w RESTON

DENSITY CONTROL UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY (RPC) CHAPTER OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY

ZONING ORDINANCE

RESTON

DENSITY CONTROL UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY (RPC) CHAPTER OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY

ZONING ORDINANCE

Prepared. By

GULF RESTON, INC. PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STAFF

October 1970

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1 The Year 2000 Plan The Development of the Reston Plan 2

Drafting of the RPC Ordinance . . . 2

Population Density Adopted as a Measure 3

Population Measure - Theoretical rather than Actual 5

Overall Density Control 6 6 The Public Factor • • • •

Calculation of Density within Segments of the Community 11 8

1962 Master Plan 16 1968 Master Plan

1970 Proposed Land Use Plan . 17 21 Plat of Areas Zoned RPC 23 Plat of Subdivided Areas of RPC ................... 31 Conclusion ......

List of Tables

I Population Under 1962 Plan . . . . 12

II Analysis of Public Factor 1962 Plan 13 14 Ill Allocation of Public Factor Lands 1962 Plan

IV Computation of Density 1962 Plan ...................... 15

V Comparison of 1962, 1968, and 1970 Plans 18 19 VI Allocation of Public Factor Lands 1968 and 1970 Plans .

VII Computation of Density 1968 and 1970 Plans 20

Vlll Distribution of Population within RPC Zoned Areas 22

IX Dwelling Unit Distribution within Subdivided Areas .... 24 X Analysis of Public Factor Lands within Subdivided Areas 26

XI Calculation of Gross Residential Areas within 28 Subdivided Areas

XII Theoretical Population within Subdivided Areas 29

The Year 2000 Plan

The idea of a new town at Reston was a private dream as

long ago as 1890. It became a public planning concept m 1961

upon the publication by the National Capital Regional Planning

Council of "A Policies Plan for the Year 2000 - The Nation s

Capital". The plan proposed six corridors of urban development

reaching out from the central city into the Maryland and Vir­

ginia suburbs. Tne corridors were foreseen as consisting of

cluster developments spaced along freeway and transit routes,

each surrounded by park-like "greenbelts" of low density. Each

new corridor community was seen as providing a range of employ

ment opportunity, complete community services and a variety of

housing types ranging from large single-family home lots to

high-rise apartments. Tne urban corridor principle of the plan

won immediate acceptance from Fairfax County Planners as a pref­

erable alternative to the "suburban sprawl" of the earlier McHugh

plan. One of the proposed density clusters in the Year 2000

Plan fell on Reston which was then known as Sunset Hills and

which consisted of 6745 acres recently purchased by Lefcourt

Realty Corporation from A. Smith Bowman and Sons. Tne idea of

a cluster development - a new town - at that location was accepted

by the Fairfax County Planners along with the urban corridor

concept.

-1-

The Development of the Reston Plan

In mid 1961, Robert E. Simon purchased the Reston Prop

erty in the name of Palindrome Corporation (later known as

Reston Inc.). With the Year 2000 Plan as prologue, Mr.

Simon employed Harlan Bartholomew and later Whittlesey and

Conklin to plan a new town. The Whittlesey and Conklin plan,

consisting of a mixture of all types of residential dwellings

with commercial and industrial uses, was presented to the County

in 1962. The plan proposed seven village centers, one town

center and "sinews" of high density residential uses running

throughout the community. It proposed a separation of vehrcular

and pedestrian traffic and the location of community facilities

within walking distance of a majority of residents. The plan

was accepted by Fairfax County in 1962 as a part of the Compre­

hensive Plan of the County as a whole. It was amended in 1968

to reflect the addition of several hundred acres not in the

original plan and to make minor adjustments in the shape of por­

tions of the community. With minor changes it remains the blue­

print for the development of the Community of Reston.

effing of the RPC__Ordinance

Soon after Whittlesey and Conklin were employed, it be-

came apparent that the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance did not

afford enough flexibility to permit the development of a new

town. Although the "alternate density" concept had been incor­

porated in the ordinance to encourage provision of permanent

open space, there was no provision for mixing uses and no pro­

vision for review of community design concepts. Accordingly,

-2-

t.,.,.,,..........

a joint task force of representatives of the developer and

County staff members undertook the preparation of a planned

community ordinance: to implement the Res ton plan , Serving on

the task force for the County were Messrs. Payne, Schumann,

Burrage, Ashburn, Smedley and White; for the developer were

Messrs . Conklin, Rossant, Saunders, Kent, Boothe and Prichard .

Of course, the ordinance requested by the Reston developer

had to be of general application, and it was so drawn. Tne first

draft of the planned community zone submitted by the developer

provided for a density of 14 persons per acre which was computed

to be the approximate population density of land developed under

R-12.5 zoning. The developer proposed that all uses be permitted

in the RPC zone and that density be computed for the community

as a whole, including land used for commercial and industrial

purposes and all other non-residential areas. In support of the

requested density of 14 persons per acre, the developer submitted

population density statistics from the 1960 Census showing then

existing densities in Fairfax County, in Census tracts 4E, 11A,

11C, 12B, 17F, 23E, 24B and 3OA, ranging from 11.4 persons per

acre to 25.2 persons per acre.

Population Density Adopted as a Measure

The pre-1962 zoning ordinance regulated density by regu­

lating lot size and setbacks, although lot area averaging was

permitted under the alternate density concept. The idea of

persons per acre rather than lot size emerged in a task force

discussion0 It was included in the first RPC draft as an alter­

native to area and setback requirements and never questioned

_3-

t ,_y & u i k -J it. - - li y ... J "I g I « p. ] ^ ,. „£t ^^ f..i j-Ttm-rfi-fT-rt#-

thereafter. The numbers used in the draft emerged from a

comparison with density averages under conventional zoning.

A dwelling-units-per-aere measure was never included m any

draft of the RFC ordinance, although the Staff calculated that

some 24,885 dwelling units would be permitted in Reston under

the Whittlesey and Conklin plan -

Following submission of the first RFC draft, the County

staff recommended that industrial and heavy commercial be ex­

cluded from the new zone. All later drafts so provided. Ulti­

mately, the Planning Staff recommended that residential density

be limited to 11.4 persons per acre for an entire community, or

14 persons for the residential portion only. The Reston repre­

sentatives concurred. The Planning Commission, however, recom­

mended a density of 10 persons per acre for the entire community

Upon adoption of the RPC Ordinance on July 18, 1962, the Board

of County Supervisors fixed the density in RFC at 11 persons

per acre including associated general commercial and industrial

land, or 13 persons per acre excluding commercial and indus­

trially zone land. Thus, the density included in the ordinance

was a compromise between the developer of Reston, the County

Staff, the Commission and The County Board of Fairfax County.

As far as the RPC Ordinance was concerned, the limit of 11 per

sons per gross acre proved not meaningful and was dropped from

the 1969 amended RPC Ordinance. The meaningful limit was and

remains 13 persons per gross acre of RPC zoned land.

In addition to the recommendation that overall density

in the Reston plan and in the RPC Ordinance be reduced from 14

to 11.4 persons per acre, the County Staff recoimnended, the

-4-

r | —* a | S 5 3 ? 5 * * '• j j J j I I I M . 1 — — b g - - - — « J

I \ _I L—. - . , «... .j «— ~1 Wm4. L,~I.J 'itsmaad I—»i kasiai. Lss*

developer concurring, that three types of varying density be

provided for: high, low and medium. The purpose of varying

the density within the planned community was to insure that

greenbelts be prov ided around new towns as proposed in the Year

2000 Plan. It was felt by the Planning Staff and the developer

that if the planned community zone included a high density resi­

dential area adjacent to a greenbelt area, it would be difficult

to prevent equivalent density under conventional zoning in the

proposed greenbelt. Since one acre zoning was envisioned in

much of the greenbelt areas and the then County population

average in single-family detached homes was 3.7 persons per acre,

the population of the low density areas was set approximately

the same, at 3.8 persons per acre. This, it was felt, would

provide an easy transition from the greenbelt to the planned

community. The medium density area was set at 14 persons per

acre, the then population equivalent of the R-12-.5 zone. High

density was set at 60 persons per acre which was the then approx­

imate yield of high-rise apartments.

Population Measure is Theoretical Rather than Actual

The 1962 RPC original ordinance contained in Section (c)

a formula for computing population density. It provides that

the factor of 3.7 persons should be used for computing the

population in each single-family dwelling, 3.0 persons for

garden type apartments or town houses and 1.5 persons per high-

rise apartment unit. The factors were drawn from County-wide

averages. There was no prov is ion in the ord inane e and no

discussion about changing from time to time as County averages

changed or as the actual population varied from time to time

in Reston and other planned communities. The factors are

-5-

simply a method for converting persons per acre into dwelling

units per acre. Hindsight indicates that it may have been

better from a draftsmanship standpoint to have expressed the

density in terms of dwelling units per acre and to have omitted

the formula section. Nonetheless, it was included and has

been continued in the amended ordinances.

Overall Density Control

Section (c) also contained a provision that as each section

of a planned community is placed of record under the Subdivision

Control Ordinance, the density shall be computed anew. It pro­

vides that never in the history of the development will the

developer be permitted to exceed a density of 13 persons per acre.

Since this computation is to be made at the time of subdivision

rather than at the time of each subsequent census, it is clear

that the density control was and continues to be based upon a

theoretical population rather than upon actual population. There

was no provision and no discussion of any provision which would

have required a change in the Reston plan or the RPC Ordinance

based upon different population average factors from those con­

tained in the original ordinance.

The Public Factor

It was clear during the preparation of the ordinance and

during the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board

of Supervisors that in computing allowable population all areas

within the RPC zoned land not used as residential property should

be included. The 13 person per acre limit applies to all land

in an RPC zone, regardless of use. The Staff memorandum to the

-6-

Board of Supervisors dated May 16, 1962, spoke of a public

factor" to be used in the computation of density. The public

factor was stated to include not only publicly owned land and

streets, schools and similar uses, but other non-residential

property in the RPC zone. The discussion gave rise to the

"density bank" concept. Mr. Simon proposed - and the developer

of any other new town or planned community under the RPC zone

is required — to donate elementary and junior high school sites

and to provide adequate recreational areas. Obviously, such

facilities should be centrally located so as to be readily

available to the largest possible number of persons. This means

in general that such facilities are located in or adjacent to

medium or high density areas even though serving portions of the

community in low density areas. For each school site set aside

by the developer, the developer is entitled to a certain amount

of density to be placed on other acreage. The same is true for

parks and other public and quasi-publie community facilities.

That density may be taken throughout the community. It is not

necessary to locate the extra units a developer is entitled to

for a school site in a high density area within the same or

another high density area. In other words, it was never suggested

that a new town developed under the RPC zone should be three

communities, one a low density community, one a medium density

community and the other a high density community with each

community containing all the necessary amenities to meet its

need. The community facilities required are supplied to the

community as a whole and the density is therefore available to

the developer for the community as a whole.

Calculation of Density within Segments of the Community

The original conception of density control was that control

would lie at the subdivision point. Under Section (c) of the

ordinance, the developer is required to submit a recomputation

of density with each subdivision section. It is incumbent on

the developer to demonstrate to the County at that point that

it has not exceeded 13 persons per acre. These computations

have been made by the Reston staff and submitted to the Subdi­

vision Control office of Fairfax County for approval.

Of course, there must be some logical method for alloca­

ting among the high, low and medium density areas the density

credit the developer is entitled to for providing schools, recre­

ation areas, streets and other non-residential areas. The method

used by the County Staff in the May 16, 1962 memorandum and from

that time on has been an arithmetical basis. In 1962, the resi­

dential portion of Reston (excluding the planned town center and

the planned industrial land) was divided in acreages of planned

high, low and medium density as

Acres % of Total

44.6% Low Density 2,009

Medium Density 1,901 42.2%

High Density 531 11.8%

Village Center-mixed high density & commercial 65 1.4%

4, 506 100 .0% TOTAL

Since the land planned for low density consisted of 44.6% of

the total, the low density area was entitled to 44,6% of the

density bank. Since the medium density area was 42.2% of the

-8-

total, it was entitled to 42.2% of the density bank. Since

the high density was 11.8% of the total, it was entitled to

11.8% of the density bank. As an example, if a 10-acre school

s ite were donated, the developer would be entitled to a dens ity

credit for 10 acres or 130 theoretical persons. (10 x 13.0 =

130) 44.6% of that credit would be applied to the low density

area, 42.2% to the medium density area and 11.8% to the high

dens ity area. If the credit is figured in acres as the Staff

did in the May 16, 1962 memorandum, 4.5 acres would be added

to the net low density area and 3.8 persons allowed for each

of the 4.5 extra acres in addition to the actual acreage in the

net low density area. If single —family detached houses were

being considered, 4.5 extra single-family detached dwellings

could be located in the low density area because of that par­

ticular school site. (4.5 x 3.8 persons per acre = 17.1 persons

L 3.7 persons per single family house = 4.6 d .u .*) Similarly

for the same school site, the developer would be entitled to

add 4.2 acres to his net medium density and 1.2 acres to net

high density acres. The number of extra dwelling units the

developer would be entitled to wouId, of course, depend upon

the type of units. If garden apartments were being considered

in a medium density area, the developer under the example would

be entitled to a credit figured as follows: 4.2 acres x 14 pers

per acre = 58.8 persons f 3 persons per garden apartment unit =

19.6 extra dwelling units. The concept is the same as under the

alternate density provision which was in the zoning ordinance

before the adoption of the RPC Ord inance and s imilar to the

"bonus" feature of the PDH Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance.

-9-

*Under the 1969 Revised RPC ordinance a factor of 3.8 persons per single family dwe11ing house was substituted. Under that measure 4.5 d.u. would be added.

of course, this means that the population of low density

areas in an RPC zone is somewhat higher than the 3.8 persons per

acre figure expressed in the RPC Ordinance. Exactly how high

depends upon how much non-residential land is included in the

community under development. The calculations of the County

Staff in 1962, which were based upon the Reston plan which pro­

posed a 42% public factor, foresaw a population of 5.5 persons

per acre of net low density area. That figure is not controlling

of course, for two reasons: First, it was based upon the Staff s

recommendation of an overall limitation of 14 persons per gross

acre which was later reduced by the Board of County Supervisors

to 13 persons per gross acre, and secondly, because it was based

upon the 1962 plan rather than upon the community as developed.

The actual limitation of population in low density areas must

be determined as the community develops, as the land is sub­

divided, and as the land uses for which density credit is given

are established. It is the purpose of this monograph to explain

by the tables which follow the "public factor" - or density bank

of the Reston Community as planned and as developed to date.

-10-

F l G U R E O N E

1 9 6 2 R e s t o n P l a n R e p r o d u c e d .

Abbreviations

CEM CEMETERY

GC GOLF COURSE

GR GOVERNMENT RESERVE

HC HEALTH COMPLEX

HS HIGH SCHOOL

IND INDUSTRIAL AREA

IS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL

P PARK

PGHS POST GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL

SP SPORTS PARK

N <2>

800 1600 2400 Feet 1 1 1 1 Legend

• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

LEOIJ MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL AREAS

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL i i PERMANENT OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL AREAS 5 FLOOD PLAINS

RESTON MASTER PLAN Fai r fax County , Vi rg in ia

PALINDROME CORPORATION Developer

WHITTLESEY & CONKLIN Ci ty P lanners REVISED MAY 7 1962 *OOprf-D r /&,f962

TABLE I

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION UNDER THE 1962 RESTON PLAN

% of Net

Area % of Total Residential

(Acres) Acreage Acreage

(a) Residential Segments of Community 44.6% Low Density (3.8 persons per acre) 2,009 29.8%

Medium Density(14 persons per acre) 1, 901 28.2% 42 .2%

531 7.9% 11.8% High Density (60 persons per acre) Village Center(60 persons per acre) 65 1.0% 1.4%

(Mixed-high density & commercial)

Net Residential Area 4, 506 66.9% 100.0%

(b) Public Factor Land* 1,257 18.6%

Gross Residential Area-to be Developed under RPC Zoning 5,763 85.5%

(c) Non-Residential Areas-to be Developed under Conventional Zoning;

Industrial Areas 892 13.2% 90 1.3% Town Center

6,745 100.0% TOTAL AREA

* Large schools, outer beltway, lakes, parks and other major public and semi—public uses. See Table II.

-12-

TABLE II

ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC FACTOR UNDER THE 1962 RESTON PLAN

Acres

Golf Courses 260

Intermediate Schools 60

High Schools 64

Post Graduate High School 42

Lakes 96

Parks 521

Outer Beltway 132

Cemetery 32

Hospital Complex 30

Community Facilities —_20_

TOTAL 1, 257

OTE - The 1962 Master Plan did not contain any calculation of acreage to be consumed by roads and streets (except the outer belt-way) » elementary schools, churches or minor open spaces which are normally included in +-v,0 "Public Factor" of a community.

-13-

TABLE III

ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FACTOR DENSITY AMONG RESIDENTIAL AREAS

UNDER THE 1962 RESTON PLAN

Computation of Gross Residential Area

Net Public Gross Residential + Per Cent X Factor = Residential Area of Total Area Area

Low Density- 2,009 acres + (44.6% X 1257) = 2,570 acres

Medium Density 1,901 acres + (42.4% X 1257) = 2,431 acres

High Density 531 acres + (11.8% X 1257) = 679 acres

Village Center 65 acres + ( 1.4% X 1257) = 83 acres

TOTALS 4,506 acres + 100.0% X 1257 = 5,763 acres acres

-14-

TABLE IV

COMPUTATION OF DENSITY UNDER THE 1962 RESTON PLAN

Persons

Gross Residential Theoretical Area (from Table III)

Population Limits in RPC Zone

Population Permitted

Low Density 2, 570 acres X 3 .8 persons/acre 9, 766 persons

Medium Density 2, 431 acres X 14 persons/acre 34,048 persons

High Density 679 acres X 60 persons/acre 40,680 persons

Village Center 83 acres X 60 persons/acre 4, 980 persons

TOTAL 5, 763 acres 89,474 persons

NOTE - The 1962 RPC Ordinance contained a secondary population control limiting density to 11 persons per acre for the entire community, including associated general commercial and industrial areas. Since the total acreage in Reston in 1962 was 6,745 acres, the permitted population in the entire community was limited to 74,195 (6,745 x 11 = 74,195)<, For the effect of 11 persons per acre limit see Table V.

-15-

FIGURE TWO

1968 Revised Reston Plan Reproduced.

: s s j -i t

FIGURE THREE

Proposed 1970 Revis ions to Reston Plan.

RESTON MASTER PLAN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

GULF RESTON, INC OCTOBER 1970

MILE

2400 FEET

LAND USE PLAN • LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

3.8 PERS./GROSS RES. ACRE SINGLE FAMILY, TOWNHOUSES

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 14 PERS./GROSS RES. ACRE

LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY, TOWNHOUSES, GARDEN APARTMENTS

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 60 PERS./GROSS RES. ACRE

TOWNHOUSES, GARDEN APARTMENTS HIGH RISE APARTMENTS

INDUSTRIAL AREA

TOWN CENTER

VILLAGE CENTER

CONVENIENCE CENTER

SPECIAL STUDY AREAS

OPEN SPACE

INSTITUTIONAL

-17-

j L__J f "1 ?• I

TABLE V

COMPARISON OF THE 1962 RESTON PLAN 1968 REVISION AND PROPOSED 1970 REVISIONS

(a) Residential

Low Density Medium Density HighDensity Village Centers (Commercial & High Density)

Sub Totals

(b) Public Factor Land

Golf Courses Elementary Schools Intermediate Schools HighSchools P. G. High School Lakes Parks Beltway Maj or Roads Cemetery Hospital Community Facilities at T.C, Sub Totals

(c) Industrial and Commercial

Special Study Areas Industrial Town Center Sub Totals

TOTALS

1962 1968 Plan Revised Plan

2009 acres 1901 531

65 4506 acres

260 0 60 64 42 96 521 132 0 32 30 20

1257 acres

892 90 982 acres

6745 acres

1570 acres 2075 551

78 4274 acres

289 0 58 62 50 96 562 132 234 17 30 20

1550 acres

150 1271 86

1507 acres

7331 acres

1970 Proposed Plan

1576 acres 2028 598

112 4314 150* 4464 acres

320 66** Q * *

o ** 43 125 570 132 234 0 30 20

1540 acres

150 1265 (150)* 1415 acres

7419 acres

*This is now included in the residential land under the 1969 R.P.C. Ordinance.

** Ten elementary, two intermediate, and two high school indicated on the Community Facilities Plan are not included because exact location and acreage has not been approved. Acreage for these facilities is therefore still included in the residential acreages indicated.

-18-

«i n-' fessd:. <-=^4; L—4: I. I

TABLE VI

ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FACTOR DENSITY AMONG RESIDENTIAL AREAS

UNDER THE 1968 REVISED PLAN AND UNDER THE PROPOSED 1970 REVISIONS

(a) 1968 Revised Plan

Public Gross Net Residential Percent Factor Residential

Area + of Total X Area = Area

Low Density 1570 acres + (36.7% X 1550 = 2138 acres =

Medium Density 2075 acres + (48.6% X 1550 2828 acres

High Density 551 acres + (12.9% X 1550 750 acres : 108 acres Village Center 78 acres + ( 1.8% X 1550

=

TOTALS 4274 acres + (100% X 1550 5824 acres

(b) Proposed 1970 Revised Plan

2120 acres Low Density 1576 acres + (35 .3% X 1540 + 1540 2727 acres Medium Density 2028 acres (45.4% X

= .

High Density 598 acres + (13.4% X 1540 — 804 acres =:

Village Center 112 acres + ( 2 .5% X 1540 151 acres

150 acres + ( 3 .4% X 1540 ~~" 202 acres Town Center *

+ 1540 6004 acres TOTALS 4464 acres (100% X =

*The 1969 Revised R.P.C. Ordinance dropped the 11 persons per acre control for the R.P. C. zoned land plus associated commercial and industrial areas; retaining the 13 persons per acre control of R.P.C. zoned land as the only over-all density control. It also permitted a town center to be developed in R.P.C. zones and allowed mixed residential and commercial uses in the town center.

-19-

TABLE VII

COMPUTATION OF DENSITY UNDER THE 1968 REVISED RESTON PLAN

AND UNDER THE 1970 PROPOSED REVISIONS

PERSONS

(a) Under the 1968 Revised Plan

Gross Residential Population Theoretical

Area Limits in Population Permitted (From Table VIII) R.P.C. Zone

2138 acres X 3.8 persons/acre 8124 persons Low Density 282.8 acres X 14 persons/acre 39592 persons Medium Density

High Density 750 acres X 60 persons/acre 45000 persons

108 acres X 60 persons/acre 6480 persons Village Center

5824 acres 99,196 persons* TOTAL

fb) Under the 1970 Proposed Revisions

2120 acres X 3.8 persons/acre 8052 persons Low Density X 14 persons/acre 38178 persons Medium Density 2727 acres

804 acres X 60 persons/acre 48240 persons High Density Village Center 151 acres X 60 persons/acre 9060 persons

202 acres X 60 persons/acre 12120 persons Town Center

6004 acres 11^650 persons ** TOTAL

*The 1962 R.P.C. Ordinance, in effect in 1968, contained a secondary population control limiting density to 11 persons per acre for the entire community, including associated general commercial and industrial areas. Since the total acreage in Reston in 1968 was 7331 acres, the permitted population in the entire community was limited to 80,641 (7331 x 11 — 80,641).

**The 1969 R.P.C. Ordinance contains a secondary population control limiting density to 13 persons per acre for the gross residential area. Since the gross residential area in Reston in 1970 is 6,004 acres, the permitted population in the entire community is limited to 78,052 (6004 x 13 - 78,052)

-20-

FIGURE FOUR

Plat o f a r e a s zoned R F C .

er"ADD'N TO tsrR.P.C. &-s>o/

RES TOM MASTER PLAN PARCELS AMD DENSITY ACREAGES

ZONIhJG /IS OF OCT. 20J3G&

PEV/SED- OCTOSG2, /970 FOR ZONED Ft PEAS ONLY

-21-

TABLE VIII

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WITHIN AREA WITHIN RESTON ZONED RPC

(According to Approved Preliminary Plans)

Medium Density High Density Village Center

321acres 79 acres 18 acres 40 27 40 95 3 65 63 71

7 38

68 25 12 50 43 52

264 108

584x33.6% 584x11.9% 584x4.9% 196 69 29

941 333 137

14.0 60 .0 60 .0

133.74 19980 £>220

Public Factor Area

409 acres 28

140

584

584x100% 584

46,664

Total Area

1152 acres 141 636 207 134 45 98

> 112 to ir1 50

228

2803 H H

2803

1st 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th 8th 9th

i fO fo TOTAL 1

RPC Addition Addition Addition Addition Addition Addition Addition Addition Addition

Low Density

325 acres 6

398 142

98

133

Public Factor (584x49.6%) Allocation 290

Gross RPC Area 1392

Persons/Acre 3.8

Theoretical Popu­lation permitted 5290

-22-

Plat showing area of subdivided part of Reston, and parts for which f inal have been approved.

De-us/ty Computations

On/o/NAL Mastpp Plan

SECTIONS <S, 8, /O, /2, }<A, /8,

AMD ze

RESTON MASTER PLAN PARCELS AAJD DENSITY ACREAGES

ZONING /IS OF OCT 20, I2GG

REVISED- OCTOBER,/970 POM ZONED AND SUBDIVIDED

A ME AS ONLY

-23-

TABLE IX

DWELLING UNIT DISTRIBUTION IN PARTS OF RESTON FOR WHICH FINAL PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED

(Units Planned) Single Family Town Garden High

Section Detached Hous: Apts Rise

(a) Northern Section

1st 1st Add. to 1

80 271 173

46 152

299

2nd Add. to 1 3 5 7 7-A 9

8 34

174

202 26 48

366

48

261 198

276

9-A 42

9-B 11 133

13 15 15-A 17 19 21

227 230

132 216 545 240 230

150 200

23 96

Sub-Total N. 301 1, 681 2, 201 925

Streets (out­side of Sects)

Catholic Church

TOTAL NORTH 301 1,681 2.201 925

-24-

Page 1 of 2

Total Dwelling Units

696 325 8

512 74 48 261 738 42

133

132 216 927 670 230 96

5,108

5 ,108

Gross Area

155 63 3 81 10 8 13 231 7 4 13 3 7 13 83 82 25 12.

813

16

10

839

10 .03 persons/Gr<

839

• I

Page 2 of 2

TABLE IX (cont'd.)

(Units Planned) Total Single Family Town Garden High Dwelling Gross

Section Detached House Apts . Rise Units Area

Carried Forward -North Section 301 1,681 2,201 925 5,108

(b) Southern Section

2 79 21 - 100 96

4 132 - _ 132 125

4-A 88 - - 88 113

6 131 - - 131 108

8 98 - - 98 111

10 130 - - 130 101

12 73 -_ 73 83

14 48 - - 48 21

16 136 -_ 136 132

18 114 - - 114 98

26 135 125 - 260 67

Sub-Total S. Route #602

1,164 -

146 - -

—

-

1,310 —

1, 055 1

Stable — - - - - 4

TOTAL - SOUTH 1,164 146 _ 1, 310 1,060

TOTAL RESTON 1,465 1,827 2,201 925 6,418 1,899

Persons/Unit 3.8 3.0 3.0 1.5

Theoretical Population 5,567 5,481 6,603 1,388 = 19,039

Theoretical Population -• 19.039 10 .03 persons/Gr< oss Residential Acre Gross Residential Acre 1,899

Note: 13 persons/Gross Residential Acre permitted by Ordinance.

-25-

TABLE X

ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC FACTOR IN PARTS OF RESTON FOR WHICH

FINAL PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED

Section Number Streets Schools Lake

Golf Courses

Recre ation Areas

I 1st.Add. 2nd. Add. 3 5

17 8

13 2

10 28 9 5

11

7-A 9 9-A 9-B II 13 15 15-A 17 19 21 23

22 1

3 4

13

14 6 2

Misc.open Space & Comm. Fac. (Wiehle No. Shore, Cath. Church 16

Sub-Total North 86 37 28 34

Sec. 25 N. Golf Crse 164

TOTAL NORTH 86 37 28 164 34

-26-

717

Page 2 of 2

TABLE X (cont'd.)

Section Streets Schools Lake

Golf Courses

Recre­ation Areas

Parks & Misc. Open

Church

Carried Forward Kjorth Section J.1 v >L C X X M V1 w1 J— V A * 86 37 28 164 34 65 30 444

2 4 4-A 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 26 Stable Rt. 602 XX L. A W W 4d

Sub-Total South

H.W. School X J. & Bl e fc—' X* * A

TOTAL SOUTH

9 18 11 13 12 12 14 4 14 10 6

123

123

14

14 11

25

3 4

3 4 1

15

15

34 36 17 30 49 28 33 2 26 16 17

288

288

46 58 28 42 61 40 47 6 40 40 26 4 1

439 11

450

TOTAL RESTON 209 62 28 164 49 353 30 894

Total Reston w/o N. Golf Crse. & H.W. School 209 51 28 49 351 30 717

-27-

__

TABLE XI

CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL AREA IN PARTS OF RESTON

FOR WHICH FINAL PLANS APPROVED

Net Residential % of Public Factor Gross Residential Section No. Area (Acres) ± Total x (Acres) = Area—(Acres)

(a) Northern Section

=

1 85 + 15 .2 X 278 (42) 127 ii — 1st Add. to 1 46 + 8.2 X 1!

(23) 69

2nd. Add. to 1 2 + 0.4 X ( 1) — 3

52 + 9.3 X II (26) — 78 3 8 + 14 X II ( 4) = 12 5

7 8 + 14 X 11 ( 4) = 12

7-A 13 + 2.3 X 11 ( 6) = 19

9 155 + 27 .6 X 19 (77) = 232

9-A 6 + 1.1 X 11 ( 3) 9 —

= 9-B 11

-

13 + -

2.3 X IE ( 6) 19 -13

—

15 -

7 + 1.3 X II ( 4) = — 11

15-A 11 + 2.0 X II ( 5) 16

17 68 + 12.1 X II (34) = 102 II (29) = 88 o

I —I

D Le X + 19 59 II = 24 ( 8) II ( 6) 18

+ 2.9 X 21 16 + 2.1 X 23 12

TOTAL NORTH 561 + 100.0 X (278) = 839

(b) Southern Section

-50 + 8.1 X 86 439 (36) II 2 o

1 —1

0 0 114 (47) ll (60) 145

X 4 67 + + 13.7 X 4-A 85

6 66 + 10.6 X II = 112 (46) IK (36) = 86 8 50 + 00

H

X + 9.8 10 61 X II = 104 (43)

= II (25) 61 (ID

+ 5.8 X 12 36 = 26 15 + 2.4 X 14

It

= II 14.8 X (65) 157 " 16 92 II = 99 (41) II (29) = 70

+ 9.3 X 18 58 26 41 + 6.6 X

= TOTAL SOUTH 621 + 100.0 X 439 1,060

=

TOTAL RESTON 1, 182 + 100.0 X 717 1,899

-28-

Page 1

TABLE XII

THEORETICAL POPULATION OF PARTS OF RESTON FOR WHICH FINAL PLANS APPROVED

(a) Northern Area (dwelling units)

Section Number

Single Family

Town Houses

Garden Apartments

High Rise

Total d.u.,

Low Density Section 9 174 38 212

Low Total 174 38 212

Persons/d.u. x3.8 x3 .0

Theoretical Population 661 JJA 775

Medium Density Section 1 80 230 - — 310

1st Add. to 1 - 173 152 — 325

2nd Add. to 1 8 _ - — 8

Section 3 34 202 - 276 512

Section 5 - 26 48 - 74 Section 7 - 48 - - 48

Section 9 - 328 198 - 526

Section 9-A - 42 - - 42

Section 9-B - - - — —

Section 11 - - 133 - 133

Section 13 - - — — —

Section 17 5 179 440 - 624

Section 19 - 230 - - 230

Section 21 - - 230 - 230

Section 23 - 96 - - 96

Medium Total 127 1554 1201 276 3158 Persons/d.u. x3•8 x3.0 x3.0 xl.5

Theoretical Population 483 4662 3603 414 — 9162.

High Density Section 1 Section 7-A

41 46 261

299 -

386 261

Section 9 1 Section 15 132 - 132

Section 15-A 216 - 216

Section 17 - 48 105 150 303

Section 19 - ~ 240 200 440

High Total Persons/d.u.

89 x3.0

1000 x3 .0

649 xl. 5

1738

Theoretical Population 267 3000 974 = 4241

TOTAL THEORETICAL POPULATION - NORTH SECTION

6603 1388 = 14178

-29-

Page 2 of 2

TABLE XII (cont'd-)

Gross Section Number

Single Family

Town Houses

Garden Apartments

High Rise

Total d.u.

Residential Area (Acres!

Carried forward North Sec. 1144 5043 6603

(b) Southern Area (Dwelling Units)

1388 = .,14178

Low Density Section 2 79 21 - - 100 96 Section 4 132 - - - 132 125 Section 4-A 88 - - - 88 113 Section 6 131 - - 131 108 Section 8 98 - - - 98 111 Section 10 130 - - - 130 101 Section 12 73 - - - 73 83 Section 14 48 - - - 48 21 Section 16 136 - - - 136 132 Section 18 114 - - - 114 98

Low Total 1029 21 - 1050 persons/d.u. x3.8 x3.0

Theoretical Population 3910 63 ~ ~ = 3973

Medium Density Section 26 135 125 - - 260 67 persons/d.u. x3.8 x3.0

Theoretical Population 513 375 888

High Density None

TOTAL THEORETICAL POPULATION -SOUTHERN SECTION

4423 438 - - 4861

TOTAL THEORETICAL POPULATION -ALL OF RESTON

5567 5481 6603 1388 19039

-30-

CONCLUSION

The tables demonstrate that as of 1970, Reston is developing

as it was planned in 1962 and considerably below the population

density limits established by Fairfax County in the RPC Ordinance.

2803 acres have been zoned RPC (Table VIII); 1899 acres have been

subdivided (Table IX). When the subdivided areas have been developed

in accordance with approved final plans, Reston will contain 6418

dwelling units and a theoretical population of 19,039 persons. The

population density will be 10.03 persons per acre as compared with

the limit of 13 persons per acre (Table XI). The 6418 approved

dwelling units consist of 1465 single-family detached houses, 1827

townhouses, 2201 garden apartments and 925 high-rise units. 584

acres of the 2803 RPC-Zoned acres are designated on preliminary

plans as the Public Factor (Table VIII), but that tells only part

of the story. The density bank presently contains 717 acres (Tables

X and XI) since additional public factor acres are indicated on

final plans over those shown on preliminary plans. The 717 acres

in the density bank will shortly increase to 894 acres (Table X)

by the inclusion of the Hunters Woods School and the Reston North

Golf Course. Those two areas will be added to the density banl

when they are either included within a recorded subdivision or

subjected to an open space easement. Also to be included in the

future are the Reston South Golf Course (about 160 acres), the

south lakes (85 acres), and ten elementary, two intermediate, and

two high school sites not yet defined as to location. If the areas

in the density bank outside subdivided areas were considered, the

population density of the 1899 acres for which final plans have

-31-

been approved would fall below 10 persons per acre. The reasons

present density falls so far below the planned ultimate density

are that many of the open space requirements for the entire

community, such as golf courses and lakes, have been met ahead

of need and because a large percentage of land so far subdivided

falls within the low density category. Overall per acre density

will increase as future development includes a greater proportion

of high and medium density.

In conclusion, the RPC Ordinance is working: Reston is

developing as it was planned in a variety of housing types; the

public factor is greater than the 42% foreseen by the Staff in

1962; and population density has been successfully controlled at

the subdivision point.

-32-