Why should 30 Dwelling Units per Acre Be The Maximum Allowable Residential Density in Village Centers?

Several attendees of the “One Reston” community meeting on December 11^th questioned the wisdom of the Coalition for a Planned Reston (CPR) proposal that the Reston plan should allow residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre (DUA) in our village centers.  It’s a good question.  In part, I take the blame for the concern because I was too cavalier in addressing why we would propose that many DUs in Reston’s village centers.

I think it is important to actually see what development at 30 DUA over first floor retail might look like as the photo below shows.  What it does not capture from a village center perspective, however, is the parking and “central plaza” that the Reston plan calls for.  I would anticipate that a developer would build a parking garage the same height as the village center residences to meet county requirements for residential and retail housing because it would be too expensive to build it underground for this low level of density.  The central plaza, such as Washington Plaza at Lake Anne, should be significant in size and provide amenities like a playground and plenty of greenspace. 

Now let me take a couple of minutes and explain why we think a maximum of 30 DUAs is a valid number for village center redevelopment using this small table based entirely on county policy, data, methods, and assumptions.

First, on average, Reston’s four remaining un-redeveloped village centers now average a little over 10 DUA with garden apartments and condos as well as townhouses within their boundaries.    It has been my observation that developers generally do not consider redevelopment unless they can at least triple the density of the existing facilities, residential or otherwise.   Limiting redevelopment to 30 DUA would make redevelopment economically feasible and help prevent developer legal action at blocking their “by right” development, but still set a tough ceiling on redevelopment.

Second, the county Board of Supervisors has already approved a redevelopment plan for Lake Anne Village Center that includes 38.6 DUA, more than we are proposing for the other village centers.   That could set the template for redevelopment for higher redevelopment density in village centers, but it has two features that suggest it is not a model for any village center redevelopment higher than 30 DUA:

• Lake Anne Village Center’s core is a designated historic area that effectively prevents redevelopment there, a factor not present in the other Reston village centers.
• It is also the only Reston village center designated as a Commercial Revitalization Area (CRA)—a designation intended to facilitate the use of county and other resources to improve its “economic vitality” basically around that historic core. 

Third, as presented by the county in its table of existing, approved, and planned development in the village centers, the current average potential development in them averages over 60 DUA, more than twice the maximum we are planning to propose.  Obviously, we believe limiting possible redevelopment there to 30 DUA would be a critical improvement in the Reston’s plan.  

We appreciate that the prospect of tripling the residential density within Reston’s village centers will have a large impact on the surrounding area and may include residential over retail design.  We believe, maybe optimistically, that the Reston plan’s current requirement for any redevelopment to require a plan amendment specifying the proposed change and that that amendment must be developed with the surrounding neighborhood will be adequate to keep impacts on traffic, schools, etc., to a minimum.  In fact, this was the process that led to the plan amendment regarding Lake Anne Village Center. 

On the other hand, in this Dillon Rule state, neither we nor the county is in the legal position of being able to prevent village center landowners from redeveloping their properties within reasonable guidance.  We think the 30 DUA threshold meets that requirement without giving up the quality of life of those who live nearby.  

Terry Maynard, Co-Chair

Reston 20/20 Committee

The Unfolding Abandonment of Tall Oaks as a Village Center

   The Unfolding Abandonment of Tall Oaks as a Village Center by Terry Maynard

RCA Letter to Supervisor Hudgins Regarding the Draft Phase 2 Reston Master Plan, May 28, 2015

From: Sridhar Ganesan

Subject: Reaching out to you about an amendment to the Master Plan, Phase II document

Date: May 28, 2015 at 5:08:48 PM EDT

To: "Hudgins, Catherine M." <Catherine.Hudgins@fairfaxcounty.gov>

Cc: Goldie Harrison <Goldie.Harrison@fairfaxcounty.gov>, John Hanley

Dear Supervisor Hudgins,

Hope you are doing well.  Knowing the kind of person that you are, I am sure you have thrown yourself fully back into County work. All of us at Reston Citizens Association appreciate your dedication to the County and the work you do for your constituents.

I am reaching out to you because we are concerned about a last minute change in the Reston Master Plan, Phase II, that would essentially remove one of the critical steps that any redevelopment ideas for Reston’s Village Centers will have to go through.  The new recommendations by the Planning Commission has dropped the need for comprehensive plan amendment for any redevelopment of Village Centers, but we think it is critical that we retain that requirement. Retaining the step of going through a Plan amendment requirement would provide more time and opportunity to educate the community on changes that are being contemplated and the citizens more time to constructively respond.  

Moreover, as Reston is a Planned Residential Community under the County's Planned Development District Regulations, so far it has been clear that a comprehensive plan amendment would be required for redevelopment of Village Center.  We have shared this information with the public through our blogs (our 411 series of documents on our website) and other communications as part of the Phase II public forums as well as during the intense activities around the Reston National Golf course issue.  

It is also disconcerting to see that the language does not include the phrase “green open space” in addition to plazas with reference to central gathering places. We think that incorporating specific language on “green open space” would be more in keeping with Reston’s planning principles.  We also think that it would be important to have some language on permitted density at the Village Centers.  

I would appreciate it very much if these could be addressed before the June 2 vote by the Board of Supervisors.  I know there is very little time left, but I would be happy to stop by your office or meet at any other place of choice to discuss this with you before then, weekday or weekend.  

Thank you very much for your attention.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Sridhar Ganesan
President, Reston Citizens Association

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

Tall Oaks Village Center: Issues for Analysis, Dick Rogers, May 15, 2015

   Tall Oaks:  Issues for Analysis

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

   &quot;Tracked Changes&quot; 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. 

Reston 2020 Statement at Community Meeting on Phase 2 Master Plan, January 29, 2015

RCA Reston 2020 Statement Regarding

Draft Reston Master Plan Language on

Reston’s Village Centers

January 29, 2015

Good evening.  I am Terry Maynard, spokesperson for the RCA Reston 2020 Committee. 

Our committee and many residents are concerned that the revised, second draft of the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan provides no meaningful constraints on redevelopment in and around our Village Centers.  The failure to provide meaningful guidance and restraint risks over-development of these centers and threatens surrounding neighborhoods.

The first draft provided that all Phase 2 areas essentially would be maintained “as built.”  The second draft generally retains this “as built” approach, even with respect to rental apartment sites which would be reduced from “high” to “medium” density.  But there is one glaring and inappropriate change.

The second draft totally abandons this “as built” approach with respect to the four village centers, placing no objective limits on future density in the event of redevelopment.  The draft language states at one point only that redevelopment within the village center footprints should be “neighborhood scale”, a terminology that is literally meaningless, and yet at another points sets as the first goal in its  vision for redevelopment of  Village Centers as “community”—which means “Reston-wide” in county plan-speak—gathering places.  Village Centers have never been meant to serve the community, only their nearby neighborhoods.

Normally County plans call for a maximum floor-area ratio or FAR for an area.  These defining terms do not appear at all in the section on Village Center redevelopment.  As a result, redevelopment densities are left to developers to conjure up at their whim, and their definition of “neighborhood scale” and “community gathering place” will almost certainly far exceed what the neighborhood thinks it should be. 

The draft plan language also is very soft and vague in defining the boundaries of redevelopment both within and adjacent to the Village Centers. 

The draft plan also does not limit redevelopment only to the established retail areas, merely suggesting it should be focused there.  The door is opened to expanding commercial or mixed-uses into the residential areas within the existing Village Center footprints.  We know of no good reason why the residents of Village Center areas should be treated differently than other Restonians whose property is generally protected by keeping them “as built.” 

The draft plan language does state that the Village Center outside boundaries themselves should be maintained, but our conversations with DPZ staff indicates that there are those who question that language and would support enlarging the village center footprints into nearby condo, townhouse and even single-family detached neighborhoods. 

The argument for expanding the Village Centers’ boundaries apparently hinges on the economic viability of redevelopment we were told.  Our committee would ask, “What about the neighborhoods in and near Village Centers?  Shouldn’t their existing viability—their quality of life and their property values—be as protected at least as much as the hypothetical viability of some future redevelopment?  Why should profit-driven commercial redevelopment be given some higher standing?”

As Reston has recently experienced, our questions and concerns are not hypothetical.  Right now, the community faces a massive attack on the preservation of 166 acres of open space at Reston National Golf Course in part because of loose language in a County plan written 45 years ago.  The approved redevelopment of the Town Center Office Building, an opportunity spawned by sloppy planning and zoning language decades ago, promises a massive high-rise office building twice as tall as adjoining buildings and more than ½-mile from the future Silver Line rail station.  It will stand above Town Center like a developer’s massive middle finger directed at the County’s transit station area policy objective and the community’s transit-oriented design goal of tapering density away from the Metro stations. 

As these and other insults to the Reston Master Plan suggest, developers will exploit not only every opening, but even any weak seams, in Reston’s Master Plan to increase their development and profit potential at others’ expense.  We are seeking to prevent this from occurring again at the expense of Reston’s vision as a well-planned community by ensuring that the draft plan language for Reston’s Village Centers is as tight and precise as it can possibly be. 

We believe that in the absence of concrete redevelopment constraints on density, borders, and mix of uses for redeveloped village centers, the plan should go no further than specify the existing baseline plan which allows a FAR of 0.25 and clearly defines the mixed-use and residential areas.  All language proposing what might be offered in Village Center redevelopment should be dropped in the absence of reasonable and measurable constraints. 

We do not want to see any language incorporated in the plan that provides a pretext, however remote, for massive redevelopment densities and expansion of the Village Centers at the expense of nearby neighborhoods.  To do so could undermine the fabric of our residential neighborhoods.