Reston 2020 Letter to the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Reston Master Plan

Dear Chairman Bulova, Hunter Mill District Supervisor Hudgins, and Members of the Board of Supervisors,

The RCA Reston 2020 Committee has been deeply involved in the development of Phase 2 of the Reston Master Plan, the portion of the plan that provides guidance for the redevelopment of the areas in Reston where virtually all Restonians live.  It is, in essence, proposed guidance on the redevelopment of our neighborhoods, maybe even our individual homes, and our village centers; in short, our way of life. 
 

Reston 2020 believes the draft plan amendment generally serves the existing Reston residential community well, but with some important exceptions we have detailed to the County staff on at least two occasions.  (Please see our initial ideas for Phase 2, comments on draft Version 2, and specific comments on the Reston Land Use Map.)  Nonetheless, we believe there are substantial shortcomings regarding the redevelopment of village centers and protecting open space in this Phase 2 of the draft plan language and the changes made by the Planning Commission.  We urge the Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor Hudgins in particular, to read and address the concerns we describe below along the lines we suggest. 
 

Village Centers:  In our view, the most significant shortcomings of the draft plan appear in the section dealing with village centers. 
 

Maybe the biggest one is that the draft plan puts no limits on the density of redevelopment in these critical elements of the Reston community.  The plan’s failure to limit density (we recommended a density of FAR 1.0, four times the current limit) could result in extremely dense commercial, office, or residential development (or all of the above) in the village centers that would be totally inappropriate for a neighborhood-serving center.  The absence of a reasonable density restriction could easily lead to the situation we are about to see in Town Center North where plans to build a 23-story office building beyond the high-density ½-mile transit station area (TSA)—and twice as tall as the adjoining new Spectrum Center--were approved by the Board because there was no density restriction.  Indeed, during Phase 1 of the Master Plan Review, the Vision Committee discussed 18-20 story buildings in the village centers.  Thus, very tall buildings are a distinct possibility. 
 

Although we have proposed a limit on density to the Planning staff at least twice, we have been told that none of the owners yet have plans to redevelop their village centers (excluding the approved plan for Lake Anne).  We believe a County-approved plan should guide any future proposals, not the other way around.  We believe the Board of Supervisors should make it clear now that such oversized construction is unacceptable by specifying a reasonable maximum density constraint. 
 

Also in the village centers, the Planning Commission struck the possibility of a green open space—a park-like setting--as an option for the “gathering place” for the neighborhood, leaving only “plazas” as an option for these focal points of each center.  We believe the green open space option should be re-inserted because we have not seen the brick (Lake Anne), concrete (Hunters Woods, South Lakes, & North Point), or other potential hardscapes attract a gathering.  The concrete “plazas” at South Lakes and North Point have limited steel seating and tables for people to use, which are absolutely unbearable in Reston’s summers except in the late evening and early morning.  Green open spaces would actually help cool the gathering space and, frankly, be much more attractive. 
 

The Planning Commission also chose to abandon its historic role to review redevelopment proposals for village centers, striking out the final step in the approval process before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.  The County Planning staff also rejected several suggestions we provided on how to constructively constrain village center redevelopment proposals to the "neighborhood-serving" needs they are supposed to serve. 

• The County Planning staff rejected redevelopment plan language from Reston 2020 calling for Reston community entities (RP&Z, RA DRB) and neighbors to play a key role in redevelopment plan reviews. Please see our comments on Version 2.

• The staff also rejected Reston 2020’s distinction between redevelopment of the “mixed-use areas” of the village centers and their “residential areas,” thereby subjecting existing residents to the threat of redevelopment.  This is addressed in both our original set of ideas and in our comments on Version 2 linked above. 

• Staff language also allows the expansion of village centers beyond their current boundaries if it would be “essential to the successful development of any particular village center.” We do not believe there are any circumstances in which village center boundaries should be expanded.

In short, the draft plan provides no protection from excessive and inappropriate redevelopment for existing village centers or nearby neighborhoods.  The draft language treats village centers residents and adjoining neighborhoods like second-class citizens in the Reston community.  More broadly, these failures shortchange the community and residents and businesses in the village centers as well as neighbors nearby who will have fewer opportunities to have their voices heard on redevelopment plans. 
 

The Planning Commission's proposed change to the plan's language is an especially peculiar change given that Reston is a planned community and we believe a change in the community’s land use ought to be reviewed by both local community entities and the Planning Commission.  In general, we view these Planning Commission Master Plan recommendations as part of the broader County effort to reduce community participation and facilitate the development and redevelopment process through the “Fairfax Forward” land use decision making process adopted last year, a process that goes well beyond planning issues in Reston to shortchange communities and neighbors from commenting on the effects of high-density development proposals. 
 

In fact, the Planning Commission went so far as to essentially recommend approval of the Jefferson Apartment Group’s Tall Oaks Village Center redevelopment plan and the St. Johns Woods apartment complex proposal, which have not yet been presented to any Reston or County group for endorsement or approval, only for “information purposes.”  And those plans are still evolving. 
 

Reston’s Open Space:  There are two significant shortcomings inserted by the Planning Commission on Reston’s open space as well as a few improvements.  We believe that Reston’s open spaces must be preserved and, if feasible, expanded to accommodate the planned doubling of our population and employment in the decades ahead. 
 

The Planning Commission dropped language designating the Sunrise Valley Wetlands as a “Nature Park” throughout the draft plan.  This cuts language already approved by the Board of Supervisors during Phase 1 of the Reston Master Plan effort.  If adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the change would eliminate any shred of protection for the wetlands—a vital environmental resource protected by the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act—in the Master Plan from future commercial redevelopment.    We believe the wetlands should become a publicly-held County resource. 
 

The Planning Commission specifically rejected language and related mapping that would identify existing open space in condominiums and clusters.  The impact of this change if adopted would be to substantially reduce the expectation that this (or comparably sized and equipped) open space would be preserved in a redevelopment effort—which would no doubt include several times as many housing units. 

That said, we appreciate the effort of the County Planning staff and the Planning Commission in updating and correcting the Reston Land Use Map with the exception cited above.  It is an integral part of the plan and is vital in making sure development proposals are consistent with the plan’s intent.
 

We also appreciate the steps taken by the Staff and the Commission to insure the accuracy and completeness of the property plats covered by the Reston National Golf Course as well as Hidden Creek Country Club—and striving to ensure their protection as open space.  We all know that the RNGC property’s use is in dispute, and every step taken by the County to protect it is deeply appreciated. 

We all want to move forward in achieving the goals and principles of the revised Reston Master Plan in a way that preserves the quality of life of all who live or work here, now and in the future.   That requires a careful balance of opportunities for redevelopment and preservation of the characteristics that make Reston a unique planned community. 
 

We look forward to your favorable consideration of these proposed changes in the draft Reston Master Plan language.

Sincerely, 
Terry Maynard

Co-Chairman

Reston 2020 Committee

Reston Citizens Association

cc: 

RCA Board of Directors

RA Board Chairman and CEO

Rescue Reston Board

Local media

Reston 2020 asks Planning Commission to correct errors and omissions in Reston land use map.

As the Phase II (suburban) Reston Master Plan draft goes to the County Planning Commission for consideration this week, Reston 2020 has written the Commission asking it to correct a series of omissions and errors in the draft Reston land use map.  The importance of the land use map has been highlighted by the ongoing case of Reston National Golf Course.  Here is the text of the letter sent to the Planning Commission:

 April 20, 2015

Fairfax County Planning Commission

Government Center

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330

Fairfax, VA  22035

Re:   Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Item ST09-III-UP1 (B) – Reston Master Plan Phase II

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

                Reston 2020 (an independent committee of the Reston Citizens Association) submits this comment regarding the Staff Report and Appendix A, Recommended Plan Text of the Reston Master Plan.  The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the draft Reston Master Plan Phase II comprehensive plan text is scheduled for this Wednesday, April 22, 2015

                Reston 2020 appreciates the many efforts of current and former county planning staff involved in the Reston Master Plan Special Study, particularly Fred Selden, Heidi Merkel, Richard Lambert and Feheem Darab, who all worked tirelessly on this project.

Phase I of the Special Study began in December 2009 and was completed with the adoption of the Reston Transit Stations Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors in February 2014.  Phase II kicked off with an open house in June 2014, but the first community meeting was not until September 2014.  County staff published final recommended Phase II comprehensive plan text on April 1, 2015, just six months later.

While Phase II was conducted under the new Fairfax Forward procedures, and thus was highly compressed, it provided some opportunities for citizens and community groups to provide input at four community meetings on varying topics, and subsequently to submit written comments on two staff working comprehensive plan text drafts.  Reston 2020 submitted several such comments.  These included comments in February regarding the importance of ensuring that all existing open space is carefully delineated in the draft plan text.

As recent events have demonstrated, preserving open space is an important, high‑profile issue in Reston.  It is very important that planned land uses for all parcels be fully and accurately described in the Reston Master Plan text, and essential that all existing open spaces be correctly shown on the accompanying maps to ensure their future protection.  As we explained in our February 2015 comment to county staff in this matter,

If the plan text does not specify land use categories for particular parcels or areas, than the maps must be absolutely clear and unambiguous to provide adequate notice to the public, provide necessary information to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors who will be asked to approve the proposed plan amendment and, most importantly, prevent future land use disputes.  In particular, open space representations must fully and accurately reflect existing conditions.

Reston 2020 Email (Feb. 13, 2015) (emphasis added).

                In addition to this commentary, Reston 2020 simultaneously submitted specific additions and corrections to the draft Reston maps.  We noted that,

the [then] draft plan text says the Reston Land Use map identifies private parks, recreation and open space owned by Reston Association, other cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, and Fairfax County.  Indeed, many Reston clusters have common areas owned by the respective homeowners association, typically separate legal parcels (e.g. Parcel A), which are subjected by the deed to county regulations, including regulations regarding open space, tree canopy, etc.  Despite the statement in the text (see page 19 of 76), the open spaces in clusters and condominium neighborhoods do not appear on the land use map.  These open spaces should be added.  In addition, to the extent that there is any doubt regarding the completeness of the maps, notes should be added to both the plan text and the map stating that the open space representations may be incomplete.

Reston 2020 Comments on Draft Maps (Feb. 13, 2015) at 1 (emphasis in original).  Reston 2020 made similar suggestions regarding the draft Reston Parks, Recreation and Open Space map, and the Existing Trails map.  Id. at 2.

Unfortunately, Reston 2020’s comments and suggestions regarding the handling of open space are not reflected in the final staff-recommended drafts.   The staff report and revised plan text continue to state the maps are complete, but open spaces in cluster and condo neighborhoods were not added, nor are there new notes advising readers that open space graphic representations are incomplete.  In fact, the staff report flatly states that all open space is shown, stating

All Public Parks, Private Recreation, and Private Open Space[s] are now reflected in Reston’s Land Use Map and are further detailed in the Parks and Open Space Map.  More parks & recreation facilities and open space are included in the Reston Land Use Map. 

Staff Report at page 7 of 12 (emphasis added).[1]  The draft comprehensive plan text is only slightly less emphatic.  It continues say the “Reston Land Use map identifies property owned by Reston Association, cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and Fairfax County.”  Appendix A, PDF at 22-23 of 93.  It also states that,

Reston’s Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces are shown on the map below (Figure 13 (sic)).  The map is an elaboration of the Reston Land Use Map (Figure 4) displaying the parks, recreation and open spaces as described in the Community-wide Land Use section in more detail.  Reston’s Park, Recreation and Open Space map distinguishes between Reston Association’s parks and open spaces, and all other parks, recreation and open spaces in Reston

Appendix A at 43.

                As this discussion aptly demonstrates, the plan’s handling of the open space issue is misleading, at best.  Not only are both the staff report and plan text inaccurate when they state that all private open space is included, but the three maps are not complete because they do not designate all existing open space sites in Reston.

                Therefore, we request (1) that the draft comprehensive plan text for Reston (and accompanying maps) be revised to correct these errors, and (2) that the accompanying draft land use, open space and trails maps be updated to include all existing private open space, including open space owned by clusters and condominium associations.  If the addition of missing private open space on the maps proves logistically impossible, at a minimum notes added to both the plan text and map legends to reflect that not all open space is shown.

                Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

    --s--

Terry Maynard

Reston 2020 Committee

CC:

Fred Selden, C/DPZ

Heidi Merkel, DPZ

Faheem Darab, DPZ

---

[1]  The draft land use maps are Figures 4, 5 and 6.  The draft parks, recreation and open space map is Figure 14.  The existing trails map, which also includes open space designations, is Figure 13.

Draft Land Use Map for Reston, September 5, 2014

As adjusted during the future plan development process, this land use map of Reston will serve as the overarching description of all the allowable prospective land uses in our community. 

   Draft Reston Land Use Map, September 5, 2014

DPZ Conceptual Land Use Plan Map for Reston TOD Area, May 25, 2011

This map was used as the basis of extensive discussions at last week's RTF Steering Committee meeting.  It is not clear what kind of densities or mixes are expected in each of the several areas identified on the map. 


05-25-2011 Reston TOD Area Land Use Concept Map--DPZ

August 30 Draft Town Center Report with Edits, Density Spreadsheet, & Schematic

Attached are the latest draft of the Town Center's report, including edits, as it was discussed going into the committee's meeting on August 31. It also includes a chart showing densities and a new schematic.

As reflected in the notes of the meeting taken by Dick Rogers (no formal meeting summary has been prepared), the committee did not reach a consensus on this draft. There are also significant errors in the density spread (Town Center is some 582 acres, not 140 as reflected here).

A new draft will be forthcoming this week according to committee plans.

Aug. 30 RTC Committee draft report, with edits:

Reston TC Metro Draft Committee Report 8-30-10 Pre Meeting

Reston Town Center Density Chart:

Copy of RTC Comm Density Chart

Reston Town Center Photo-map with Density, Parks, & Other Overlays

Reston TC Map With Density & Other Overlays--083010

Map: Dulles Corridor Showing Areas of Proposed APR Nominations for Greater Development

The map below, from the County staff memo proposing the current task force effort, shows in darker yellow the areas of the Dulles Corridor in which developers have proposed easing constraints on construction in so-called Area Plan Review (APR) nominations. If approved, the proposals would authorize much greater development--greater density, height, & more living units, for example--than is currently authorized in the Comprehensive Plan, which already authorizes levels of development far greater than the current conditions.

Dulles Corridor APR Deferred Nominations

Map: Reston Master Plan Special Task Force Study Area

Reston Master Plan Special Study Area Map 9-11-09