential density per acre incrementally to, say, 14 people per acre and seeing how infrastructure, commercial development, and the Reston community adjusts to that density before moving another step higher.
- Creating a fourth residential density category called “urban” for the station area that has a concrete cap on it of, say, 60-70 DUs per acre.
- Not raising the zoning cap at all until at least the current approved transportation and other infrastructure projects, such as schools, open space and parks, etc., are completed.
While these are just ideas, they and other ideas need to be
considered in a thorough, systematic, and unbiased way based on a consideration
of the facts in a manner that meets the needs of the community as well as the
County.
Terry, What are the plans for Reston Common space. With this many new development proposals (40), is RA considering how to deal with added pressure on their parks and natural areas by groups who are not members?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of this growth will not be in RA land. Only that in the village centers, Town Center North, and 4 hot spots near Hidden Creek Country Club are planned for higher density in the area overseen by RA for our community.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the County has made virtually no commitments to provide common areas and recreation facilities anywhere in in the station areas. The lone exception is a 7-acre park in Town Center North and a vague commitment to 3 ballfields. In fact, the County EXPECTS RA to light and turf 9 of its athletic fields to accommodate the new residents, almost none of whom will be in RA. That's for nearly 80,000 potential new residents plus tens of new employees.
Finally, RA has been very slow to recognize the impact of the growth on its programs and facilities, even though its paying a land use attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The Reston PRC proposal and a new Board direction seems to have shaken the RA Board of Directors from its lethargy, but we have yet to see any real impact on protecting OUR facilities, programs, and open spaces from tens of thousands of new non-member users.