Terry Maynard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reston at a crossroads with Metro’s arrival
>
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20131122/OPINI
> ON/131129502/1065/reston-at-a-crossroads-with-metr
> o-x2019-s-arrival&template=fairfaxTimes
>
> Open letter to the Fairfax County Planning
> Commission:
>
> As an observer and participant in last week’s
> Planning Commission hearing, I would like to
> follow up on what occurred then and address some
> points that were not adequately addressed from the
> perspective of Reston’s citizens. As a longtime
> Reston resident, member of the Reston Citizens
> Association’s Board of Directors and its
> representative on the Task Force, and co-chairman
> of the Reston 2020 Committee who has been working
> on the revamping of the Plan since before the Task
> Force was launched, I believe I have some insight
> into what many —probably most — Restonians
> think about their community and the Reston Plan
> draft.
>
> I believe most Restonians welcome — some more
> reluctantly than others — the arrival of
> Metrorail and urban development around its
> stations. Certainly RA, RCA, and ARCH have all
> been strong supporters of well-considered and
> implemented transit-oriented development along the
> Dulles Corridor. RCA and Reston 2020, which have
> committed more citizen resources to this effort
> than the others, have provided a variety of
> analyses suggesting how this might be done. We are
> not too uncomfortable with the density and mix
> result of this draft plan, although we believe the
> office density may be excessive in light of the
> declining space needed per worker. We would also
> prefer to see a stronger residential element in
> the mix to help reduce transportation and
> environmental impacts, but we can live with these
> ambitious core development plans. I would be among
> the first to acknowledge that the plan, whatever
> it becomes, is not a law or regulation. It does,
> however, set a crucial set of goals and
> expectations for the core of our community. And
> Restonians have, over the years, demonstrated
> their commitment to high goals and great
> expectations in all facets of their community’s
> development. We very much seek to continue that
> vital tradition of community planning excellence.
> I believe, in particular, that the reason RCA gave
> the draft plan a “D” grade is that, at best,
> it does not pursue planning for community
> excellence, deferring to existing standards (some
> not even legitimized by the Planning Commission or
> Board of Supervisors) and the desire of developers
> to limit interference in their profit-making
> efforts, sometimes at the expense of the
> community.
>
> More importantly, I think virtually all of us
> believe Reston is someplace special thanks to Bob
> Simon’s brilliant vision — decades ahead of
> County thinking — and its effective execution.
> And, yes, he faced strong bureaucratic and
> development resistance like the community is now
> facing in making this draft plan one calling for
> excellence rather than more of the same. Reston is
> not just another sub-division. It is an integrated
> well-planned community — space, structures,
> people, movement, living, working, and playing
> together — spanning a tremendous diversity of
> lifestyles, employment and recreation
> opportunities consistent with Bob Simon’s
> half-century old vision and values. We want to
> extend that forward thinking to enrich the
> urbanizing corridor and our community — and push
> our government and the development industry in the
> process, just as Bob Simon had to do a
> half-century ago.
>
> If we are going to create a much-needed urban
> corridor, we need to do it the right way
> consistent with the highest standards of
> transit-oriented development as experienced
> elsewhere (see Rosslyn-Ballston corridor),
> discussed by industry experts (including the
> Center for Transit Oriented Development, ULI,
> etc.), and studied by knowledgeable academicians
> (Robert Cervero, Reid Ewing, among others). This
> includes, but is not limited to:
>
> • Our community’s strong environmental focus
> in the development that exceeds the County’s
> standards. Take a look at our community-built LEED
> “Gold” standard Nature Center as a starting
> point. This focus not only applies to green
> building development where we would prefer to see
> new development in the station areas meet
> LEED-Neighborhood Development “Gold” or
> equivalent standards, it also applies to
> stormwater management. We actually need stronger
> stormwater management language than current county
> or state requirements because they do not
> adequately address infill and redevelopment issues
> that will be the primary thrust of future station
> area development as County staff has stated. Our
> environmental concerns extend also to preserving
> our tree canopy and reducing emissions by lowering
> vehicle miles traveled to ease global warming
> locally.
>
> • Reston also has an exceptionally strong
> commitment to open space, parks, and
> recreation—including athletic fields—as part
> of both its legacy of protecting natural areas and
> encouraging outdoor activities. They are also
> integral to placemaking in TOD. As members of RA,
> we pay for the operation and maintenance of more
> than 1,200 acres of open space, including natural
> areas and lakes, the operation of 15 swimming
> pools, dozens of tennis courts, and more. We also
> pay for the operation of 22 of the 29 athletic
> fields FCPA identifies as being within one mile of
> the study area (and none of which are in the study
> area).
>
> • We believe that the language regarding open
> space that has been in every draft of the Reston
> Plan until the one submitted to the Planning
> Commission calling for a “minimum” of 20
> percent open space of net lot area is essential.
> The new language establishing 20 percent as a
> “goal” is inconsistent with Reston’s vision
> and legacy and assures a shortfall inconsistent
> with Reston’s vision and values. In fact, RCA
> and Reston 2020 had advocated that 25 percent of
> the area be devoted to open space purposes.
>
> • We absolutely need more than three athletic
> fields in the station areas to support the 35,000
> plus new people the county expects to move there
> in in the next quarter century. The county’s
> official facility standards calls for 25 athletic
> fields of various types and sizes to support that
> population. For second-class urban dwellers, FCPA
> unilaterally cuts that in half to 12 fields.
> That’s still far better than the three called
> for in this draft Plan and a level I think most
> Restonians would find acceptable. It is time for
> the county to step up, provide, and operate parks
> and athletic fields in the station areas that
> Reston’s new urbanites will need — even if it
> loses a few acres of taxable land as one task
> force member worried. The county will have the
> opportunity to gain double or triple current tax
> revenues on the balance of the land through
> planned development.
>
> • As a community, we also expect to sustain, if
> we cannot improve, our seriously constrained
> ability to drive through the Dulles Corridor to
> the other side of our town or to the toll road. I
> addressed this in my remarks to the commission
> last week, focusing on an LOS “E” for our key
> through streets and limiting parking in the TSAs,
> so I will not repeat myself further. The
> development permitted under this draft plan would
> simply divide our community in two because of the
> impassibility of the corridor if strong mitigating
> measures are not put in place.
>
> • Developers are seeking to prevent the
> inclusion of residential membership in either of
> the two existing Reston governing associations —
> RA or RTCA — or architectural review of their
> proposed developments by RA’s Design Review
> Board. Architectural design excellence has always
> been a core Reston planning principle and
> membership in one of the two residential
> associations will be essential for access to most
> community services and facilities. Absent those
> constraints, we can expect little architectural
> excellence and an added financial burden on RA
> members to support needed facilities and services.
> One only needs to look at the recently approved
> “Texas donut” stick-built apartment building
> near Wiehle station in the former RCIG area absent
> local architectural guidelines: Property line to
> property line construction with excessive parking
> and virtually no attention to amenities —
> meeting County standards, but falling well short
> of Reston expectations — urban or suburban.
>
> The bottom line is that you have in your hands the
> ability to decide whether Reston continues as a
> nation-leading premier planned community or
> devolves into just another Fairfax County housing
> development bisected by mediocre urban
> development. I sincerely hope that you make the
> right decision for Reston and that these thoughts
> help you in that effort.
>
> Terry Maynard
>
> The writer is a member of the Reston Citizens
> Associaiton Board of Directors, the RCA
> representative to the Reston Task Force and
> co-chairman of the Reston 2020 committee.
I disagree.