Zoning Standards for Small Area Plans

Share Zoning Standards for Small Area Plans on Facebook Share Zoning Standards for Small Area Plans on Twitter Share Zoning Standards for Small Area Plans on Linkedin Email Zoning Standards for Small Area Plans link

What is the goal of this project?

The City has adopted four of the five small area plans recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the primary ways the small area plans are used is to provide guidance when considering development applications within the activity centers. This includes design elements such as building height, vehicular and pedestrian connections, open space, and building orientation. Some of the guidance in the small area plans conflicts with code requirements in our Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the current Zoning Ordinance can't be used to enforce some of the location based guidance in the plans such as where new streets and open spaces should go. Instead, these elements have to be negotiated with developers and provided through proffers or commitments. The goal of this project is to provide recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance to better align the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the guidance from the small area plans.

Where are we in the process?

There are three phases for this project and we are currently in the second phase. The first phase included background research, preliminary analysis, and community input. During this phase, the project team is developing preferred strategies and final recommendations. The community meeting for this phase was held on May 14th at City Hall. If you were unable to attend, you can leave questions/comments below using the questions tool. During the third phase, the text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will be drafted.

What is the goal of this project?

The City has adopted four of the five small area plans recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the primary ways the small area plans are used is to provide guidance when considering development applications within the activity centers. This includes design elements such as building height, vehicular and pedestrian connections, open space, and building orientation. Some of the guidance in the small area plans conflicts with code requirements in our Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the current Zoning Ordinance can't be used to enforce some of the location based guidance in the plans such as where new streets and open spaces should go. Instead, these elements have to be negotiated with developers and provided through proffers or commitments. The goal of this project is to provide recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance to better align the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the guidance from the small area plans.

Where are we in the process?

There are three phases for this project and we are currently in the second phase. The first phase included background research, preliminary analysis, and community input. During this phase, the project team is developing preferred strategies and final recommendations. The community meeting for this phase was held on May 14th at City Hall. If you were unable to attend, you can leave questions/comments below using the questions tool. During the third phase, the text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will be drafted.

Questions

Ask the project team a question.

loader image
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
  • Share Fairfax Boulevard has a varying sidewalk width. Scout on the Circle provided for a frontage that has wide sidewalks and multimodal transportation. Enabling this kind of frontage for developments that are along the major roads should be done. Shared use area where the building is set back from the street much more than what is currently required would be needed to accomplish this. The Fairfax Blvd Master Plan has this approach. on Facebook Share Fairfax Boulevard has a varying sidewalk width. Scout on the Circle provided for a frontage that has wide sidewalks and multimodal transportation. Enabling this kind of frontage for developments that are along the major roads should be done. Shared use area where the building is set back from the street much more than what is currently required would be needed to accomplish this. The Fairfax Blvd Master Plan has this approach. on Twitter Share Fairfax Boulevard has a varying sidewalk width. Scout on the Circle provided for a frontage that has wide sidewalks and multimodal transportation. Enabling this kind of frontage for developments that are along the major roads should be done. Shared use area where the building is set back from the street much more than what is currently required would be needed to accomplish this. The Fairfax Blvd Master Plan has this approach. on Linkedin Email Fairfax Boulevard has a varying sidewalk width. Scout on the Circle provided for a frontage that has wide sidewalks and multimodal transportation. Enabling this kind of frontage for developments that are along the major roads should be done. Shared use area where the building is set back from the street much more than what is currently required would be needed to accomplish this. The Fairfax Blvd Master Plan has this approach. link

    Fairfax Boulevard has a varying sidewalk width. Scout on the Circle provided for a frontage that has wide sidewalks and multimodal transportation. Enabling this kind of frontage for developments that are along the major roads should be done. Shared use area where the building is set back from the street much more than what is currently required would be needed to accomplish this. The Fairfax Blvd Master Plan has this approach.

    wmfournier asked 8 days ago

    Thank you for your comment.

  • Share Public art is not an acceptable tradeoff for higher buildings or added density for mixed-use buildings on Facebook Share Public art is not an acceptable tradeoff for higher buildings or added density for mixed-use buildings on Twitter Share Public art is not an acceptable tradeoff for higher buildings or added density for mixed-use buildings on Linkedin Email Public art is not an acceptable tradeoff for higher buildings or added density for mixed-use buildings link

    Public art is not an acceptable tradeoff for higher buildings or added density for mixed-use buildings

    wmfournier asked 9 days ago

    Thank you for your comment.

  • Share The zoning recommendations include making 5 story mixed-use buildings by-right. There should not be any by-right clauses in the zoning ordinance. on Facebook Share The zoning recommendations include making 5 story mixed-use buildings by-right. There should not be any by-right clauses in the zoning ordinance. on Twitter Share The zoning recommendations include making 5 story mixed-use buildings by-right. There should not be any by-right clauses in the zoning ordinance. on Linkedin Email The zoning recommendations include making 5 story mixed-use buildings by-right. There should not be any by-right clauses in the zoning ordinance. link

    The zoning recommendations include making 5 story mixed-use buildings by-right. There should not be any by-right clauses in the zoning ordinance.

    wmfournier asked 11 days ago

    Thank you for you comment.

  • Share During the May 14 open house the project team asked for comments on where people want this effort to consider. I will be providing these comments. My first comment is that the project team is using the Small Area Plans (SMPs)as the basis of what this effort will produce. There were a number of comments provided verbally during the meeting that disagree with the goals and vision of the SMPs. There are many problems with the SMPs which result in a negative impact on the City. The consultans said that these plans result in increased traffic congestion. Although the plans add roads, these is no analysis showing how these roads help. on Facebook Share During the May 14 open house the project team asked for comments on where people want this effort to consider. I will be providing these comments. My first comment is that the project team is using the Small Area Plans (SMPs)as the basis of what this effort will produce. There were a number of comments provided verbally during the meeting that disagree with the goals and vision of the SMPs. There are many problems with the SMPs which result in a negative impact on the City. The consultans said that these plans result in increased traffic congestion. Although the plans add roads, these is no analysis showing how these roads help. on Twitter Share During the May 14 open house the project team asked for comments on where people want this effort to consider. I will be providing these comments. My first comment is that the project team is using the Small Area Plans (SMPs)as the basis of what this effort will produce. There were a number of comments provided verbally during the meeting that disagree with the goals and vision of the SMPs. There are many problems with the SMPs which result in a negative impact on the City. The consultans said that these plans result in increased traffic congestion. Although the plans add roads, these is no analysis showing how these roads help. on Linkedin Email During the May 14 open house the project team asked for comments on where people want this effort to consider. I will be providing these comments. My first comment is that the project team is using the Small Area Plans (SMPs)as the basis of what this effort will produce. There were a number of comments provided verbally during the meeting that disagree with the goals and vision of the SMPs. There are many problems with the SMPs which result in a negative impact on the City. The consultans said that these plans result in increased traffic congestion. Although the plans add roads, these is no analysis showing how these roads help. link

    During the May 14 open house the project team asked for comments on where people want this effort to consider. I will be providing these comments. My first comment is that the project team is using the Small Area Plans (SMPs)as the basis of what this effort will produce. There were a number of comments provided verbally during the meeting that disagree with the goals and vision of the SMPs. There are many problems with the SMPs which result in a negative impact on the City. The consultans said that these plans result in increased traffic congestion. Although the plans add roads, these is no analysis showing how these roads help.

    wmfournier asked 13 days ago

    Thank you for your comment. We have heard a range of perspectives in terms of density, traffic, infrastructure, etc. It's important to note that this project is not revisiting or changing the visions outlined in the small area plans. The purpose of this effort is to explore how those existing plans can be implemented and develop a framework that will provide for flexibility when those plans are updated.

    The small area plans themselves will be reviewed in the near future and revisions can be considered at that time. In the meantime, this project is focused on aligning the zoning ordinance with  what has already been adopted while laying the groundwork for flexibility moving forward.

  • Share Do the plans include provisions for small retail enterprises? 'Walkable. vibrant' neighborhoods won't happen when the walking only gets you just to another faceless apartment building. There is no neighborhood without small, local stores and restaurants where one can become known. I feel as though the City is rapidly becoming a dormitory town for DC. on Facebook Share Do the plans include provisions for small retail enterprises? 'Walkable. vibrant' neighborhoods won't happen when the walking only gets you just to another faceless apartment building. There is no neighborhood without small, local stores and restaurants where one can become known. I feel as though the City is rapidly becoming a dormitory town for DC. on Twitter Share Do the plans include provisions for small retail enterprises? 'Walkable. vibrant' neighborhoods won't happen when the walking only gets you just to another faceless apartment building. There is no neighborhood without small, local stores and restaurants where one can become known. I feel as though the City is rapidly becoming a dormitory town for DC. on Linkedin Email Do the plans include provisions for small retail enterprises? 'Walkable. vibrant' neighborhoods won't happen when the walking only gets you just to another faceless apartment building. There is no neighborhood without small, local stores and restaurants where one can become known. I feel as though the City is rapidly becoming a dormitory town for DC. link

    Do the plans include provisions for small retail enterprises? 'Walkable. vibrant' neighborhoods won't happen when the walking only gets you just to another faceless apartment building. There is no neighborhood without small, local stores and restaurants where one can become known. I feel as though the City is rapidly becoming a dormitory town for DC.

    Susan asked 19 days ago

    Local businesses do play a vital role in fostering community connection and providing vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. The Recommendations Report provides preliminary recommendations for incentivizing small-scale development which would help promote "boutique" or neighborhood-friendly services and amenities. The report also provides preliminary recommendations for various types of frontages - the part of the building that faces the street - that would help activate the street and create a vibrant, walkable neighborhood.

  • Share Why does the city constantly try and court developers ? Developers never live in the area that they develop; their only aim is to make $$$ and leave the developments, not a bit interested in the quality of life created (or not) by these newly developed areas. City has changed zoning laws to decrease set backs, etc. to court developers that build three homes on lots that were previously inhabited by one without any upgrade to infrastructures, impact on traffic, etc. Previous resident comments regarding not lowering setbacks were not taken into consideration. A very similar exercise such as this was conducted when city zoning reqmts. were changed just so the City can check a box that state that they took the input of the residents into consideration. The city is unique and many of its existing attributes are what set it apart from other neighboring areas and set it apart from them. What's being proposed takes it uniqueness away. Supporting "housing affordability", increasing density without giving clear limitations, etc. seem somewhat politically driven and does not improve the quality of the residents that bought into the city for how the city is now. A great example is Tysons area where development has completely changed the quality of life of neighboring residents and increased crime in those areas. Promises were made by City previously (by city official) and not kept. An example is how the city sold city water to fairfax water with promise to not increase utility bills etc. and we now pay an exorbitant fees for lesser quality of water. So once again, this appears to be another agenda of some official(s) who really are looking to take city's identity away and make it much like the areas that we fought to get out of and these forums simply seem to be an exercise to check a box and say that resident's input was considered. Back to the original question of why does the city continue to court developers that have absolutely no other agenda than to come in, clear out vegetation, build the heck out of the area, make $$$, make as much as they can, and do it as quickly as they can and get out, leaving the residents to deal with greater stress on existing outdated infrastructure, with greater traffic, noise, pollution, stress on utilities, etc. all of which decreases the quality of life for its residents in the long run. Some of us moved to the city to get away from the stuff that's being proposed. The philosophy that 'if you build it, they will come ' is quite outdated and city must look at these holistically with the intent of increasing the quality of life for its residents and not with the sole goal of $$$ in mind. on Facebook Share Why does the city constantly try and court developers ? Developers never live in the area that they develop; their only aim is to make $$$ and leave the developments, not a bit interested in the quality of life created (or not) by these newly developed areas. City has changed zoning laws to decrease set backs, etc. to court developers that build three homes on lots that were previously inhabited by one without any upgrade to infrastructures, impact on traffic, etc. Previous resident comments regarding not lowering setbacks were not taken into consideration. A very similar exercise such as this was conducted when city zoning reqmts. were changed just so the City can check a box that state that they took the input of the residents into consideration. The city is unique and many of its existing attributes are what set it apart from other neighboring areas and set it apart from them. What's being proposed takes it uniqueness away. Supporting "housing affordability", increasing density without giving clear limitations, etc. seem somewhat politically driven and does not improve the quality of the residents that bought into the city for how the city is now. A great example is Tysons area where development has completely changed the quality of life of neighboring residents and increased crime in those areas. Promises were made by City previously (by city official) and not kept. An example is how the city sold city water to fairfax water with promise to not increase utility bills etc. and we now pay an exorbitant fees for lesser quality of water. So once again, this appears to be another agenda of some official(s) who really are looking to take city's identity away and make it much like the areas that we fought to get out of and these forums simply seem to be an exercise to check a box and say that resident's input was considered. Back to the original question of why does the city continue to court developers that have absolutely no other agenda than to come in, clear out vegetation, build the heck out of the area, make $$$, make as much as they can, and do it as quickly as they can and get out, leaving the residents to deal with greater stress on existing outdated infrastructure, with greater traffic, noise, pollution, stress on utilities, etc. all of which decreases the quality of life for its residents in the long run. Some of us moved to the city to get away from the stuff that's being proposed. The philosophy that 'if you build it, they will come ' is quite outdated and city must look at these holistically with the intent of increasing the quality of life for its residents and not with the sole goal of $$$ in mind. on Twitter Share Why does the city constantly try and court developers ? Developers never live in the area that they develop; their only aim is to make $$$ and leave the developments, not a bit interested in the quality of life created (or not) by these newly developed areas. City has changed zoning laws to decrease set backs, etc. to court developers that build three homes on lots that were previously inhabited by one without any upgrade to infrastructures, impact on traffic, etc. Previous resident comments regarding not lowering setbacks were not taken into consideration. A very similar exercise such as this was conducted when city zoning reqmts. were changed just so the City can check a box that state that they took the input of the residents into consideration. The city is unique and many of its existing attributes are what set it apart from other neighboring areas and set it apart from them. What's being proposed takes it uniqueness away. Supporting "housing affordability", increasing density without giving clear limitations, etc. seem somewhat politically driven and does not improve the quality of the residents that bought into the city for how the city is now. A great example is Tysons area where development has completely changed the quality of life of neighboring residents and increased crime in those areas. Promises were made by City previously (by city official) and not kept. An example is how the city sold city water to fairfax water with promise to not increase utility bills etc. and we now pay an exorbitant fees for lesser quality of water. So once again, this appears to be another agenda of some official(s) who really are looking to take city's identity away and make it much like the areas that we fought to get out of and these forums simply seem to be an exercise to check a box and say that resident's input was considered. Back to the original question of why does the city continue to court developers that have absolutely no other agenda than to come in, clear out vegetation, build the heck out of the area, make $$$, make as much as they can, and do it as quickly as they can and get out, leaving the residents to deal with greater stress on existing outdated infrastructure, with greater traffic, noise, pollution, stress on utilities, etc. all of which decreases the quality of life for its residents in the long run. Some of us moved to the city to get away from the stuff that's being proposed. The philosophy that 'if you build it, they will come ' is quite outdated and city must look at these holistically with the intent of increasing the quality of life for its residents and not with the sole goal of $$$ in mind. on Linkedin Email Why does the city constantly try and court developers ? Developers never live in the area that they develop; their only aim is to make $$$ and leave the developments, not a bit interested in the quality of life created (or not) by these newly developed areas. City has changed zoning laws to decrease set backs, etc. to court developers that build three homes on lots that were previously inhabited by one without any upgrade to infrastructures, impact on traffic, etc. Previous resident comments regarding not lowering setbacks were not taken into consideration. A very similar exercise such as this was conducted when city zoning reqmts. were changed just so the City can check a box that state that they took the input of the residents into consideration. The city is unique and many of its existing attributes are what set it apart from other neighboring areas and set it apart from them. What's being proposed takes it uniqueness away. Supporting "housing affordability", increasing density without giving clear limitations, etc. seem somewhat politically driven and does not improve the quality of the residents that bought into the city for how the city is now. A great example is Tysons area where development has completely changed the quality of life of neighboring residents and increased crime in those areas. Promises were made by City previously (by city official) and not kept. An example is how the city sold city water to fairfax water with promise to not increase utility bills etc. and we now pay an exorbitant fees for lesser quality of water. So once again, this appears to be another agenda of some official(s) who really are looking to take city's identity away and make it much like the areas that we fought to get out of and these forums simply seem to be an exercise to check a box and say that resident's input was considered. Back to the original question of why does the city continue to court developers that have absolutely no other agenda than to come in, clear out vegetation, build the heck out of the area, make $$$, make as much as they can, and do it as quickly as they can and get out, leaving the residents to deal with greater stress on existing outdated infrastructure, with greater traffic, noise, pollution, stress on utilities, etc. all of which decreases the quality of life for its residents in the long run. Some of us moved to the city to get away from the stuff that's being proposed. The philosophy that 'if you build it, they will come ' is quite outdated and city must look at these holistically with the intent of increasing the quality of life for its residents and not with the sole goal of $$$ in mind. link

    Why does the city constantly try and court developers ? Developers never live in the area that they develop; their only aim is to make $$$ and leave the developments, not a bit interested in the quality of life created (or not) by these newly developed areas. City has changed zoning laws to decrease set backs, etc. to court developers that build three homes on lots that were previously inhabited by one without any upgrade to infrastructures, impact on traffic, etc. Previous resident comments regarding not lowering setbacks were not taken into consideration. A very similar exercise such as this was conducted when city zoning reqmts. were changed just so the City can check a box that state that they took the input of the residents into consideration. The city is unique and many of its existing attributes are what set it apart from other neighboring areas and set it apart from them. What's being proposed takes it uniqueness away. Supporting "housing affordability", increasing density without giving clear limitations, etc. seem somewhat politically driven and does not improve the quality of the residents that bought into the city for how the city is now. A great example is Tysons area where development has completely changed the quality of life of neighboring residents and increased crime in those areas. Promises were made by City previously (by city official) and not kept. An example is how the city sold city water to fairfax water with promise to not increase utility bills etc. and we now pay an exorbitant fees for lesser quality of water. So once again, this appears to be another agenda of some official(s) who really are looking to take city's identity away and make it much like the areas that we fought to get out of and these forums simply seem to be an exercise to check a box and say that resident's input was considered. Back to the original question of why does the city continue to court developers that have absolutely no other agenda than to come in, clear out vegetation, build the heck out of the area, make $$$, make as much as they can, and do it as quickly as they can and get out, leaving the residents to deal with greater stress on existing outdated infrastructure, with greater traffic, noise, pollution, stress on utilities, etc. all of which decreases the quality of life for its residents in the long run. Some of us moved to the city to get away from the stuff that's being proposed. The philosophy that 'if you build it, they will come ' is quite outdated and city must look at these holistically with the intent of increasing the quality of life for its residents and not with the sole goal of $$$ in mind.

    long time city resident asked 19 days ago

    Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns. We understand that changes to the zoning ordinance and ongoing development activity can raise important questions about the future character, livability, and infrastructure of our city. Your comment reflects several important issues that this project is actively trying to address including growth, affordable housing, and economic vitality. The intent of this process is to thoughtfully update the zoning ordinance to align with the goals outlined in the small area plans which includes balancing the increasing market demand for growth and community needs.

    We are not currently at the stage of discussing specific details like setback widths or lot coverage, but all of those elements will be carefully considered and presented for community feedback when we reach that stage. At this stage, we are trying to identify what the priorities are and what framework would be most effective in achieving them. 

    Community input provided here on Engage, through emails, or received at public meetings will be documented and shared with City Council throughout the process.

    Ultimately, the goal is not to "court developers" for short-term gain, but to guide responsible growth that serves current and future residents. We invite you to continue to engage with the project and others whether on Engage, via written comments, or in public meetings, including the open house on May 14th.

  • Share What is the rationale for greater density? on Facebook Share What is the rationale for greater density? on Twitter Share What is the rationale for greater density? on Linkedin Email What is the rationale for greater density? link

    What is the rationale for greater density?

    wmfournier asked about 1 month ago

    These amendments are considering support for greater density and height as incentives for developers to provide greater community benefits such as open space, public art, and green buildings. In addition, increasing density can:

    • Support housing affordability by allowing more types of housing and increasing supply;
    • Encourage walkable, vibrant neighborhoods by placing residents closer to shops, services, and transit;
    • Enable more people to live near where they work or travel without relying solely on cars.

    Increasing density is considered in tandem with other city goals like improving transportation, protecting environmental resources, and enhancing economic vitality. We encourage you to attend our upcoming open house on May 14th to learn more and share your priorities - we value community feedback as we move forward with updating the zoning ordinance.

  • Share Is the team considering innovative building approaches like the use of prefabricated housing in order to build lower cost housing for first time or lower income families since real estate prices are insane? on Facebook Share Is the team considering innovative building approaches like the use of prefabricated housing in order to build lower cost housing for first time or lower income families since real estate prices are insane? on Twitter Share Is the team considering innovative building approaches like the use of prefabricated housing in order to build lower cost housing for first time or lower income families since real estate prices are insane? on Linkedin Email Is the team considering innovative building approaches like the use of prefabricated housing in order to build lower cost housing for first time or lower income families since real estate prices are insane? link

    Is the team considering innovative building approaches like the use of prefabricated housing in order to build lower cost housing for first time or lower income families since real estate prices are insane?

    MattL asked about 1 month ago

    Housing affordability is a big issue. While innovative building approaches can help reduce housing costs, the purpose of this effort is to focus specifically on the activity centers and the regulation of manufactured housing is a citywide issue that should be explored separately. We encourage you to attend our upcoming open house on May 14th to learn more and share your priorities - we value community feedback as we move forward with updating the zoning ordinance.

  • Share How can new streets be incorporated in a zoning ordinance? This would be a great thing if it is practical. For example, if the shopping center in Kamp Washington anchored by the golf store were to look into rezoning, it would be fantastic to build in new street connections such as the extension of Fern Street. on Facebook Share How can new streets be incorporated in a zoning ordinance? This would be a great thing if it is practical. For example, if the shopping center in Kamp Washington anchored by the golf store were to look into rezoning, it would be fantastic to build in new street connections such as the extension of Fern Street. on Twitter Share How can new streets be incorporated in a zoning ordinance? This would be a great thing if it is practical. For example, if the shopping center in Kamp Washington anchored by the golf store were to look into rezoning, it would be fantastic to build in new street connections such as the extension of Fern Street. on Linkedin Email How can new streets be incorporated in a zoning ordinance? This would be a great thing if it is practical. For example, if the shopping center in Kamp Washington anchored by the golf store were to look into rezoning, it would be fantastic to build in new street connections such as the extension of Fern Street. link

    How can new streets be incorporated in a zoning ordinance? This would be a great thing if it is practical. For example, if the shopping center in Kamp Washington anchored by the golf store were to look into rezoning, it would be fantastic to build in new street connections such as the extension of Fern Street.

    Douglas Stewart asked about 1 month ago

    These amendments are exploring incentives to encourage better-connected neighborhoods and commercial areas by incorporating community benefits like new street connections. We'd love to hear more of your ideas - please join us at the open house on May 14th to share your input directly!

  • Share How high will the housing unit density be increased over existing zoning requirements? on Facebook Share How high will the housing unit density be increased over existing zoning requirements? on Twitter Share How high will the housing unit density be increased over existing zoning requirements? on Linkedin Email How high will the housing unit density be increased over existing zoning requirements? link

    How high will the housing unit density be increased over existing zoning requirements?

    wmfournier asked about 1 month ago

    A specific density has not been determined yet. One of the recommendations of the report will be to establish a baseline density for Activity Centers, with the potential for additional density offered as an incentive for developers to provide community benefits like open space. We encourage you to attend our upcoming open house on May 14th to learn more and share your input- we value community feedback as we move forward with updating the zoning ordinance.

Page last updated: 20 May 2025, 12:00 PM