ZOAC Report and Hotel Plan Reviewed at SRO Work Session
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
March 9, 2011
Residents stood inside and outside the Dogwood Room Monday night as the Falls Church City Council and Planning Commission were briefed on the report of the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and the status of the long dormant plan for a hotel on West Broad Street.
John Murphy, chairman of the ZOAC, summarized the report’s 19 recommenations, which already have created considerable public debate. He said that although the original intention was to commission a complete rewrite of Falls Church’s zoning code, the committee and City staff did not recommend the contractor’s draft as the basis for a new ordinance.
Mr. Murphy felt that the most necessary revision to the code would be to change the process of commercial development, so projects that are approved by the Council at second reading are beyond the conceptual stage. Concerning residential zoning, he said the Committee’s recommendations were intended to preserve the character of neighborhoods and to provide a greater mix of housing types, while retaining a sense of harmony with surrounding properties. Noting that zoning changes are inherently personal and can impact property values, the ZOAC chairman acknowledged that some of the recommendations are controversial and that some of them might change.
New planning director Jim Snyder said the report and the contractor’s draft of the zoning code would help in formulating the City’s comprehensive plan. Mayor Nader Baroukh concurred and suggested Mr. Snyder work with the Planning Commission to develop an appropriate work plan.
The ZOAC’s proposals for the commercial sector may not generate wide discussion, but several of the nine residential recommendations are clearly controversial, as shown by the strong public turnout Monday evening and at the previous Council meeting on February 28. In the latest contribution to the debate, ZOAC member Mike Novotny distributed a a four page handout that proposed revisions to four of the residential recommendations. Councilwoman Robin Gardner summed up the coming conflict as one pitting the rights of the homeowner versus the rights of the community.
Hilton Garden Inn - First proposed in 2008, the plan has been revised to include a small office building and some changes to the hotel site at 706 W. Broad St. The project will require an amendment to the previously granted special exception, which remains in effect.
Rich Palmer of Gosnell-Palmer Holdings LLC, the franchisee, provided a presentation on the 110 room hotel and the two-story office building which will face Park Avenue. Changes include a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 119 to 114 and the removal of the ramp between the two levels of the parking garage. Twenty of the spaces will be set aside for 800 W. Broad St. The proposed plan calls for a reduction in the available daytime parking space from 75% to 64%. Mr. Palmer said he did not expect the garage to be heavily used.
The project is expected to generate $568,000 in revenue for the City. Vice Mayor Dave Snyder estimated that it could reduce the tax rate by as much as four cents, assuming that Falls Church realizes the projected additional revenue generated by guests and conference attendees.
Some planning commissioners criticized the rear elevation of the office building and the location of trash containers and a generator. Others thought that the hotel’s style was “boilerplate” and called for a design that was more suited to the City’s character.
Council members questioned the parking plan and the lack of connectivity between levels of the garage. Mayor Baroukh recommended close reading of the franchise agreement, emphasizing that he did not want to see the hotel ”flipped” ten years from now into a lower status facility. He recommended additional staff work on the project before moving forward.
Auditors Report - Billy Robinson and Jason Hartman of Brown, Edwards briefed the Council on the recently completed FY 2010 audit, formally the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
The audit, which was due in December, was delayed for several reasons, including a change in audit firms, a backlog due to the absence of a CFO for several months, and the difficulty in determining the impact of the water system lawsuits filed against the City. The auditors called for a prior period adjustment on a supplemental retirement plan and recommended that the City’s financial department regularly review School Board and Economic Development Authority minutes, in addition to those of the Council.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) - City planner Wendy Block Sanford presented the SRTS application to the Council. The City is requesting $500,000 in federal funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation for infrastructure improvements that will upgrade walking and biking routes to schools. SRTS is one of the three elements of the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan.
Ms. Sanford advised that 75% of the 500 parents who had responded to a survey would allow their children to walk or bike to school if conditions improve. Currently, Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School has a no walk policy, primarily due to the configuration of its drop-off area. This would be redesigned upon receipt of SRTS funds. Other recommended measures, all which have community benefits, include:
> New sidewalks on primary routes to schools
> Raised sidewalks at several Broad St. locations
> Median refuge at N. Oak St. and N. West St.
> Speed limit signs at four locations
> Traffic control devices at four locations
> Re-alignment of intersection of West St. and W&OD Trail
Ms. Sanford said that the purpose of SRTS is to improve, not extend the walking areas. Students who live beyond an established walking zone would still be bused.
The Council informally agreed to approve a resolution endorsing the application at next Monday’s meeting.
Video - A recording of the work session is available at the City website.
Proposed changes to ZOAC Recommendations [PDF]
By George Bromley
March 9, 2011
Does anyone have a copy of Mr. Novotny’s hand out that can be posted? I’m curious about what “unintended consequences” are referenced. I got into the weeds of the critique of the ZOAC and the ZOAC recommendations. I will have to devote some thought to it all.
TFC, I saw your comment and emailed FCT a copy of the handout to post, but in the meantime there’s also a copy posted at http://www.fallschurchinsider.com/2011/03/zoac-report-info/.
Thanks, Mike
Many thanks Mike. I will look it over.
Mike, I see only one reference to an issue that has persisted in our neighborhood. The consistent application of the front yard averaging method so an infill sits on the lot like others in the neighborhood and fits in aesthetically. Did the group have any additional suggestions in regard to this issue?
Thanks
Mike & TFC, I posted a copy of the handout [PDF] and noted it in George’s story.
I just looked at the handout and have a question on the section regarding design restrictions. Wouldn’t the Dillon Rule prohibit the implementation some or all of suggestions on regulating design? Or, is there some way around the Dillon Rule for this subset of properties? I’m aware of the ruling on limiting the height of houses on substandard lots. Does that open the way to other design restrictions? The part I’m referring to is pasted below in quotes.
“Is it possible to structure a compromise where the practice is allowed to continue but design of these homes is strictly regulated? Suggestions include:
• Limit building height by lot width (w-28’ min height) per proposed revision above.
• Create a design review board strictly for homes proposed for this situation, consisting of staff and members of the community with professional design experience?
o A new design review board could be formed for each application to be neighborhood specific, if necessary?
• Require the two proposed new homes to have a materially different design?
• Require the two proposed new homes to be designed by different architecture or design-build firms?
• Require the design for both homes be submitted simultaneously so each can be reviewed in context?
• Require Planning Commission approval of final design?”
K – the Virginia Supreme Court has already specifically refuted [Mr. Foote's] argument that the City could not impose different regulations on substandard lots, so there is no question we have the authority to do much of what you are suggesting and all of what is in the ZOAC report. In addition, our Charter specifically allows the City to regulate “design” [17.10(b)], although the City has never really utilized this authority.
What the ZOAC did was to suggest tightening the loopholes that have started to devour much of our code, in order to start a legislative process where all kinds of tinkering would be possible, including many of the things Mike has suggested. Much of the old (1934 and 1944) codes included really effective provisions such as front yard averaging which have been very important in shaping the development of our neighborhoods. Consider the 1944 Code on side yards: “Each lot … shall have two side yards each of which shall be of a width equal to not less than one-third (half in R-1A) of the height of the dwelling….”
TFC, the front yard averaging provision was discussed at length, but the committee was 100% in support of the current language of the code, now that the BZA has corrected the refusal to enforce it.
Mr. Maller,
Thanks for your answer regarding the suggestions in the handout.
K.
Thanks again for answering the question. Here’s the line from the city charter on the zoning powers of the city council:
“(b)
It may regulate the height, area, bulk, size, design and appearance of buildings and structures and the appropriateness of their use in the districts.”
Now I am curious about what elements of “design and appearance” are covered. Can anyone elaborate on that?
Thanks.
Thanks for the info Dan. Hope we can make sure future changes will be enforced consistently, unlike the recent past.
My neighborhood has a gigantic home of three stories that was approved many, many years ago. It was once referred to as “the pink house”. Its water under the bridge now but we always heard the owner(an architect) got it approved b/c the three stories do not present to the street …… only when viewed from the side. Like the height from the street would fool anyone as to the number of stories. It would have been lovely on 5 acres in Great Falls but it’s smashed in one of our lots and overwhelming.
K – I think the language covers things like what the City of Alexandria does, which of course strikes a very different balance from what we have done here. Even our historic ordinance does not really require any compliance with HARB suggestions.
TFC – We could compile a book of the questionable “interpretations” that have resulted in things like that. One change we made a few years ago that we have not discussed was to change the way height was measured, since homes like the “twin towers” on Broad Street violated the spirit of the law so clearly there was little controversy about tightening it. On conforming lots, it still allows 2 1/2 stories, a basement ~4′ above average grade (pre- or post-development, whichever is lower), and a height of 35′ to the mid point of the roofline. This can still result in a home like 45′ high that would look like four stories from certain elevations. This is one of the reasons I like the 1944 code I cited above, which regulates several elements of buildings in an integrated way by tying height to width/setbacks.
Dan, saying there was 100% ZOAC support on front yard averaging is a stretch don’t you think. I can’t recall a meeting with any meaningful discussion on the topic. But since I joined ZOAC in February 2010 and missed two years worth of meetings, it’s “very” possible this issue was discussed at length and agreed to by earlier members before me.
TFC, the reason I raised the issue in my handout is based on a recent conversation I had with an active residential builder in the City, who cited an example of a new house that was built 85’ back from the street, which now impacts the neighbor’s ability to redevelop their home in the future. This was not the intent of the builder of course, but it is a direct result of our current code.
This situation crystallized for me the issue that setbacks are not a “build-to” line, they are merely the minimum distance that one is allowed to build to the street. But what happens when your neighbor decides to build a new home far behind the minimum required front yard, why should you be bound to do the same thing if and when you redevelop your home?
I think most folks are worried about the opposite effect, ie. not setting a new home too close to the street when established homes are set back. In this case front yard averaging may be the right thing and work very well. What I’m more worried about is the unintended consequence if someone sets back farther than the minimum and as a result exerts significant influence over the folks next to them. I’m not sure that’s a fair situation.
All that said, for me there is more to research on the issue, which is why I only added the question “should it be eliminated…?” But it’s an important issue and if there are some unintended consequences then we ought to discuss it further during the public process.
Thanks Mike, never thought of the reverse situation of a house built way back on the lot. This stuff is complex and I appreciate your efforts to provide illumination.
Mike, as we discussed the subject was discussed alot early on. For a variety of reasons this just never made it back into the discussion even though there were some definite issues such as the “house in people’s back yards” situation. I agree the language is deficient in that it addresses only the MINIMUM setback and not the MAXIMUM, and as you said because of averaging this can create an issue. What the code says now is the minimum front setback is the average, but not more than fifty nor less than 30/25 for R-1A/B, so in the situation you describe would require a setback of 50′ next to a home built 85′ back. There are a range of ways to remedy or mitigate this, such as to reduce the minimum or to limit the amount used for averaging, and/or to allow the BZA or the PC some latitude in addressing individual situations.
I know there’s always the bza, but that takes time and can be costly for homeowners (attorney fees?), and I have to imagine it’s stressful hoping that the board will agree with you. If there’s a potential problem, I’d much rather try to improve the code up-front.
Maybe one way to address this particular issue is to add the following to the front yard averaging language in section 48-1102c: (to the effect) “…provided however that the minimum front yard requirement for any redevelopment of an existing home shall be the lesser of the front yard average or the actual front yard of the existing home…”
I think this concept would protect existing homeowner rights when they eventually redevelop, while still protecting against new development on vacant lots setting too close to the street.
Thoughts?
If people are messing around with code language — look at Montgomery County Md – they do a nice job with front yard setbacks. They call it the “established building line” and they provide diagrams to explain how it is calculated (makes it clear to applicants and zoning staff). They also average more than just the two closest houses, which helps even things out if there is a neighboring house with an odd setback. They allow people to use the old house’s front yard setback when redeveloping, as long as it meets minimum setback and didnt have a variance.
Dont we allow people to reuse old front setback when redeveloping?
There’s no provision in our code that I’m aware of that specifically allows owners to reuse an old front yard setback. The code establishes minimums for each district in Article IV, and then addresses front yard averaging in Article V, Division 6.
If there are no changes to existing homes in your neighborhood then the current rules work fine, but all homes have a useful life and the City has a decent stock of older homes, we’ll likely see a lot more redevelopment going forward. There really ought to be something there that specifically allows you to reuse your old setback, especially if you can be directly affected by your neighbors redevelopment.
Montgomery County sounds like they do a nice job, thanks for the example, no sense reinventing the wheel if someone has figured this out already.
If anyone is interested in looking at this (very exciting) stuff, here’s the link to our code: http://search.municode.com/html/14329/level2/PTIICOOR_CH48ZO.html