Falls Church planners outline timeline to update comp plan; commissioners press for land‑use, vision work

Emily Bazemore, interim principal planner for comprehensive planning, told the Falls Church City Planning Commission on March 26 that the city’s comprehensive plan is a long‑range document with a planning horizon of about 20 to 25 years and that parts of the plan have not been updated in two decades.

The comprehensive plan guides public investment, zoning and development decisions, Bazemore said, and the Code of Virginia requires planning commissions to review the plan at least once every five years to determine whether amendments are advisable. The city is now working on Chapter 8 (community facilities, public utilities and government services); staff is aiming to present a full draft to boards and commissions in July 2025, run public engagement in September–October and bring final action by December 2025.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the update is an opportunity to set a clearer long‑range framework that will guide zoning, small‑area planning and individual development proposals. Several commissioners urged that the land‑use chapter and the community vision (chapter 1) be prioritized because they inform the land‑use map and the zoning changes that implement it.

Bazemore summarized the plan’s structure and recent addenda, including the 2025 Bicycle Master Plan and a 2024 addendum establishing the Tinner Hill Historic and Cultural District. She noted that some chapters are recent (demographics updated in 2024; housing updated in 2019), while others—community character, land use and historic preservation—date to 2005 and could be next in line for review.

Commission discussion focused on sequencing and scope. Commissioner Andrea Comont said she did not believe the commission was conducting five‑year reviews of each chapter and asked how the commission should fulfill that duty. Bazemore replied that the city has historically updated chapters one or two at a time rather than the entire plan at once and that an industry scan and staged drafts, with periodic planning‑commission review, have been used as a model.

Commissioner Bob Kavinsky cited a Virginia Tech report that recommended decoupling land use and economic development into separate chapters so the plan does not become overly focused on commercial corridors. "That made a lot of sense to me," he said. Several members said a revised vision chapter could and perhaps should be done in tandem with the land‑use update so the community’s long‑term goals can more clearly guide the land‑use map.

Staff described likely public‑engagement tools—surveys, pop‑ups at the library and other places, videos and outreach to multifamily building residents—and said the intensity of engagement will depend on the chapter and the community tasks involved. Bazemore noted the need for staff capacity and said prior outreach tactics (small area plan town halls, pop‑ups) have been successful in past updates.

Commissioners also suggested a comparative study of approaches other jurisdictions have used to manage housing affordability, zoning changes and transitions between commercial corridors and low‑density neighborhoods. "I think we need some money or we need some commitment of staff time to sort of scope this out in advance," Commissioner Tim Stevens said, urging a targeted review of other communities’ experiences before drafting major land‑use changes.

What happens next: Staff plans to continue the Chapter 8 work this year on the timetable outlined and to bring project schedules to the commission. Commissioners asked staff to prepare materials and options that show how a revised vision and land‑use chapter would translate into a land‑use map and into zoning or regulatory changes so the commission and public can evaluate tradeoffs.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to prioritize a land‑use update and a revision to the vision chapter, and to bring the commission’s priority list to City Council as part of the commission’s annual report and work‑plan recommendations.