THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document consists of the Area II Plan, adopted August 26, 1975, and all amendments adopted through October 27,1986. Any subsequent amend­ ments are available from Maps and Publications Sales, Massey Building, Fair­ fax, Virginia 246-2974. The Board of Supervisors has established a regular Annual Plan Review and updating process to insure the continuing relevance of the Plan. For infor­ mation regarding the Annua! Plan Review, please call 246-1200. This document, which is to be used in conjunction with the Area Plan maps, provides background information and planning policy guidelines for Fairfax County, as required by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 1986 EDITION (As Amended Through October 27th, 1986) 1989 REPRINT (Including, bound at the rear of this volume, the complete text and map for each amendment pertaining to this volume adopted through July 24, 1989) Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Audrey Moore, Chairman Martha V. Pennine Centreville District Vice Chairman Joseph Alexander, Lee District Katherine K. Hanley, Providence District Sharon Bulova, Annandale District Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District Thomas M. Davis, III, Mason District Elaine McConnell, Springfield District Lilla Richards, Dranesville District J. Hamilton Lambert, County Executive PLANNING COMMISSION Peter F. Murphy, Jr., Springfield District Chairman John R. Byers, Mt. Vernon District Maya A. Huber, At-Large David P. Bobzien, Centreville District William M. Lockwood. At-Large Patrick M. Hanlon, Providence District Carl L. Sell, Jr., Lee District Suzanne F. Harsel, Annandale District Henry E. Strickland, Mason District Stephen J. Hubbard, Dranesville District Alvin L. Thomas. At-Large James C. Wyckoff. Jr., Executive Director 246-2865 OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING James P. Zook, Director D. Wayne Pumphrey, Assistant Director Barbara A. Byron, Director Zoning Evaluation Division Jane W. Gwinn, Director Zoning Administrative Division Richard G. Little, Director Planning Division OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Shiva K. Pant, Director 246-1100 FOR GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL 246-1200 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Area II Table of Contents Page Area Plans 11 1 Overview 114 Short Term Forecasts II 6 Stable Areas " 7 McLean Planning District II 9 Vienna Planning District II 28 Fairfax Planning District II 45 Complex Areas " 59 Tysons Corner Area 11 61 Metro Station Complex Areas II 78 West Falls Church "80 Dunn Loring II 100 Vienna H 101 Gallows Road-Route 50 Complex Area II 103 Pickett Road-Fairfax Circle Complex Area II 104 Residential Infill " 105 Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II AREA PLANS The plan has been developed in response to • growth of planned development centers; tainment of commercial expansion, and the pro­ citizen preferences, public policy guidelines, • implementation of environmental and heritage tection of environmentally valued resources. economic realities, and legitimate private sector resource protection and preservation programs; To further ensure compatible infill, special excep­ concerns and intersects. A broad, generalized, • development of economic growth areas; and tion/special permit uses should be assessed on a case- land use pattern does emerge which serves as the • creation of a responsive transportation by-case basis (except where otherwise noted in specific context for the more detailed land use and func­ network. community sector text), and considered compatible with tional recommendations. Subsequent amendments to the Comprehen­ existing development if there are no adverse impacts New compatible residential infill and the pres­ sive Plan will further address the achievement of on the transportation system, the environment, and the ervation of existing stable neighborhoods are the these objectives through the time phasing of surrounding community. major planning policies for the eastern part of the development. County—Planning Areas I, II, and IV. In the less Planned Development Centers developed Area III, west of Difficult Run in the Up­ The planned development center, a concept per Potomac Planning District and South Run in General Land Use Classifications that was successfully pioneered in Reston, is a the Pohick Planning District, the residential pat­ The Comprehensive Plan, by incorporating the means of clustering and concentrating growth in tern changes dramatically, stable neighborhoods four area plans, contains detailed land use evalua­ order to achieve a balance between new develop­ are still preserved, but in the western part of the tions and recommendations. Identification of land ment and protection of the environment. It offers a County, apart from planned development centers, areas into stable, complex, and option areas mixture of housing types and densities, rather the dense residential and commercial develop­ shapes the major policy framework of the plans. than the usual low-density sprawl, and encour­ ment that characterizes the closer-in areas does All infill shall be of a type and density which is ages a coordinated mixture of land uses including not appear. Also, many western County stable compatible with the affected area. All buffering open space, public facilities, and commercial de­ areas such as Great Falls include large tracts of measures between different uses and densities velopment. The concept encourages the expan­ undeveloped land and areas of environmental con­ shall consist of preserving, maintaining, and utiliz­ sion of job opportunities and less reliance on the servation. ing natural vegetation, particularly trees, as buf­ automobile for long-distance commuting, thus re­ Growth centers, generally referred to as planned fers to the maximum extent physically possible ducing noise and air pollution, and contributing to development centers, are strategically located and whatever other measures are necessary. the quality of living. throughout the County and are designed to house Large undeveloped areas in the eastern part of the increased population which is not absorbed by Stable Areas the County, such as the Chiles and Lehigh tracts, infill of stable areas. In the eastern part of the Stable areas cover most of the County where the Fairfax Center Area and the area near Tysons County, these planned development centers are existing residential and commercial development Corner, are often treated as potential planned large undeveloped areas usually enclosed by ex­ make infill with compatible land uses an appropri­ development centers with a mixture of land uses isting surrounding development, such as the ate planning solution. The recognition that an at relatively high densities. Development centers Tysons Corner quadrangle. In the west, the land area is stable does not mean a policy of inaction. in the western part of the County consist of the designated for planned development centers is by Actions such as infill density control, buffer re­ major ones at Reston/Herndon and Centreville and large presently undeveloped with substantial quirements, and public facility provision must be and less extensive developments at Chantilly and areas nearby which are planned for environmental taken to insure that this stability is maintained. Burke. However, it is estimated that the residen­ conservation and very low-density residential tial stable infill in Area II outside of development Reston is already developing as a planned devel­ Complex Areas centers will absorb much of the projected popula­ opment center and by 1990 is expected to have a Complex areas are those faced with many land tion growth prior to 1990, since the planned devel­ population of 75,000. use problems at once, where commercial or indus­ opment centers, with the exception of Reston, will By 1990, roughly 100,000 more people will be trial development pushes against residential sec­ be in the early stages of development. employed in Fairfax County. Nonetheless, the tions, or where pressure for high-density develop­ region's core will continue to be the dominant ment threatens an environmentally sensitive area Planned Development Housing employment location for Fairfax County resi­ or would require major new public facilities. The Whereas a planned development center re­ dents. Major planned industrial development, es­ Plan establishes policy guidelines and make sig­ quired hundreds and even thousands of acres, pecially in the western portions of the county, nificant recommendations. Decisions in most planned development housing (PDH) is a county locates future basic employment activity where it complex areas must be made soon, before it is too goal that can be accomplished within a compar­ will have less impact on the congested eastern late for choosing. Complex area development atively small area. In PDH zoning, just as in the parts of the County. This location will encourage must provide for effective and suitable traditional larger planned development centers, construction reverse commuting in the opposite direction of ex­ uses within the complex area as it relates to sur­ is clustered so as to leave greater open space isting rush-hour traffic and will tend to intercept rounding stable communities. than is possible with conventional single-family and tap the labor force in the Routes 7, 50, I-66, development.