The Reston 20/20 Committee

The Proposed County PDC and PRM Zoning Ordinance Amendment:

Tripling Potential Urban Density While Minimizing Community Involvement

Prepared by Terry Maynard

The Reston 20/20 Committee
September 28, 2015

Figure 1: Excerpt from proposed Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance PDC amendment.

The County staff has floated a draft amendment to Article 6 of the County zoning ordinance (Figure 1
above) calling for a more than tripling of permissible development densities to FAR 5.0 from FAR 1.5 in
all Transit Station Areas and other types of districts in the County no matter what the Comprehensive
Plan says. 1 The proposal does not distinguish between Tysons where densities are planned to reach
FAR 5.0, Annandale, West Falls Church, Franconia-Springfield, or Restonall widely diverse communities
of different character, plans, and aspirations. The key point is that while the Board may use the area
Comprehensive Plan to guide its density zoning decision, it may also use any other design guidelines
endorsed by the Board. What a huge loophole! The Board giving itself that kind of unchecked
authority with little or no community input is an outrageous grab of authority often undoing years of
community effort.

FARor floor-area ratiois the ratio of allowable development on a property to the propertys total area. A FAR
5.0 means a 100,000SF lot could have up to 500,000 gross square feet of development on it.

The Reston 20/20 Committee

What is happening?
The proposed change is part of a proposal to expand the coverage of two relatively new and broadly
defined types of areas high-density developmentPlanned Development Commercial Districts (PDCs)
and Planned Residential Mixed-Use District (PRMs) depending on whether commercial or residential
development is dominant. The amendment would specifically include all the countys Transit Station
Areas in one of these two large district categories; we think of them as super-districts.
The amendment states: the Board may approve an increase up to (FAR) 5.0 when . . . the proposed
development is implementing the density/intensity and other recommendations of the comprehensive
plan or any other design guidelines endorsed by the Board. If passed, this zoning ordinance
amendment means the Board can do pretty much what it wants in any area zoned PDC or PRM.

Why should the Board of Supervisors have this authority when the Comprehensive Plan for each
county area provides a vision usually created by the community and County staff, and approved
by the Planning Commission and even the Board of Supervisors after extensive deliberation and
consensus building? The notion that there is suddenly some more important design guideline
for the Board to use is unreasonable at the least.
Moreover, the County doesnt follow its own guidelines: The planned park space for Restons
urban areas falls woefully short of the County guidelines set in the Urban Parks Framework.
Instead of the three-dozen or so ballfields the Reston station areas should have, the new Reston
plan calls for just three to serve a future population of some 60,000. In the Town Center North
area now the focus of County and community attention, the County proposes a single 3.5 acre
town green that is less than one-third the size called for in the Urban Parks Framework for
that area given the planned development there. All this raises the question: What is the point
of guidelineseven those approved by the Board of Supervisorsif they are just ignored?

The Board seems to pick and choose the plans and guidelines it uses at its convenience, often at the
expense of the community.
With this zoning ordinance, all a developer needs to do is provide a seemingly legitimate rationale for
density beyond what the Comprehensive Plan limits, sell it to an already developer-friendly Board of
Supervisors, and the Board has sufficient reason to approve itno matter the consequences for the
community. While a FAR of 5.0 may be appropriate for Tysons, it is neither appropriate nor planned for
Restons station areas nor, we suspect, for any other station areas in the County.
Besides transit station areas, the Board is dumping a list of other key county community areas into these
two zoning super-districts (see extract at beginning of this report), setting them up for massive
redevelopment at high densities in the years ahead. One of these categories, Commercial Revitalization
Areas, also covers the planned (and already approved) redevelopment of Lake Anne. And it only takes
action by the Board to add more new categories to these two oversized super-districts or change the
designation of a community area as one of the areas covered by this proposed zoning super-districts to
create the potential for massive additional development. Then the potential density becomes FAR 5.0.

The Reston 20/20 Committee

While some have suggested that this will not happen in Reston, in part because our zoning classification
is also among the P super-districtsPlanned Residential Community (PRC), County zoning staff say
otherwise. In a September 15 meeting with concerned residents in the Seven Corners area, County
zoning official Donna Pesto told the group, . . . while 5.5 FAR would be the maximum density allowed,
that doesnt mean a developer would propose that much density, nor does it mean the BoS would
approve a project with 5.5 FAR, she said, and that 5.5 FAR is designed for areas near Metro in Reston.
Yet while the County is apparently planning to set Reston station densities at FAR 5.5, Restons new
master plan limits development to a maximum of FAR 4.0 (plus 0.5 FAR for affordable housing). The
Reston Master Plan Task Forces report and the updated County Comprehensive Plan state that the
highest Reston densities should be is FAR 3.0-4.0 in the area immediately adjoining the Reston Town
Center station and tapering to the edge of the station area (also with an added FAR 0.5 for significant
affordable housing additions). The areas immediately around Wiehle station is planned at FAR 2.0-3.0
while the Reston half of the Herndon-Monroe station area is planned for an even lower density of FAR
1.5-2.5 and include tapering.
The Reston Master Plan Task Force working with the County planning staff arrived at these densities
over 4-1/2 years of work. They were justified by aggressive (wed say unrealistic) projections of longterm demand for residential and commercial space in the Reston station areas prepared by GMUs
Center for Regional Analysis. The draft Reston station area plans were back-tested by County staff using
complex models at the proposed densities against what the street infrastructure could tolerate at a
barely minimal levels of service (in fact, the Level of Service would be F in peak periods around the
corridor overpasseslong delays at key intersections), requirements for new schools, etc. The one key
area in which the recently Board-approved Reston Master Plan falls woefully short is developing urban
park space consistent with the added workers and residents. The current plan meets less than onequarter of the countys own Urban Parks Framework guidelines. In general, the densities established in
the Reston Master Plan for Restons station areas are on the high-side of what the Reston community
can physically absorb and still retain its viability and identity as a PRC master-planned community.
Comparing Reston Town Center and Rosslyn Transit Station Areas
One way to grasp the potential implications of this zoning ordinance change may be achieved by
comparing Restons development urban focal point, Reston Town Center, with the development that
has already occurred at the Rosslyn Metro Station Area (see below), particularly the area immediately
around its Metro station.
Rosslyns 65-acre central transit station area planning sector (officially the Rosslyn Coordinated
Redevelopment District--RCRD) currently has an overall density of FAR 3.5, including one (still vacant)
35-story, 580,000 square foot office building above the station at FAR 10. Overall, according to
Arlington County planning documents, Rosslyn core transit station area has more than 8.1 million GSF of
office space, nearly 600 dwelling units, retail, hotel, and other uses totaling about 10 million square feet
of development. The entire Rosslyn Metro Station Area (RMSA) comprises about 300 acres and 19.6
million square feet of development, an overall FAR 1.5.
3

The Reston 20/20 Committee

Figure 2: Reston Metro Station Area

Comparing the Rosslyn core station area with Reston Town Center, the Rosslyn station core acreage is
about the same as that portion of Reston Town Center nearest the Metro station on the north side of
the Dulles Corridor (63 acres, land sub-units D-3, D-4, & D-5). Rosslyns FAR 3.5 as shown in the photo
above (Figure 3 below) is well within the currently acceptable density for that core Reston Town Center
area, but the density there now is about FAR 0.5.

Figure 2: Rosslyn's transit station core area has 10 million square feet of development today at FAR 3.5.

Nonetheless, the landowners and developers, Boston Properties, has a concept for redevelopment
(Figure 4 below) of the central land sub-unit in that group (D-4. Their redevelopment concept appears
to take advantage of the full FAR 4.0 density permitted for that 35-acre land sub-unit. The development
4

The Reston 20/20 Committee

on this one land sub-unit would include 3.5 million square feet of residential space they say, enough
space for about 6,000 new residents. The remaining 2.6 million square feet could generate 8,000 jobs at
FAR 4.0.

Figure 3: Boston Properties development concept rendering for the land sub-unit nearest the Reston Town
Center Metrorail station. (Boston Properties, RTC University, 2014)

Development at the FAR 5.0 level in the whole area within the red line in the rendering above would
allow density there to increase to more than 13.7 million square feetan order of magnitude increase in
that areas current level of development. With development there focused on commercial spacea
PDCbuild-out there would generate space for at least 30,000 jobs and dwellings for 7,500 new
residents.
More broadly, Reston Town Center comprises about 660 acres (excluding Town Center North outside
the station area) with less than 20 million square feet of development; thats an overall average of about
FAR 0.6. Its densest development is along Market Street in the Town Center core which is less than FAR
2.0. If the zoning amendment is approved and the Board chooses to allow higher zoning across the
entire area, it could easily average a FAR 3.5 with density tapering from a FAR 5.0 at the station toward
the periphery. Overall, the entire area would look like Rosslyns transit station core area.
The result could be that Restonians would face a total of over 100 MILLION square feet of development
in Town Center alone at build-outa six-fold increase in its current density. As a commercial
districta PDC super-districtwith two-thirds of that development in space for jobs (mostly office
workers), that would mean the possibility of more than 200,000 employees in Reston Town Center
5

The Reston 20/20 Committee

alonea more than five-fold increase in Town Center employment--even using oversized County
assumptions about office space per worker. There could also be 60,000 residents in the remaining
spacemore than an order of magnitude increase in population there and essentially equivalent to
Restons entire current population. There certainly arent any County plans or conceptsor even
thinkingabout how to provide any of the associated public infrastructure needstransportation,
schools, emergency, parks, etc.such development would require, let alone how to pay for it.
Apparent Board desire to expand the property tax base . . .
The Board of Supervisors has never said why it is pursuing this amendment that puts a large number of
communities at risk for huge increases in potential density. We believe its goal is to increase the real
estate property tax base by adding much needed property tax revenues using a process that expedites
approvals and limits community involvement and criticism.
By dumping a number of types of community areas into the two oversized zoning categories, the County
Board reduces the long process of community involvement in planning their communitys future.
Essentially, the Board of Supervisors can move ahead with a zoning decision on properties in the two
super-districts without having to spend much time in task forces, charrettes, community meetings, and
other forms of community outreach that take so much time when the development community is ready
to redevelop on a massive scale. Indeed, that may be one lesson from the Tysons and Reston task
forces: They began with huge over-optimism about County growth near the peak of the last local real
estate market boom and wrapped up in the depths of the Great Recession (Tysons) or the ensuing
stagnant commercial real estate market (Reston). Combined with the Boards streamlining of the
planning process, such as the recent Fairfax Forward Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the
Board of Supervisors has a powerful suite of tools to do just about anything it wants in development
with little opportunity for a meaningful public contribution. Developers love it.
. . . at the expense of its communities quality of life.
The consequence for communities and their residents across the County will be a loss of quality of life.
Ignoring the disruption to lifestyle simply caused by change, the set of consequences for residents will
be more people trying to use essentially the same public facilities. Never in recent history has Fairfax
Countys public infrastructureschools, roads, transit, recreation, open space, emergencykept pace
with the influx of new residents and employees allowed by development. Indeed, the new Reston
Master Plan, as an example, does not even commit to trying to provide the same level of servicemuch
less a better onein the future as Restonians currently experience. Even the proposed siting of a new
elementary in south Reston Town Center a mere -mile from another one is far from where the need
will be in the Wiehle station area. Possible new amenitiessuch as a performing arts center, a
redeveloped regional library, and a regional recreation center in Restonwill not offset the numerous
losses in increasing congestion, greater pollution, increasingly inadequate parks, and other
consequences affecting most of the community, including those who just work in Reston. The same can
be said across the County where extremely intense development will, on balance, erode the quality of
life over time.

The Reston 20/20 Committee

The proposed amendment is not about making Fairfax County, much less Reston or any other
community, a better place to live, work, and play. It is about the Board of Supervisors delegating itself
greater control over the future development of the communities we live in so it can raise tax revenues
to meet its spending agenda and growing debt and pension requirements. And while the zoning
ordinance amendment is likely to expedite high-density zoning decisions, it will also reduce community
involvement in the process and the quality of life we now experience in Reston and the rest of the
County.
In the longer run, the deteriorating situation caused by the Boards use of its unconstrained superdistrict zoning decision authority will raise the question for prospective County businesses and families:
Does Fairfax County offer the type of commercial and residential environment in which we can flourish?
The Board of Supervisors plan to increase density sharply through this zoning amendment will likely
result in continuing huge commercial real estate vacancy rates and increased County net out-migration
with a lower average income among those moving into Fairfax County. The result will be stagnant or
lower property values. And the Countys financial problems will continue while the quality of life among
many of its major communities deteriorates further.
The proposed zoning ordinance must be withdrawn or defeated to preserve our communities while
permitting reasonable redevelopment opportunities driven by community-generated, staff supported,
and Board-approved Comprehensive Plan amendments. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is
too capricious and fickle to serve either the Countys or its communities long-term interests.