A Reston Worth Saving, John K. Nusbaum, February 2, 2015

This is cross-posted from the Reston Citizens Association blog. 

by Reston Citizen John K. Nusbaum

     My dad and mom bought 12 acres on Hunter Mill Road in Oakton in 1948 so I had plenty of time as I grew up to get acquainted with the area that would later be named Reston. There have been many changes since the days when I would ford Difficult Run on Lawyers Road and hunt small game in the beautiful wooded countryside.

       My wife Maria and I have lived here in Reston for over 27 years now and over those years I’ve watched it change to meet the needs of an increasing population. Lately the desires of some property owners have produced serious issues that stand to impact Reston’s future in very profound ways. 

             Ambivalent Fairfax County administrators’ heads are turned by special interests and big business so counting on their help in protecting the essence of what makes Reston unique is getting harder by the day.  

       Without question the genie is out of the bottle, so now more than ever before it’s the duty of we the residents to understand what is at stake in Reston’s future and stand up for core values that we hold dear.

       Do we want Reston to resemble Rosslyn where green space is almost nonexistent and traffic gridlock grips roadways? Where property footprints stay the same but affordable low rise structures give way to expensive high rise ones?   In what kind of Reston do you want to live, work and play?

10 Principles for Liveable High Density Cities: Lessons from Singapore, Urban Land Institute, January 24, 2013

This article, a summary of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) study, sounds like it was taken from Reston's Vision and Planning Principles--or even Bob Simon's original vision for our community. 

10 Principles for Liveable High Density Cities: Lessons from Singapore draws upon Singapore’s successful urbanization experience – despite its population density, the city-state has consistently ranked favorably in various surveys measuring the liveability and sustainability of cities around the globe.

The ten principles in the publication were developed during two workshops hosted in 2012 by the CLC (Singapore's Centre for Liveable Cities) and ULI Asia Pacific, bringing together 62 thought leaders, experts and practitioners from different disciplines related to urban planning and development. Discussions at the first workshop centred around the four case study districts in Singapore that both organizations consider to be both densely populated and highly liveable: the mixed-use downtown district of Marina Bay; the commercial corridor of Orchard Road, and two new public housing developments in Toa Payoh and Tampines. The ideas and principles so generated were further developed, corroborated, and condensed into ten principles. . .

• Plan for long-term growth and renewal –A highly dense city usually does not have much choice but to make efficient use of every square inch of its scarce land. Yet city planners need to do this in a way that does not make the city feel cramped and unliveable. A combination of long-term planning, responsive land policies, development control and good design has enabled Singapore to have dense developments that do not feel overly crowded, and, in fact, are both functional and aesthetically pleasing.
• Embrace diversity, foster inclusiveness – There is a need to ensure that diversity is not divisive, particularly in densely populated cities where people live in close proximity to one another. Density and diversity work in Singapore because there has always been a concurrent focus on creating a sense of inclusiveness through encouraging greater interaction.
• Draw nature closer to people – Blending nature into the city helps soften the hard edges of a highly built up cityscape and provides the city dwellers pockets of respite from the bustle of urban life. By adopting a strategy of pervasive greenery and by transforming its parks and water bodies into lifestyle spaces for community activities, Singapore integrated nature with its dense developments. Nearly half of Singapore is now under green cover, which is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also improves the air quality and mitigates heat from the tropical sun.
• Develop affordable, mixed-use neighbourhoods – The ease of living in a compact neighbourhood that is relatively self-contained can add to the pleasure of city living. With density, it becomes more cost effective to provide common amenities. Neighbourhoods in Singapore’s new towns have a mix of public and private developments which are served with a full range of facilities that are easy to access and generally affordable.
• Make public spaces work harder – Often, parcels of land that adjoin or surround the city’s infrastructure are dormant, empty spaces. Singapore has sought to maximize the potential of these spaces by unlocking them for commercial and leisure activities, The idea is to make all space, including infrastructural spaces, serve multiple uses and users.
• Prioritise green transport and building options – An overall reduction in energy consumption and dependence adds to city sustainability. Singapore has adopted a resource-conscious growth strategy that relies on planning, design and the use of low-energy environmental systems for its buildings. It has also developed an efficient public transport system and well-connected walkways to give city dwellers transport alternatives to driving.
• Relieve density with variety and add green boundaries – A high-density city need not be all about closely packed high-rise buildings. Singapore intersperses high-rise with low-rise buildings, creating a skyline with more character and reducing the sense of being in a crowded space.
• Activate spaces for greater safety – Having a sense of safety and security is an important quality-of-life factor. As Singapore became denser, designs of high-rise public housing estates were modified to improve the “visual access” to spaces so the community can collectively be the “eyes on the street,” helping to keep neighbourhoods safe.
• Promote innovative and non-conventional solutions – As a city gets more populated and built up, it starts facing constraints on land and resources, and has to often look at non-traditional solutions to get around the challenges. To ensure sufficient water, Singapore developed reclaimed water under the brand name NEWater-to drinking and industrial standards.
• Forge “3P” (people, public, private) partnerships – With land parcels in close proximity to one another, the effects of development in one area are likely to be felt quickly and acutely in neighbouring sites. The city government and all stakeholders need to work together to ensure they are not taking actions that would reduce the quality of life for others. URA launched the Singapore River ONE partnership to get the various stakeholders to feel a stronger ownership of Singapore River so that social and economic activity in the precinct would be developed in a coordinated and sustainable manner.

From my own experience in Singapore, one of the most densely populated place on the planet, I can say that it is a beautiful tropical city-state with especially attractive parks and open spaces that utilizes transportation demand management (TDM) methods to the extreme, e.g.--only specially licensed vehicles in the core business district.  From the foreword of the report:

Indeed Singapore’s former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew observed
in an interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities that a good city is one
that is clean, creates a sense of safety and space, provides mobility and
connectivity, and above all, “a sense of equity, that everybody owns a part
of the city.”

 Worthy goals for Reston's new urbanizing core.

A Conversation With Fred Kent, Leader in Revitalizing City Spaces, By Samantha Michaels, The Atlantic, September 16, 2011

This is an excellent article on urban planning.  It is Mr. Kent's contention that the people who should be involved in this process are the people who "live, work, and play" (sound familiar?) in the area being considered, not urban planners.  Moreover, his article makes not one reference to the involvement of local developers or politicians in the process (at least in a positive light).  The money quote:  

To us, the community is the expert, so long as they are asked for their input.

This is the introduction to the article:

For someone who makes a living revitalizing city spaces, Fred Kent has an interesting take on professional urban designers: he thinks they're overrated. The real urban design experts, he says, are the ordinary people who actually live and work within a community. And with his nonprofit organization, Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Kent is doing his best to empower them.

Founded in 1975, Project for Public Spaces helps community members design, plan, and manage public spaces by considering their own needs and values. Kent calls this process Placemaking, and he has used it to transform popular landmarks around the world, including Detroit's historic Eastern Market, Houston's Discovery Green park, and New York City's Times Square. Here, he discusses the difference between Placemaking and traditional design, how public spaces can foster stronger communities, and why ordinary people make the best urban planners.

 For the rest of this excellent article, click here.

Agenda: RTF Steering Committee Meeting, September 21, 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY TASK FORCE
Co-Chairs’ Steering Sub-Committee Meeting
North County Governmental Center, 12000 Bowman Towne Drive
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 – 8:15-10:00 a.m.

AGENDA

8:15 a.m. Administrative Items Patty Nicoson, Chair

8:20 a.m. Public Comment

8:25 a.m. Brief Review of Vision Subcommittee Report (dated March 12, 2011)
     • Transportation
     •  Urban Design
     •  Parks (Public Facilities)

8:45 a.m. Discussion of Checklist (to be available Tuesday 9/20)
     •  Transportation section
     •  Parks/Open Space section

9:45 a.m. Next Meeting
      •  Date: TBD
      •  Location: TBD

10:00 a.m. Adjourn, Patty Nicoson

Agenda: RTF Meeting, September 13, 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY

TASK FORCE

September 13, 2011

7 - 9:30 p.m.

Task Force Meeting

Reston Community Center at Lake Anne

AGENDA

7:00 p.m.         Public Comment Period 

7:10 p.m.         Administrative Items – Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

7:20 p.m.         Presentation on Allocation of Forecasted Absorption (GMU 2030 High forecast with increased residential) -

Heidi Merkel, Department of Planning and Zoning

·         How forecasted development has been allocated to the 3 transit station areas

·         Second scenario with greater residential component (still under discussion)

8:45 p.m.         Steering Subcommittee Next Steps (next meeting Wednesday morning 9/21 – 8:15 a.m., location) - Heidi Merkel

·         Role of Vision Subcommittee Report

·         Checklist of issues to be clarified for drafting Plan text

9:00 p.m.         Start of Phase 2 of Reston Master Plan Special Study – Heidi Merkel

9:15 p.m.         Next full Task Force meeting

·         Next meeting:  To be determined

·         Location:  To be determined

9:25 p.m.         Adjourn – Patty Nicoson

Agenda: RTF Steering Committee Meeting, September 7, 2011

Update:  DPZ has added a brief discussion of a second, residentially-oriented development scenario for traffic analysis.   

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY TASK FORCE

Co-Chairs’ Steering Sub-Committee Meeting

North County Government Center, 12000 Bowman Towne Drive

Wednesday, September 7, 2011 – 7:00-9:30 p.m.

AGENDA

7:00 p.m.             Administrative Items Patty Nicoson, Chair

7:10 p.m.             Public Comment

7:15 p.m.             Review of allocation of GMU 2030 High +20% forecast (forecast as defined at June 7, 2011 Steering Sub-committee – 2030 High forecast for non-residential and 2030 High + 20% for residential)

•          Wiehle

•          Herndon-Mornoe

•          Town Center
 

7:45 p.m. Update on second scenario with greater proportion of residential for impact analysis 

8:00 p.m.             Discussion of Vision Sub-committee Report and Checklist

•          Transportation section

•          Open Space section

9:15 p.m.             Next Meeting

•          Date:  TBD

•          Location:  TBD

9:30 p.m.             Adjourn, Patty Nicoson

Notes from the Reston Task Force Meeting, March 15, 2011, Dick Rogers

                                      R. ROGERS

                                      16 March 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE MEETING: 15 MARCH

Summary: The Task Force approved the Vision and Planning Principles statement!  But only after considerable debate on the sections on the environment and re-development around the Village Centers.

Admin Items:

Summary Approval:  The Task Force (TF) approved the summary of its February 22, 2011, meeting without discussion.

Letter to MWAA re Air Rights:  A draft follow-up TF letter to MWAA on air rights is on hold because of developer concern that the $34 million involved is too expensive and could hold up Phase 2 of Metro.  On the other hand, the same developer argued that the $64 million cost for delaying a decision would be a drop in the bucket compared with the billion dollar development that would be involved.  A member of the TF noted that the TF needed to highlight the importance of air rights to MWAA in Reston’s TOD effort.  Another noted that the TF would probably “only get one shot at this” and urged it be sent forward. Patti Nicoson said she would review the draft. 

           Visitability has been raised with the TF.  Heidi Merkel, County DPZ staff, will look into county policies on this accessibility issue.

           Chairman Patti Nicoson noted that Terry Maynard at Reston 2020 had asked that his analysis of various levels of proposed density be put on the county website.  However, since some assumptions are not clear, Heidi will go back and work with Terry to get more clarity before putting it on the web.

Public comments:

Affordable Housing:  Tom Loftus, Equitable Housing Institute of Northern Virginia, urged the TF to promote a good balance between residential and office in the TOD areas. His organization advocates 1 housing unit for each 1.5 jobs. He also noted that a good economic balance was needed in the type of housing offered. He said his organization had sent a letter on this to the TF on this topic.

RA Letter on Environment:  Freya de la Cola, a spokesperson for RA’s Environmental Advisory Committee, noted that the EAC has prepared and the RA Board had approved a letter sent to the TF calling for the strengthening of the Vision & Planning Principles statement on protecting Reston’s natural resources. 

Vision Committee (VC) Report

John Carter presented an overview on the VC report (available on county website). Reaction was notably mute with the exception of endorsements for a memorial garden and additional crossings of the DTR.  (The full VC report is available here on the Reston 2020 blog.)

Vision & Planning Principles Statement

           A one hour and 20 minute discussion was held (the agenda had allowed 15 minutes!). Two issues dominated—environment and village centers/protection of residential neighborhoods. Robert Goudie’s amendments were the centerpiece of this discussion (his was the only alternative language graphically presented to the group).

           On Planning Principle #2 concerning the environment, the discussion went two ways. Goudie and developers proposed softening the statement that natural areas will be “protected and restored.”  RA, whose spokesperson Freya de la Cola spoke earlier, proposed additional wording that added the word “remedied” to adverse impact on the environment and protected Reston’s tree canopy as of environmental significance.  The Task Force split the difference by adopting both proposals!

             On the neighborhoods section of Planning Principle #4, Goudie proposed wording protecting existing residential areas “outside the Town Center, rail corridor, and Village Centers, inferentially including these areas--especially the Village Centers—as potentially “targeted” for additional development and density. Concern was expressed about how this would affect existing neighborhoods in the VCs. Heidi Merkel added to this by noting that the boundaries of the VCs sometimes included residential areas beyond the existing shopping areas, even including single family houses. It was noted that some areas around the village centers include garden apartments which provide affordable housing. Initially the TF was going to defer on all this but later Goudie suggested deleting his language that “target” the village centers for redevelopment.  This leaves somewhat ambiguous what will happen around the VCs. This was approved by a vote that was not clear.

            Other points inserted by Goudie were added but some of his excessive verbiage dropped.  An attempt to remove the label “highest priority” from additional DTR crossings was successful but his attempt to delete “abundant” open space was replaced by “high quality publicly accessible open space”.

The overall principles were approved, apparently by a 17 to 2 vote.

            Comment: The procedures used during these votes were highly unorthodox, if not misleading.  No roll was taken at the beginning of the meeting, no effort made to establish the credentials particularly of alternates (some sat out the vote even though only about ¾ of the regular TF members were present). The wording being voted on was not always apparent to the members.  Discussion was truncated and disorganized.  Opposing votes were not counted, and voting results were left unclear.

Steering Committee Update

            In the last 15 minutes Heidi presented an overview of the work of the Steering Committee in determining station “character,” including brief summaries the SC developed for the “character” of each station.  There was no time for discussion — and no one was interested in discussion as the clock approached 10 PM. Heidi noted she may propose these character statements for a vote at the next TF meeting.

Next meetings: 

• Steering Committee. The SC will meet next Wednesday, March 23, at 8AM, at the North County Govt Center. It will look at “massing” of buildings and continue discussion on mix of uses.

• Next TF meeting: April 5, 7 PM, place to be determined.

    

The RTF Vision Committee Report, March 12, 2011

Reston Vision Committee Report March-12-2011

Reston Task Force Meeting Agenda, March 15, 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY
TASK FORCE
March 15, 2011
Task Force Meeting

South Lakes High School, 11400 South Lakes Drive, Reston

DRAFT AGENDA

7:00 p.m. Public Comment Period

7:15 p.m. Administrative Items – Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

7:25 p.m. Vision Committee Final Report Presentation

• John Anderson Carter and Kohann Williams, Co‐chairs

8:00 p.m. Task Force Vote re: Reston community‐wide Vision statement and Planning Principles

• Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

8:15 p.m. Update re: Steering Sub‐committee

• Heidi Merkel, DPZ Staff

9:15 p.m. Upcoming full Task Force meeting

• Next meeting: Tuesday April 5 (3 weeks)
• Location: TBD

9:25 p.m. Adjourn – Patty Nicoson

Notes on the Vision Committee Meeting, March 9, 2011, Terry Maynard

Notes on the

RTF Vision Committee Meeting

March 9, 2011

Present:  Kohann Williams and John Carter, Co-chairs; Fred Costello, John Bowman, Judith Pew, Sandi Smith (DPZ Staff), Patty Nicoson, Art Murphy.  There were two community observers.

The purpose of the meeting was to make final changes to the Environment and Transportation chapters of the Vision Committee’s report to Task Force.  The process the VC uses for reviewing chapters is to go around the room and give each person an opportunity to identify proposed changes.  Changes of substance are agreed to by a consensus.   Given that this was a final review and the draft chapters were excellently prepared, virtually all of the changes proposed were of an editorial nature.  The VC will present its report to the Task Force at its next meeting on March 15, 2011.

Environment

The only substantial change proposed and adopted was in the “Forest & Trees” sub-section.  It was amended to highlight the importance of trees an essential element of the Reston experience.  In the course of the conversation on this topic, which targets a 45% tree canopy goal for Reston, it was noted that Reston’s current tree canopy is only 38% which is well below the County average. 

Transportation

Several substantive changes were adopted, including:

•  While encouraging the use of “grid of streets,” the language was amended to add “…where beneficial” since it is not clear that a grid would always be advantageous.
• Under the “Provide Transit Options” sub-section, the sentence regarding expanding the bus system was specified to include access to the Metro stations and within the Reston-Herndon area.
• In the “Expand the Network of Streets” sub-section, the language concerning a crossing of the Dulles Access Road at the Reston Town Center was strengthened from “examine the potential for” to “construct.”
• Under the same sub-section, a bullet was added calling for construction of an additional trans-corridor roadway from South Lakes Drive, although there was some concern about the practicality of this proposal. 
• Under the “Improve Operational Characteristics” sub-section, a sentence was added to build satellite parking garages at Reston’s outskirts (like the South Metro Kiss n’ Ride) with express bus service to the nearest Metro station.
• Under the “Expand Evaluation Techniques” sub-section, the paragraph instructing Fairfax County to enter into a contract for state-of-the-art transportation analysis was dropped as too prescriptive and detailed for the vision report.

(Comment:  As Chair for Reston 2020’s Transportation Working Group, I was impressed that the VC report captured so many of the TWG’s recommendations.)

Terry Maynard

Notes on the RTF Vision Committee Meting, March 2, 2011, Tammi Petrine

Vision Sub-Committee Meeting:  Wed., March 2, 2011

Those present: Co-chairs, Kohann Williams & John Carter, Patti Nicoson, Heidi, Joe Stowers, John Bowman, Fred Costello, Bill Penniman and Art Murphy.  Observers were: Tammi Petrine & Rob Bonham

The committee is working on the final word-smithing of their final report to the Task Force.  The sections covered were: public facilities and urban design.

During the public facilities discussion, John Carter suggested the idea that land dedicated for public facilities might have the open space requirements waived.

Educational facilities were broadly discussed from elementary schools through graduate degree programs.  One part of the discussion included the caveat that public or not-for-profit institutions would not be subjected to FAR limitations.  One committee member spoke to the need to look at graduate programs that would augment the industries already in Reston.  Tammi Petrine of Reston 2020 stated that 2020 research showed that at least one elementary school would be needed as Lake Anne is already over-crowded with the ARB’s already approved.  In addition, a new campus oriented junior and senior high school complex would be needed in Reston in the future.

When the performing arts center was discussed, the committee agreed that the ideal location was adjacent to the Town Center Metro station with ready access to both transportation and restaurants.  The size of the center was discussed as being much larger than Center Stage at the RCC-HW.  The chorale had asked for a minimum of 500 seats.

A children’s museum was mentioned and Tammi Petrine made a suggestion that a location at the Reston West Metro station would place the museum with ready access to the rare wetland resource, an additional science feature that would compliment the museum and provide indoor facilities for wetlands education.  (This would also give the western station a destination institution that might attract family friendly restaurants.  Observer’s opinion)

Other facilities mentioned were a state-of-the-art library, a major city park, a large indoor recreation center featuring a large 50 meter pool, sports fields, fire and police facilities.

The second section of the report discussed was Urban Design.

Design excellence was stressed for both public and private enterprises in addition to environmental responsibility including energy conservation.  A spirited discussion ensued regarding how much leverage the wording of the plan would have on requiring water and energy conservation from developers.

The committee also acknowledged that the profiles of the corridor development would likely differ from the profiles of the other original parts of Reston.  In this section, two streetscape designs were noted with more examples needed.

The committee was adamant that air rights be part of the urban design section of their document. 

Other items mentioned in this section were public art which would be integrated into developed and re-developed parts of the community and a specifically designated open space dedicated to a memorial garden to celebrate the end of Restonians’ life cycles.

Next week’s Wednesday meeting will cover Environmental and Transportation chapters of the Vision sub-committee report.

Recorder: Tammi Petrine, Reston 2020

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. 

RCA Comment to RTF Endorsing Proposed Reston Vision and Planning Principles Statement, Feb. 22, 2011

Thank you, Chairman Nicoson and members of the Reston Task Force.

As President of the Reston Citizens Association, I am pleased to announce RCA’s endorsement of the Vision and Planning Principles statement prepared by the Vision Sub-Committee.  While there may still be a few points we could quibble with and others will share their own views of the statement this evening, I want to take a few moments this evening to explain why RCA supports this important statement.  

At its core, the new Vision and Planning Principles statement balances the needs, directions, and goals of all of Reston’s diverse stakeholders—landowners, businesses, employees, residents, and visitors, current and future.  It is also broadly consistent with the nine Planning Principles proposed to the Task Force by our own Reston 2020 Committee a year ago. 

• It promotes the continuation of core Reston values, including protecting the environment, providing abundant public open space and natural areas, pursuing architectural excellence, and sustaining residential diversity.
• The statement calls for advancing Reston’s economic growth, an essential ingredient of its success.
• It addresses Reston’s endemic transportation problem through smarter land use, infrastructure development, and public transit strategies.
• And it highlights the importance of continuing community participation in shaping and monitoring Reston planning and zoning in the future of Reston.  RCA’s Reston 2020 Committee plans to be a part of that long-term effort. 

RCA deeply appreciates the work of the Task Force Steering Sub-Committee and—most importantly—the work of the Vision Sub-Committee in bringing these diverse and sometimes conflicting ideas into clear and concise focus.  

We hope that tonight’s discussion may lead to a few constructive additions to this vision statement, but we are anxious that some changes may detract from its elegant balance and comprehensiveness.

Marion Stillson

President, Reston Citizens Association

2/22/2011

Corrected Vision & Planning Principles Statement, RTF Vision Committee, Feb. 18, 2011

CORRECTED_Vision_and_Principles_02-18-2011

Agenda: Reston Task Force Meeting, February 22, 2011

RESTON MASTER PLAN SPECIAL STUDY

February 22, 2011

Task Force Meeting

South Lakes High School, 11400 South Lakes Drive, Reston

DRAFT Agenda 

7:00 p.m.         Public Comment Period 

7:15 p.m.         Administrative Items – Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair

7:30 p.m.         Update re: Steering Committee Work

7:45 p.m.         Vision Committee Presentation re: Vision and Planning Principles

John Anderson Carter and Kohann Williams, Co-chairs

                       

                        Task Force Review of Reston community-wide Vision statement and Planning Principles (vote to be taken at next full Task Force meeting)

Patty Nicoson, Task Force Chair 

9:15 p.m.         Upcoming full Task Force meetings

·        Next meeting:  Tuesday March 15 (3 weeks)

9:25 p.m.         Adjourn – Patty Nicoson