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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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
