Community Outreach on New Draft Reston Comprehensive Plan Scheduled

For the last two years, Supervisor Alcorn has led a task force of mostly Reston community residents to revamp the Reston Comprehensive Plan.  The task force has approved a final draft plan and now the county and RCA are reaching out to the community for their input on the plan.

According to the Reston Patch, the following meetings are already lined up to review different aspects of the plan:

Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning has scheduled the following meetings where members of the public can learn more about the task force's recommendations and provide their feedback.

• Community Meeting - Transportation Focus: Wednesday, Sept. 14, at 5 p.m. Virtual WebEx Meeting
• Community Meeting (Economic Development Focus) Thursday, Sept. 15, at 5 p.m. Virtual WebEx Meeting
• In-Person Community Meeting: Thursday, Sept. 22, at 7 p.m. Cathy Hudgins Community Center at Southgate, 12125 Pinecrest Road.
• Lunch & Learn Friday, Sept. 23, at 12 p.m. Virtual WebEx Meeting
• Commissioner John Carter are scheduled to participate in the meeting about the comprehensive plan.
• In-Person Community Meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 27 at 7 p.m., in the second floor conference room at 1900 Reston Metro Plaza in Reston Station.
• Lunch & Learn: Wednesday, Sept. 28, 12 p.m. Virtual WebEx Meeting

Reston Citizens Association is also hosting a community meeting on Monday, Sept. 26, at 7 p.m., at RA headquarters. Supervisor Alcorn and Hunter Mill District Planning Commissioner John Carter will be on hand to answer residents questions.

The Department of Planning and Zoning will be scheduling additional meetings in October. Members of the public can provide feedback via the county's online portal.

The full draft text of the plan is available on the County's website.  The webpage also provides everyone an opportunity to provide their comments on the draft plan.  The plan, more than 170 pages long, is divided into 12 sections covering topics of importance to the Reston community.

Coalition for a Planned Reston: Supervisors authorize review of Reston Master Plan, January 21, 2020

This is a re-post of an e-mail from the the Coalition for a Planned Reston (CPR).

Earlier this month the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved a motion by new Hunter Mill Supervisor Walter Alcorn initiating a public participation process and authorizing an amendment to the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan for Reston. Here is a link to the motion: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/huntermill/reston-comprehensive-plan-amendment. Mr. Alcorn estimated that the process will take 12-18 months.
The motion authorized a Plan amendment for Reston that focuses on nine subjects:

• Projected population thresholds for Reston
• Land use in the village centers (Hunters Woods, South Lakes and North Point)
• Additional affordable housing
• Existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure for accessing Silver Line stations
• Guidance for urban-scale mobility and development design in the TSAs while protecting the stability of nearby neighborhoods
• Transportation improvements to ensure that they are aligned with planned development
• Enhancement of Reston’s natural environment, encouraging energy efficiency and supporting sustainable green neighborhoods
• Monopolization of ownership in Reston, and ways to encourage diverse ownership or management
• Whether the historic practice of promoting privately-owned and managed open space sufficiently addresses public needs.

CPR has long advocated changes to the PRC (Phase 2) portion of the Comprehensive Plan for Reston and applauds Supervisor Alcorn for his timely leadership.
CPR will work with Mr. Alcorn and the Reston community to help promote community involvement with a goal of maintaining Reston as a planned community welcome to all.
Please note that Supervisor Alcorn has made it clear that his motion does not include a change to the Reston Plan's provisions maintaining two golf courses.

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

Rescue Reston calls on Supervisor Hudgins to Block Elimination of Planning Commission Review of Redevelopment Proposals for Village Centers

In an e-mail to Hunter Mill District Supervisor Cathy Hudgins, other members of the Board of Supervisors, and others, Rescue Reston President Connie Hartke calls upon the Board to block the Planning Commission's proposal to drop its involvement in proposed redevelopment of Reston's village Centers.  

Here is a copy of her e-mail:

Dear Supervisor Hudgins,

We understand that the Fairfax County Planning Commission has recommended removal of the requirement for Village Centers to undergo Comprehensive Plan Amendments in order to promote their redevelopment.

Rescue Reston is alarmed at this suggestion to shortcut our County process.

The Rescue Reston Board asks you and the Board of Supervisors to maintain control over the Reston part of the Comprehensive Plan by striking this recommendation. 

The Reston Citizens Association recently wrote a 411 information sheet on PRC Districts in an effort to educate the public on these three very unique County Zoning Districts. It is attached and online at restoncitizensassociation.blogspot.com/p/reston-411.html

.

By copy of this email, we are asking Supervisor Cook and Supervisor Herrity to stand with you as they each have a Planned Residential Community District within their Districts.

PRC Districts require a comp plan amendment and the BoS must hold strong on controlling this piece of the process. 

Regards,

Connie Hartke, President

Rescue Reston

cc: Supervisor John Cook, Braddock District

      Supervisor Pat Herrity, Springfield District

      Chairman Sharon Bulova

     Rescue Reston Board of Directors

     Tim Thompson, Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Associations

     Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors

     RCA Reston 2020 Committee

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.

Reston 2020 proposes changes to the second draft of the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan

Below is the e-mail Reston 2020 sent to the County's Department of Planning and Zoning proposing various changes in the current draft Reston Master Plan (RMP) for Reston's suburban areas (Phase 2).  We have also included below that a copy of the "tracked changes" version of the proposed draft RMP and the statement Reston 2020 offered on the need to improve its maps.   We have previously published Reston 2020's comment to the January 29th Community Meeting here.


From: Terry Maynard                                                                                                                                   Today at 1:58 PM

To:  Richard Lambert and Faheem Darab, DPZ

Dear Richard and Faheem,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the second draft of the proposed revised Master Plan for Reston's suburban areas.  As a general statement, we believe that the second draft is a significant step backward from Draft 1A, cutting or weakening many of the earlier draft plan's protections for sustaining our neighborhoods and other areas "as built" or keeping them at scales consistent with nearby neighborhoods in the event of redevelopment.

As you are aware, we are particularly concerned about the unfettered redevelopment opportunity and limited process protections offered for the Village Centers.  Our concerns about this weak plan language are highlighted by the planned redevelopment of the Town Center Office Building into an outsized office building more than 1/4 mile from the Reston Town Center Metrorail station.

Besides the village centers, you will find these substantial proposed changes:

• A listing of protected sites in the Heritage Resources section, including the need to protect Fairfax Hunt Club, both its existing cemetery and as a place to create the Reston place for remembrance called for in the Reston Master Plan's Planning Principles.
• The re-insertion of language from Draft 1A that helps assure redevelopment of multi-family developments is to the scale of the surrounding neighborhoods in the "Guidelines for Multi-family Redevelopment" section.
• Extensive changes in the Village Center section focused on assuring they are view as neighborhood resources, not community (as in Reston-wide) focused, including language that emphasizes the importance of inputs from nearby residents and constrains redevelopment to a 1.0 FAR--four times the currently allowed density.
• In the "Option for Residential Redevelopment" portion of the "Baron Cameron Community Retail Area," we also have added a bullet that would help assure it continues the tapering of density from Town Center North across the street to avoid excessive density more than 1/2-mile from the Metrorail station.

A few other smaller changes are also proposed.

To address these concerns, we have attached four documents.

• The first document is the full text of Draft 2 of the Reston Master Plan with our proposed changes tracked in RED.
• The second document reflects the accepted changes we propose.  
• The third document discusses needed additions and corrections to key Reston maps in the draft plan. If the plan text does not specify land use categories for particular parcels or areas, then 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.
• Finally, we have attached our comment presented at the 1/29 Community Meeting on this draft to be incorporated in the DPZ record of commentary, presumably as part of the Community Meeting discussion.

We hope you will find these proposed changes constructive.  We are confident that they are consistent with the wishes of the Reston community whose participation in your workshops and community meetings led to some of the changes we propose here. 

We look forward to reviewing the next draft of the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan.

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard

RCA Reston 2020 Committee

703-476-5376

   "Tracked Changes" offered by Reston 2020 for Draft 2 of the Reston Master Plan, Phase 2

   Comments on Needed Improvements in Reston Planning Maps

Summary of Community Meeting on Second Draft of Phase 2 Reston Master Plan, January 29, 2015

UPDATE:  For more on the community meeting, please read this article in RestonNow, February 5, 2015.

Despite the threatening weather last evening, more than 90 people attended the community meeting to discuss the second draft of the Phase 2 (suburban area) of the Reston Master Plan.  Among those in attendance were County officials Cathy Hudgins and RCC Director Leila Gordon in addition to planning and transportation staff personnel.  A number of residents were wearing their neon yellow “Rescue Reston” t-shirts.

The first 45 minutes or so were devoted to the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) presenting the changes in the second draft.  (Their presentation will be linked here when it is posted on the Fairfax County website.)  Questions were taken during the presentation.

• One questioner repeatedly asked why the Reston on Foot and Bike plan was not incorporated into the draft plan, merely referred to. 

• Another questioner wondered whether the draft plan fixed the language issues surrounding the Reston National Golf Course, and it does (but it may be too late). 

• A third questioner, noting plans to incorporate the Hunt Club area into the Reston plan, noted that Civil War era graves have been found on the site and why the plan did not reflect that historic fact and the need for its protection.  DPZ was not aware that graves had been confirmed there, which would require that the area be protected. 

• There were also several questions about transportation issues. 

Supervisor Hudgins left the meeting near the end of the DPZ presentation, not waiting to hear the questions and concerns expressed by those in attendance.

A question and answer period ensued.  Some of the key topics raised in that were:

• Controlling Village Center redevelopment.  Several people expressed concern about language in the latest draft that does not constrain redevelopment of Reston’s Village Centers.  Terry Maynard read a prepared Reston 2020 statement concerning the issue, noting that no defined limits on density are defined nor are Village Center boundaries prevented from expanding.  Given the history of adverse consequences from sloppy planning and zoning language (RNGC, the redevelopment of Town Center Office Building), Reston 2020 proposed that the plan include no language on redevelopment unless it had specific constraints.

• Stop tearing down garden apartments.  The draft Reston Master Plan allows the redevelopment of Reston’s garden apartments, which are the only place most young adults can afford to live in Reston.  Their replacements would be high-rise buildings which, because of their construction costs, drive rents or condo sales prices into the luxury level.

• Protecting Civil War grave sites.  A person linked to the Hunt Club effort to document these grave sites noted that six graves of a pro-Northern family have been confirmed and the effort continues to further define the scope of the cemetery.  A spokesperson encouraged the DPZ to show some curiosity about this significant find—“Reston’s first family”—before proposing language that might let the nine-acre area be developed as a residential neighborhood.

The group meeting closed about 8:30PM with the opportunity for individuals to ask questions of the staff planning and transportation members in attendance.