County announces public information process for Phase 2 of Metrorail, February 24, 2012

In the following letter, County Executive Tony Griffin lays out of a schedule of public meetings and a Board of Supervisors hearing this month before a likely Board vote on approving Fairfax County participation in Phase 2 of Metrorail in April.  

Notes from the RTF Steering Committee Meeting, June 1, 2011

                                      2 June 2011

                                       R. Rogers

    

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING: 1 June 2011

     Summary:The meeting focused on an extensive set of DPZ data on the Reston transit corridordesigned to contrast sub-com recommendations to the 2030 GMU high forecasts.  This triggered extensive discussion and no conclusions.  It resulted in a request to DPZ for additional data.

     Attendance: 8 out of 12 present (HM sub com members have missed last two meetings).  Also Katherine Mckee and Fred Selden.

Announcements

Based on recent meetings she had been to, Patty Nicoson outlined some of the extensive proposals in Loudoun county for development around its Metro stations. This includes considerable commercial development and a town center.  All this will be up in the air if Loudoun does not participate.

DPZ Data

     As promised last week, DPZ put forth extensive data on the overall stations areas and the specific TOD stations (available on county website).   This included a new map which applied sub-committee recommended FARs to the different sub units (5 FAR in the case of TownCenter). In particular, it compared estimates of sub-com recommendations to GMU forecasts for 2030 as well as current development and approved zoning.  In general the sub-comnittee recommendations were considerably above even the GMU 2030 high and 20% option.  As noted during the discussion, this was in part because the sub-committees were using a longer time horizon than GMU. In addition, the staff projected commercial–residential balance ratios in a number of categories. (Note: As usual with data, there were many potential glitches including the definition of residential units used by different sources—these ranged from 1,000 sq ft per unit to 1,500.  The staff had tried to adjust for this.)

          (In addition, the staff passed out a separate page comparing different area wide development potentials with resulting job-housing balance. This showed that sub-com recommendations would slightly increase the residential ratio in the jobs-housing equation. And Van Foster showed additional datacomparing GMU with sub-com recommendations.  Hopefully these will get on the county website too.  UPDATE:  The DPZ presentation has been posted and is available here on the blog.)

     A number of issues were raised during the extensive discussion:

• Heidi noted that the sub-coms were proposing 30% more residential development than GMU demand figures projected.  Could this development be accommodated?
• Again there was discussion of whether the GMU figures should be the basis for planning as opposed to what the Task Force would like to see.

• Mark Looney raised the issue of what inducement commercial developers will have to go through the wholeplanning process.Will there be enough office development to encourage residential mixed use as well?
• It will be difficult to get to any desired commercial residential balance by the 2030 time frameso the time frame really needs to be longer.
• Bill Penniman urged using caution with any sweeping area wide ratios when the sub-units are much smaller.
• Peter Otteni wondered if a “flexible planning framework” is used whether there will be a rush by developers to get plans approved sooner.

     After discussion it was agreed that next time the staff should come forward with additional data:

• Look again at current plan distribution of development
• Adjust the sub come recommendations to a 2030 time horizon (how would this be done?)
• Take the 2030 GMU commercial projections as given and project the residential balance needed under different commercial-residential balance ratios.
• John Carter requested a projection of what would be needed to achieve a 2 to 1 commercial-residential sq ft balance in all of Reston (this is projected today as 3 to 1)

     (Comment: Some of the implications of the last issue forthe PRC area were noted.  Some said that to achieve a 2-1 balance in Reston extensive residential development of the Village Centers would be needed.  Joe Stowers, who was sitting in, raised the issued of development of the “sinews’ with more residential units.)

Next

     DPZ will go back to the data boards for the next SC meeting, 7-9PM Tuesday 7 June at the North County Govt Center.

Notes on the RTF Meeting, February 22, 2011, Terry Maynard

Notes on the

Reston Task Force Meeting

February 22, 2011

 

See the agenda here.

Public Comment

Marion Stillson, President, RCA, endorsed the Vision and Planning Principles statement prepared by the Vision Committee on behalf of RCA.  She thanked the Steering Committee for its contributions as well.  (See the text of her comments here.)

Rob Whitfield asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of Dave Edwards, long-time Restonian and major contributor to Reston planning.   Chairman Patty Nicoson noted that there would be a memorial service for Dave at the Universalist Unitarian Church on March 12^th.

Administrative Items

Patty Nicoson--

• Noted she had attended a Metrorail meeting looking at some new ideas, but they were costly and there few dollars available.
• Attended the Jan. 31 Herndon planning meeting to discuss development around the Herndon-Monroe station.  Developers discussed the matter in the morning and the Town Council spent the afternoon discussing potential development.  In general, they leaned toward the FAR 4.5 option (vice 2.5) although they considerably narrowed the area for that level of development0.  They expressed concern about a triple left-hand turn into area parking and a number of bad intersections.

Heidi Merkel, DPZ staff, followed up noting that DPZ had met with the Herndon planning staff and chairs of the RTF Herndon-Monroe committee.  She noted that Herndon’s and the RTF’s timeframes were roughly the same for concluding their efforts.  She had no information on Herndon’s view of the station name.

Mike Cooper, RTF member, whose company also has interests in Herndon, noted that Herndon is taking a longer term view for its planning, in part because the area of interest already has a number of 4-5 story buildings. 

Heidi also noted that DPZ is developing an approach for Phase II (Village Centers and Residential Areas) of the RTF.  Staff had met with Supr. Hudgins for her inputs, and she thought the staff would have a preliminary schedule ready for the March 15^th RTF meeting.

Patty Nicoson provided feedback from the Dulles Construction Committee of MWAA’s discussion of air rights over the Dulles Corridor.   An engineering analysis suggested that it was technically feasible to build needed foundations either now or in the future, and that there was insufficient economic return to justify that move now.  (See the analyses and recommendation here.)  It was also noted by MWAA’s legal counsel that MWAA does not have the authority to do work that does serve an “airport purpose,” and would need to seek federal legislative relief to correct that deficiency.  Committee members asked for a revenue perspective from developers on future air rights development.  The Task Force agreed to have the Chairman send MWAA a letter expressing their continuing interest in obtaining air rights for development over the Dulles corridor.

According to Patty, the schedule for Phase II of the Metro line will probably slip, although they have not officially acknowledged that slippage yet.  MWAA is looking at three alternatives for the station at Dulles airport.  She noted that Phase I of the Metro line has been 30% completed.

Patty noted that the Perspectives Group will help facilitate future discussions of the Task Force as it discusses needed decisions regarding Phase I (the TOD areas).

Heidi Merkel gave a presentation on the role of the Steering Committee.  She began by noting that the Task Force’s role was to guide the staff (DPZ) in the drafting of new Comprehensive Plan language.  She walked through its objectives, the use of checklist, etc.  (This is her presentation.)  Task Force member Dick Kennedy urged the Steering Committee to check back in with the Task Force regularly on its activities. 

Patty also summarized the work of the Steering Committee over the last two months.  (See Reston 2020 notes on these meetings on the blog.)

Bob Simon noted that the Village Centers (VCs) were receiving short shrift in the Vision and Planning Principles (V&PP) statement because the task force effort was divided into two parts.   He expressed concern that the V&PP statement mis-stated the importance of greater density in the VCs.   In response to a question from Peter Otteni, Task Force member, about how the Task Force could deal with the VC issue, John Carter (Co-Chair, Vision Committee) noted that it would be addressed in their report.  Heidi also noted that it was being given some consideration in the Steering Committee.  Patty noted that there was a door open to return to the planning principles based on the results of Phase II of the Task Force. 

Dick Kennedy noted that Gerry Volloy’s piece on governance sent to the Task Force was important.  He said he was not sure where it fits, but it needs to be addressed.  It has implications for open space, trails, etc.  He expects addressing the issue will be difficult because of the number of stakeholders, the legal ramifications, etc.  Patty noted the Steering Committee will address implementation mechanics.

Discussion of Draft Vision and Planning Principles (V&PP) Statement

Kohann Williams, co-chair of the Vision Committee, provided the backdrop for the V&PP statement, noting that they reached consensus on what was before the Task Force that evening.  She noted the intent to discuss the draft in detail tonight and vote on it at the March 15^th meeting. 

Robert Goudie raised the concern that the brief statement about residential areas may not be sufficiently strong to meet Restonians needs to protect neighborhoods from encroaching growth.  There was a brief discussion of both protecting the rights of neighborhoods to decide their own futures so long as they did not affect the rights, values, and quality of life of their neighbors. 

John Carter, co-chair of the Vision Committee, followed up by noting the Vision Committee’s plans to wrap up its report. 

There being no additional discussion, Chairman Nicoscon adjourned the meeting about 20 minutes early.  The next meeting of the Task Force will be on March 15. 

REMINDER: Reston 2020 meets tonight, 7:30PM, RCC--Lake Anne, Rm B

Here's a link to tonight's agenda.

You are most welcome to come and participate. 

RE-SCHEDULED: Reston 2020 Committee Meeting, Feb. 3, 7:30PM, RCC-Lake Anne

The meeting of the Reston 2020 Committee previously scheduled for last Thursday, but canceled due to weather conditions, has been re-scheduled for this Thursday, February 3, at 7:30PM at the RCC-Lake Anne.

The meeting agenda remains the same.

Everyone is welcome to come and participate.  

TONIGHT'S RESTON 2020 MEETING HAS BEEN POSTPONED

Due to the slippery conditions on Reston's roads, bound be worse as the night progresses, we are postponing tonight's meeting of the Reston 2020 Committee.  We expect to re-schedule it next week.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may create. 

Terry Maynard,
Co-chair
RCA Reston 2020 Committee

Notes from the RTF Steering Committee Meeting, January 11, Dick Stillson

The meeting was chaired by Patty Nicoson, Task Force chairman, and helped by DPZ staffers Heidi Merkel and Faheem Darab.  The Task Force members and alternates there were John Carter, Kohan Williams, Bill Penniman, Mark Looney, Robert Goudie, Greg Riegle, and Nick Bauer.  If I missed anyone, I apologize.  Several documents were passed out and Richard Lambert e-mailed me to say that they have been put on the web so I don’t have to scan them to pass them on to you all.  They are at: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/projects/reston/meetings_2011/meeting_jan11_steering_2011.htm

   As a kind of an introduction, Patty announced that the Phase I Metrorail construction was about 29 percent completed, and that the MWAA Board was considering alternatives to the underground station at the airport.  Bill Penniman also sent around his power point presentation on Wiehle Committee's vision and comments about an alternative put forward by Robert Goudie.  

            The first discussion was about the mission statement for the sub-committee, which includes a rather benign statement concerning implementation (the last bullet, of course). Even this was considered too much, especially the statement that “the Steering Committee would highlight mechanisms to implement these recommendations for Task Force considerations.”  Clearly, both Patty and Heidi thought this was important and wanted something about implementation in the Task Force report, and maybe in the revised Plan.  Several of the sub-committee members (at least Greg Riegle and Mark Looney) objected saying that this was too much for the Steering Committee. Heidi kind of compromised and mentioned the idea of a special implementation group from the Task Force.   I pressed her on that and she didn’t say what form an implementation group would take or when, but she definitely stated that this would be part of the Task Force work and the public (meaning us, I suppose) would be involved.  [Good for her—and Patty seemed to agree.]  Ultimately they voted and passed the mission statement with a revised paragraph on implementation.

            Then there was a discussion on the “vision statement” and the planning principles.  Yes, they still haven’t agreed on the principles.  Most of the discussion was wordsmithing and several members wanted to combine several of the points because they said similar things, for example, combining points discussing concentrating development at the transit stations and the principles of TOD.  They still didn’t agree and yet another draft will be written—by DPZ staff. 

            Bill Penniman, co-chair of the Wiehle Committee, gave a slide show presentation that was essentially a rebuttal to Robert Goudie’s views, apparently given in the previous meeting, that Wiehle Ave. should concentrate almost entirely on residential development and leave the commercial and public sector development to the Town Center.  Bill’s argument was that this would violate TOD principles which emphasized mixed use development in each station.  He argued that conceiving of Wiehle and Reston West as bedroom communities to feed Town Center would increase traffic in Reston and provide a very unbalanced development in the corridor.  His vision was more like a linear city along the metro line.   Robert argued back that he did not mean to imply only residential development at Wiehle—for example, he agreed with educational institutions at Wiehle—but that the Town Center should be the primary “downtown” of Reston.  John Carter suggested doing away with the phrase “downtown” for the Town Center.  [My view is that the Town Center should the primary focus for commercial and high-rise residential, but that there should be mixed development at all the stations—both of the extreme positions make little sense.]

            Finally there was a short discussion of the “Steering Sub-Committee Review Checklist,” a list of points the sub-committee should look at in reviewing each of the station sub-committees’ reports.  The idea is to establish a procedure with which the Steering Sub-Committee can reconcile and synthesize the various other sub-committees’ reports.  They didn’t get into any detail concerning the checklist, but agreed that it was important and would be a focus of the sub-committee’s work.

Dick Stillson

Detailed Summary: Wiehle Avenue Community Workshop, March 20, 2010, Brian Winterhalter, Cooley, Godward, Kornish LLP

Reston Master Plan Community Workshop (Wiehle Avenue) Summary 3-20-10
The "TOD Guidelines" referenced in this meeting summary are available here.

REMINDER: Reston 2020 Committee Meeting, Friday, January 26, 7PM, RA HQ

This is just to remind everyone who wishes to come that the RCA Reston 2020 Committee will be meeting Friday evening, February 26, at 7PM, at the RA Headquarters Conference Room.

Our updated agenda is as follows:

1. Status and direction of Community Working Groups

2. Preparation for the TF Community Meeting on Herndon-Monroe TOD area, including brief presentation of draft application of TOD policy to Reston, and Polo Fields Association concerns

3. Developing a community outreach communications strategy

4. Other business, including land use attorneys on constraints on common land sales and "by-right" development

All Reston citizens are welcome to attend and participate. This is an "open meeting" in the truest sense of the phrase.

Terry Maynard
Reston 2020

RCA President Remarks and RCA Board Statement on Task Force Inhibiting Public Participation, Reston Task Force Meeting, February 23, 2010

I’m Marion Stillson, the publicly-elected President of RCA, the Reston Citizens Association. RCA was founded in 1967 to promote and protect the founding goals of Reston. All of the founding goals will be impacted by the actions of the Task Force (TF). I am also a regular member of RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee.

Supervisor Hudgins stated her intent to involve the maximum number of citizens in the work of the TF. We are disappointed that actions and inactions of the TF and the County’s Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) have inhibited the ability of Reston citizens to contribute. My statement provides some key examples, which I will highlight here.

1. Most of all, the County DPZ has failed to deliver an Existing Conditions and Current Plans Report, promised by the end of September 2009. We understand that the DPZ is underfunded and shorthanded and we admire the professionalism with which they act nevertheless. We also understand that the DPZ expects to publish this Report before the TF makes any decisions. But ordinary citizens who want to grapple with its implications need more time than that.

2. The TF has failed to utilize those citizens who participated in Supervisor Hudgins’ Reston Land Use College in September, 2009. Early in February, TF Chair Nicoson rejected Reston 2020 Committee’s offer to organize them into working groups at no taxpayer cost.

3. The DPZ has consistently failed to publish TF meeting agendas and related materials in a timely manner, denying citizens the opportunity to understand what will be discussed and to plan their own participation. Today’s meeting was, as late as yesterday, advertized as taking place in two different venues. A journalist went to the wrong place in January because of a last-minute change of venue.

4. Finally, the TF and DPZ have failed to inform affected residents in and around areas that will be discussed in either their informational or community meetings. RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee had to inform residents of Polo Fields, close to Herndon-Monroe TOD area, that their area will be discussed at the February 23 and 26 meetings of the TF.

Thank you.

Marion Stillson
President, Reston Citizens Association

Reston TF Inhibits Citizen Participation

Official Meeting Summary: Reston Master Plan Special Study Community Meeting, January 26, 2010

Reston Master Plan Special Study
Community Meeting

January 26, 2010, 7:00 PM
Langston Hughes HS cafeteria.
Approximately 100-110 community and task force members

Heidi Merkel, senior planner with the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, presented an overview of the purpose of the meeting – “to capture public ideas” and “express preferences about Reston’s prospective planning principles”.

Bob Simon's original 1962 goals were used to introduce the concept of principles and as foundation for further discussion.

Simon's goals focused on the following:
• variety of leisure options
• housing options
• phased development that provided for community amenities throughout the development life cycle
• housing for all stages of life and income levels
• living and working in the same community, etc

Heidi Merkel presented an example “strawman” drafted by staff. The “strawman” example is a tool to begin discussion. The “Strawman” included the following principles:
• Preservation of the long-term stability of Reston
• Transportation network that supports the planned land uses
• Connectivity throughout the community
• Housing diversity
• Wide range of mobility options, etc.

Jerry Volloy (representing the Alliance of Reston Clusters and Homeowners) presented the group's position paper on planning principles:
• Study should determine how much development is possible versus how much is best for the community.
• Development should be well planned
• Transportation improvements should be in place before development occurs, etc

Kathy Kaplan (representing the Citizens’ Master Plan Group) presented the groups planning principles:
• World class design
• Building height limits
• 33 1/3 percent open space
• Parkland provided for residents on site by developer
• Complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
• Cleaned water and clear air standards, etc

Ms. Kaplan also proposed changes in the county’s “strawman” planning principles. An edited version was provided to the public.

Dick Stillson (representing the Reston 2020 Committee) presented the groups planning principles
• Planning must be for the whole of Reston
• Phased development
• Excellence in planning design in architecture
• Consolidation of parcels within land sub units
• Require transportation improvements that support development
• Confine higher densities to the Reston Center for Industry and Government, Reston Town Center and the village centers, etc

Upon completion of presentations, the floor was opened to community discussion and suggestions for additional principles to be considered.

Question: Can RA or clusters turn over (sell, rent) parts of their property to developers

Answer(s): RA would have to have a successful referendum to transfer property to another party. Clusters could transfer their common property to others if the cluster boards and the RA Board approved such a transaction. Fairfax County tries to preserve stable neighborhoods, but it cannot interfere if clusters make a collective decision to sell their properties to a developer.

Note: Fairfax would not downzone a property unless it has compelling public purpose.

Question: What studies have been done that show that Metro can handle new demands from Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

Answer(s): Good topic for discussion at an upcoming task force meeting on transportation. Studies have been done and can be made available.

Other suggested principles:
• connectivity across bridges
• expanded bus coverage
• “level-of-service” for Reston’s streets as part of the development effort
• Reston as a place where people can “grow old and die”
• no additional taxes or tolls placed on Restonians
• more educational opportunities in Reston
• more public art

A polling exercise was conducted as the last step of the community meeting.

All of the proposed planning principles were presented on 4 boards in 4 corners of the cafeteria. Attendees were given nine “dot” stickers to express their preferences regarding which principles in any list that they felt was important.

Planning Staff collected the boards and will analyze the results to present to the Task Force at a future meeting.

Official Meeting Summary: Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force Meeting, January 12, 2010

Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force
Meeting Summary


January 12, 2010, 7:00 PM.
Reston Community Center at Lake Anne, 1609-A Washington Plaza, Reston

Meeting began at 7 PM with Chairman Patty Nicoson asking members to reintroduce themselves due to the addition of several new members subsequent to the initial Task Force meeting.

Public Comment Period (7:10)
Limited to 2 minutes/person.
• Kathy Kaplan & Guy Rando compared Reston’s core development with Arlington’s Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and commented they want more roads and connections like R-B corridor has.
• Dick Stillson (Reston Citizen’s Association member, Reston 2020 Committee co-chair) suggested “working groups” to assist the Task Force. As outlined, the working groups are not under the authority of their respective affiliated civic groups. He suggested this would allow serious input (from wider citizenry) to assist the Task Force.
• Joe Stowers discussed his work regarding urbanizing Reston. He pointed out that only the Reston Town Center has been designed from the outset to be an urban place.
• Rob Whitfield would like the Task Force to understand the full context of what’s going forward at the Wiehle Avenue Transit Station (public-private rezoning case).

Administrative Items (7:20)
• Review of revised Task Force schedule.
• Bob Simon expressed concern that the schedule does not adequately address revitalization in Lake Anne Village Center’s. Heidi Merkel (Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning) recommended that follow-up on Lake Anne should be with County’s Office of Community Revitalization and Reinvestment.
• Heidi reviewed the details of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its influence on the Task Force’s work. This was followed by discussion among the Task Force regarding the constraints. There was concern from several Task Force members that their interaction with the wider community and civic groups might be negatively impacted by FOIA rules. They suggested that Heidi have the County Attorney’s office provide a 1-page guidelines sheet on FOIA rules for the Task Force.

Overview of Existing Comprehensive Plan Recommendations (7:50)
• Heidi gave a PowerPoint presentation on existing Comprehensive Plan Recommendations. It included:
. o Classic Planning Process
. o Task Force’s Charge
. o Trends-Future Growth
. o County’s Comprehensive Plan’s Organization
. oo Policy Plan
. oo Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines
. oo Area Plans

Work Groups (9:10)
• There was discussion among the Task Force of a proposal by several Reston civic groups to offer their idea for “Community Work Groups” to facilitate the work of the Task Force.
• The Chairman asked Task Force members for their opinions of the concept. After hearing from all members who wished to comment, the Task Force discussed some pros and cons of creating such groups.
• Several of the Task Force members stated the inclusion of work groups is a essential to obtaining real and serious input from the community as well as taking full advantage of the varied expertise within the community.
• Many Task Force members expressed opinions that the work groups are unnecessary or would not work. The constrained schedule was cited as one of the reasons that several TF members felt the work group concept should not be adopted at this time. They referred to the duration of the Tysons Study as something to avoid. Additionally, several members of the Task Force noted that there are many opportunities for public input and that the panel is composed of many experts/professionals who were appointed by the supervisor to represent the community.
• No decision was made on the Work Groups idea.

Upcoming Meetings (9:45)
• Heidi outlined what will be covered at the upcoming “Planning Principles” meeting on 01-26-10.
• Mark Looney suggested that the suggested Work Groups and the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce (the group he’s representing) and any other interested groups could meet before the next meeting and analyze what was presented about the County’s current Comprehensive Plan as well as Reston’s founding planning principles. He offered to lead this effort in order to keep the idea of the Work Groups viable if the Task Force decides to adopt the proposal.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.

Reston Master Plan Study Community Forum on Feb. 27, OPA, Fairfax County

Feb. 17, 2010
OPA 044/10

News Highlights

* Public can offer input on future land use near Herndon-Monroe Metro station.

As part of the Reston Master Plan Special Study, the public can offer input about the character for the area south of the future Herndon-Monroe Metro station at a community forum on Saturday, Feb. 27, at 9 a.m. The event will be held at the Langston Hughes Middle School cafeteria, 11401 Ridge Heights Road, Reston.

It is envisioned that future development in this area should take advantage of its proximity to Metro while preserving nearby neighborhoods.

The Reston Master Plan Task Force is currently evaluating the existing land use recommendations for the Dulles Corridor. This includes the areas around the future Wiehle Avenue, Reston Parkway and Herndon-Monroe Metro stations, as well as the Reston Town Center. The task force was appointed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

For more information or reasonable ADA accommodations, contact Sandi Smith, Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, at 703-324-1239, TTY 711 or DPZRestonMasterPlanStudy@fairfaxcounty.gov.

Administrator comment: Please note that the task force will also hold an informational meeting on the Herndon-Monroe Metro station area next Tuesday, February 23, 7PM, at the Reston Community Center--Lake Anne. In this session, County and possibly other speakers will provide background on planning, policies, and practices as they apply to this area. This will be useful information for Saturday morning's community forum that follows.

AGENDA: RA Board/Committee Leadership Meeting, February 13, 2010, 9 AM, RA HQ

9:00 am Welcome & Update
Paul Thomas, At-Large Board Director
The purpose of this Board Work Session is to discuss with the Association's Committee & Board Leadership the community input process for the Reston Master Special Study.

9:15 am Member Comments

9:30 am Why Reston Association Committee & Board Input is Needed
Paul Thomas, At-Large Board Director

9:45 am What Is Needed From You
- RMP Schedule of Meetings
- Work Product Template (below)

Overview of Issues
[include a brief narrative description of issues in the relevant study area that the committee feels are important.]

Challenges & Solutions
• [list challenges in bullet format. Be sure to include suggested solutions to challenges]

Other Opportunities
• [list specific situations in the relevant study area that provide opportunities for making Reston a better place.]

10:10 am Community Outreach Plan
- What steps should RA take to reach out to the broader community?
- How should RA and its Committees provide input to the RMP Special Study Task Force?


10:30 pm Adjourn

All times are approximate.

CANCELLED: P and Z Meeting, Monday, February 15, 2010

Art Hill, VC of the P and Z Committee has sent this e-mail regarding Monday's scheduled P and Z Committee Meeting:

The Reston Planning and Zoning meeting scheduled for February 15th has been canceled.

The Metro Wiehle Avenue station matter will be heard Monday, March 1st, at our regular meeting, 7:30 PM, Reston Association Main Conference Room.

Item 1, the Excelsior Lerner housing proposal is scheduled to be heard at our April 5th meeting.

Arthur S. Hill
Vice Chairman
Reston Planning and Zoning Committee

CANCELLED: Tonight's Special RA Board Meeting

The special RA Board meeting scheduled for tonight has been canceled. The Reston planning issue before it will be considered at the next regular Board meeting, February 25, which will begin a half hour early, per this message sent last night:

After speaking with staff, we have decided to cancel tomorrow's Special Board meeting and BAC.

For the BAC, please plan on meeting Monday, February 22nd at 6 p.m. to allow opportunity to reschedule the advisory committee interviews.
We hope this will allow more time for interested applicants.

We will set the Board meeting on the 25th to start at 6:30 p.m. to allow for the special items we were to meet on tomorrow night.

Staff will send out all appropriate notices, but wanted to let you know in advance. I do hope you are all staying safe during this trying time.
I hope Mother Nature decides to show some sunshine soon!!

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Robin

CANCELLED: This week's meetings on the Tysons Plan

The following e-mail was sent this morning regarding meetings scheduled this week to discuss the draft Tysons development plan:

Due to the inclement weather, Chairman Alcorn has cancelled the Tysons Committee meetings for this week. No new dates have been established at this time. Once they have been rescheduled, I will send another email.

Please stay safe!

Barbara Lippa
Executive Director
Fairfax County Planning Commission

CANCELLED: Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force, February 9, 2010

Good afternoon,

The Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force meeting scheduled for tomorrow, February 9th, has been cancelled.

We were due to have the meeting at South Lakes High School because the RCC at Lake Anne was not available. Fairfax County Public Schools will be closed tomorrow and all activities planned for school facilities have to be cancelled as well.

We will attempt to reschedule at least some of the transportation and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) presentations that were on tomorrow's agenda for the next scheduled meeting, February 23rd.

I have cc'ed several of the community members who have been attending our Task Force meetings or attended the community meeting last month. Please forward this message to others who may be interested in the status of tomorrow' meeting.

Regards,
Heidi Merkel
Heidi T. Merkel, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Division, DPZ
direct: 703.324.1383

Notes from Reston 2020 Meeting, February 4, 2010

The meeting of the Reston 2020 Committee was called to order at 7:05 PM. More than 20 committee members and other participants were present.

Agenda Item #1: Planning next steps for Working Groups

Dick Stillson, Reston 2020 co-chair, started by noting that it appears that the community will have to move forward on its own to support the task force because the task force has not further considered the Reston 2020 Community Work Group (CWG) proposal per a conversation with is chair, Patty Nicoson. She offered a deficient alternative of task force member-led special topic groups on matters peripheral to the task force’s primary agenda. In a conversation with Stillson Feb. 3rd, Paul Thomas, the Reston Association Board’s member of the Task Force, said that the RA Board had charged its key committees to support the task force through the RA Board. He suggested that Reston 2020 proceed with its specific studies and write papers to the task force, preferably endorsed by all three key Reston civic groups (RA, RCA, & ARCH). He added that RA’s committees could serve as advisory groups on important issues and everyone is welcome to contribute. He found that committees were not enthusiastic about this approach. The issue is whether Reston 2020 should act independently, coordinate, or join with the RA committees in their efforts.

An extended discussion ensued on how best to proceed in making the needs of Reston’s citizens known to the task force. Among the ideas were: setting up the CWGs using (among others) volunteers from among the Land Use College participants, need to integrate the various citizens’ proposed planning principles, public demonstrations, joining the RA efforts, seeking legal assistance to stop changes, etc. Some key points made in the discussion included:
• Time is of the essence. For largely administrative reasons, RA is having difficulty launching its efforts. When RA moves forward, Reston 2020 ought to try to coordinate efforts with them.
• The civic groups would be far more effective if they all worked together. They certainly shouldn’t disagree in public.
• It is extremely difficult to communicate with and mobilize Reston’s population to act. Two instances in recent memory where mobilizing the public was effective: Reston South Park N’ Ride and Brown’s Chapel recreation center proposal. Need to understand—and use—the techniques that made those efforts effective. The focal point for Restonians’ influence should be the County, which ultimately decides what happens.
• Even working independently, each Reston group could offer to endorse the proposal put forth by others. RCA President Marion Stillson has already made this offer on behalf of RCA.
• We do not have a sufficient legal understanding to move forward alone. Although we would be best served by working within the process, we need an attorney who knows land use laws and regulations (e.g.—does FAR include parking?) and is willing to provide pro bono assistance.

Actions: Those present moved, seconded, and approved in near unanimity the following motions:

1. Reston 2020 Committee will:
a. Create several Community Working Groups (CWG) that draw from Land Use College (LUC) participants and other volunteers. (Follow-up: Dick Stillson will contact LUC participants to seek volunteers to work on the CWGs and will be the process of identifying interim working group chairs.)
b. Ask each CWG to assign one person to attend and participate in each counterpart RA or other civic group committee effort—and encourage broader CWG participation. Other civic group committees would be encouraged to reciprocate by participating in each CWG.
c. Encourage the RCA Board to endorse other civic groups’ Reston planning positions, and it encourages other civic groups to reciprocate.

2. Reston 2020 Committee will integrate all available citizens’ proposed Reston planning principles for committee and RCA Board approval. (Follow-up: Davood Sagherian to draft over the weekend.)

3. Reston 2020 Committee will identify attorneys who may be able to provide pro bono legal assistance on land use matters. (Dan Maguire and Dick Stillson)

Agenda Item #2: Handling independent papers on Reston planning (e.g.—Dave Edwards’ draft transportation paper)

Dick Stillson noted that the committee had received an excellent draft paper on Reston transportation issues that, among other topics, addressed implementation issues such as phasing and financing of transportation requirements. Among its proposals is the creation of a tax increment policy to fund transportation needs. This would reserve for financing Reston infrastructure a portion of increases in property taxes due to development in Reston. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the financing arrangements. Still, the issue was how to handle this and other independently prepared papers. Dave Edwards noted that the paper was still a draft and intended primarily for the county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A key problem is that the task force is not addressing implementation issues.

Action: It was moved, seconded, and nearly unanimously approved to refer such papers to the appropriate working group for their consideration. (In this case, the appropriate working groups would be Transportation and Implementation.)

Agenda Item #3: Potential action regarding the Comstock Wiehle Station Area proposal

Dick Stillson introduced the topic of whether the Reston 2020 Committee should do anything about the Comstock Wiehle Station Area proposal and, if so, what. Notice was made of Terry Maynard’s paper on the proposal’s lack of fit with the proposed planning principles. All agreed that the proposal did not reflect Restonians’ values or expectations for transit-oriented development (TOD) along the Dulles Corridor. There was some question whether “FAR” included above ground parking, which basically doubles the density of the project proposal. It was noted that the matter would be before the February 8 (now postponed to February 15 due to snow) meeting of the Reston Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Committee, and that they are not pleased with the proposal. There was general agreement that Restonians should voice their concerns to the committee, the Planning Commission (meets on March 25 re the proposal), and subsequently to the Board of Supervisors.

Actions: The following were moved, seconded, and approved by those present:

1. The Committee would try to determine through pro bono legal counsel whether above ground parking counted as FAR in Fairfax County. (Dan Maguire)

2. The Committee would generate and compile alternative architectural ideas on how the site could be developed in a manner that met Restonians’ expectations. (Guy Rando)


A motion was made, seconded, and passed to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM.

POSTPONED: Reston P&Z Meeting Postponed Until Monday, Feb. 15

The following is the text of an e-mail sent to members of the P&Z Committee:

Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: February 8th meeting cancelled

After discussions with David Vanell, it was decided to cancel the February 8th P&Z meeting. The new meeting will be February 15th, same time and place. Though this is a three day holiday weekend, the meeting room is available.

Arthur Hill