Goodbye, Tall Trees – The Update
In July we posted these photos of the small lot across from Mary Riley Styles Public Library, noting that signs had appeared announcing planned construction of two houses there.
On Tuesday, the Falls Church Planning Commission will consider the subdivision request for the lot. The City planning staff has noted no issues with the request, and therefore recommends approval. The staff memo and other information concerning Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting are available here.
.
Original Post from July 13
The beautiful stand of trees near the library, at the corner of Park and Virginia Avenues, will be leaving us soon. The sign posted this weekend announces plans for two homes there. Currently over 20 tall trees occupy the space, including a number of black walnut trees.
To the question of whether the City attempted to purchase the parcel, City Manager Wyatt Shields provided the following written reply: “The City of Falls Church has always placed a high priority on open space and trees (Tree City USA for 31 years.) A well-appointed public library has also been a high priority. Over the years, the City has inquired several times about the availability of the lot at the corner of Virginia and Park for possible library expansion or library parking. The lot is privately owned and is zoned for residential use. It is unfortunate that the City did not have the opportunity to purchase the lot for public use but the owner is entitled to sell the land to whomever he/she wishes.”
We will provide additional information as it becomes available.
By Stan Fendley, Falls Church City
September 3, 2009
I noticed those signs this weekend, and was quite surprised. That really is a shame. Did the city own that land and sell it, or has it been awaiting development for some time?
Ben,
Not on the corner, but on the western half of the lot, once stood a brick Tudor house, probably built in the 1940′s, which a woman owned, and which she rented. To the west of it was an abandonded single-family house, probably also built in the 1940′s. The owner tore the Tudor house down at the same time the abandoned house was torn down to make room for the new houses which are slightly to the east of Preston Square. I don’t know who owns the corner lot, but obviously it has been consolidated with the lot formerly occupied by the brick Tudor.
Tom
My understanding is that the land has been owned privately for some time. The owner recently passed away and those who inherited the land have decided to sell/develop it.
I could be wrong about all that – but that’s what I heard. I suspect it’s not too hard to determine the owner of the lot via the City’s web site.
The truth as I understand it is that the City had the opportunity to purchase this lot, which the library had some interest in using, but the City Manager sat on it too long (not sure if it was intentional) and thus, we get two more single family homes.
Want to know the consequence of that? Here is a commercial corridor (T1 zone) that is going to get new residences. Everyone knows that residents demand more services than their taxes bring in and that commercial development is better for the overall bottom line. But worse, ask the school board where many of the new kids are coming from … the answer isn’t condos, but single family homes!
Let’s hear it for our forward thinking city management!
The following was added as an update to the story at 9:30pm Tuesday, July 14.
To the question of whether the City attempted to purchase the parcel, City Manager Wyatt Shields provided the following written reply:
“The City of Falls Church has always placed a high priority on open space and trees (Tree City USA for 31 years.) A well-appointed public library has also been a high priority. Over the years, the City has inquired several times about the availability of the lot at the corner of Virginia and Park for possible library expansion or library parking. The lot is privately owned and is zoned for residential use. It is unfortunate that the City did not have the opportunity to purchase the lot for public use but the owner is entitled to sell the land to whomever he/she wishes.”
The city persuded the lot back in the 1970′s but the owner (an older gentlemen whose name escapes me) hated the city and he and the city never got along. The open space committee considered the lot a couple of years ago but our priorities did not include enough money to go after all our targets. We still have money in the open space account but the priorites and polictical will where not aligned with the charactertics of that lot. The Library Board made inquiry but decided for the price it only added parking which would have taken down the trees also…….
Good thing those trees are coming down so “green certified” homes can be built in their place.
Since when is just putting in energy efficient appliances and insulation considered “green.” What about sustainable landscaping and geothermal heating? How much water will come off of those lots that was once absorbed by trees that made oxygen out of CO2? Take a look at the other houses built as “green” by this builder and see what they really are. The only thing that will be left green on these lots are the signs in the picture.
I consider energy efficient appliances and upgraded insulation to be “green” – you can save a lot of energy by doing relatively small things like that. I’m fairly sure the City has requirements that will force the builder to deal with rain water runoff (probably into an underground cistern so it doesn’t go into the stormwater system) – but certainly houses can’t process rain water as effectively as trees!
This builder participated in the June EDA meeting where we had a panel that talked about building green in Falls Church. It was interesting to see the different approaches being taken. For example, if I remember correctly, this builder doesn’t go after LEED certification because he doesn’t feel like he can get a return on his investment it terms of the documentation and process overhead required for LEED. He tends to go by EnergyStar guidelines and so he focuses on good insulation and very efficient appliances.
I know he also recycles his construction waste. You should give him a call (his phone number is on his web site) – his take on building “green” was pretty interesting (at least I thought it was).
Too bad a family of squirrels couldn’t pull together $800k (or whatever that lot sold for) in order to keep truly green homes there.
I don’t know where the information came that “the City had an opportunity to purchase the lot”. That is certainly not true over the last 10 years or so — and I have never heard that that had ever been the case. To my knowledge, the lot was never ever owned by the City — and the immediate previous owner was not known as a big fan of City government.
Selling to government is never going to be a way to maximize revenue. If they want the most money for the land then the City is never going to compete.
Mr. Chavern, you sell our city short. The city government should be actively acquiring land in our main commercial area so that redevelopment can be on our terms. I heard that the previous owner did not like the government, but I too heard that the city was given the opportunity to purchase the land by the owner’s inheritors, but sat on the opportunity too long and when the city manager followed up the property had been sold.
I’m thinking about Mr. Rankin’s comment – I think that most builders today would focus on Energy Star insulation and appliance recommendations as this is what the consumer looks for. Energy Star is too easy. The reason for not seeking LEED certification because of ROI is a lame excuse. I would suggest FCT staff interview builders like Bob Young who actively seek certification and ask about his ROI. In my opinion, there is no reason to not seek LEED certification when a building is expected to be around for 50 years – in 2059 people will scoff at insulation and appliances.
I don’t know if most builders are focusing on Energy Star or not – but it seems like they should. As for LEED stuff – if the ROI isn’t there (not sure if it is or not) then I’m not sure it’s a lame excuse to not seek it. Builders are business people trying to make a living so not many of them are going to take a poor ROI in order to help the environment.
In fact, the builder mentioned above, claims that he’s not currently seeing an ROI on what he’s currently doing – he doesn’t think he’s getting better prices for his homes over less efficient ones. Again, I don’t know if that’s true or not. I think his point was that demand for houses in FC is so high that people don’t really care much about how sustainable they are when they’re buying.
The past two EDA meetings have focused on various aspects of building green. At the last one we talked about things the City could do encourage building green. Ideas like expedited permits and recognition (having the City officially certify the home as sustainable) were two ideas. In Arlington they encourage commercial buildings to be sustainable by giving the developer more density than they would normally be allowed. They say that is working well for them.
As for Bob Young, I applaud him for building green – but as far as I know he’s not building single family homes. The LEED process for that seems to be much different than for commercial buildings. Also, while the Flower Building is LEED certified I think Bob’s building down the street, the Reed Building, is not (although it is very “green” – I think there were some technicalities that made it difficult or costly to actually get the certification… I could be wrong about that though).
I will say that in both the EDA meetings the general sentiment was that in the next 5 years or so all commercial buildings will be built to the current basic LEED certification level by default – it will just be how buildings are built.
I put an energy star certified fridge in my house. Now Marilyn Kaye can list it as green!
JK, but I really think to call a home “green,’ it should be more than just energy efficient appliances.
so we need more dumps around our city for what reason again?
let’s fill up the vacancies we have now in our already PRE-EXISTING buildings first…
shall we?
whoever’s running falls church now days has the I.Q. of a used WETNAP!
Thank you for commenting on the Falls Church Times. We remind our readers that we encourage the use of full real names when commenting in order to facilitate an open and honest dialogue.
Thanks,
Stan Fendley
Thanks, FCT, for providing a forum where we can discuss these kinds of things.
I live near this lot and would love to see the trees stay. I’m also a fan of mixed-use development and, should the trees need to come down, I’d love to see some kind of tax revenue-generating business construction replace them (as part of the larger goal of development along Broad St.).
All that said, from a practical perspective, we’re talking about a very expensive lot that is privately owned. Sure, the City could spend $800k (or more?) to buy the land — but given the current economy is that a good use of City funds? My sense is that many of the people who criticize our city govt for not buying the lot would be up in arms if they actually had bought it at a fair market price.
As for the green discussion, I’m all for encouraging green building both in commercial and residential. I recently built a home in FC and we were required to (a) put in an underground cistern, and (b) replant a significant number of trees to offset those that had to come down for construction. Both good things. On our own we tried to make green decisions (e.g., we actually decreased the impervious area of our footprint compared to the home we replaced) but found some green options to simply be cost prohibitive. While I’m all for *encouraging* green building and forcing some fundamental requirements (e.g., cisterns), my sense is that too many firm requirements on the residential side will simply discourage new construction. We need to strike the right balance.
If, as Andy says, the demand is so high in the city that builders don’t need to construct homes with sustainable practices, then the only way to get our housing stock in line for the next 50 years is to legislate it. Heating a 4000 square foot home is a challenge in itself. One could debate the need for all of that space as well. Someday, we will find ourselves struggling to meet the energy needs of these large homes and that will be a drag on the local economy.
I don’t think legislation is the only way to encourage sustainable development. The government encourages all kinds of behaviors without forcing them by legislation. Certainly we’re not going to be able to legislate against 4,000 square foot homes (at least not in this country).
I think we’re starting to see a general shift in thinking (especially in places like Falls Church) and that a natural demand for more sustainable houses will develop. I think the GreenBuilt Homes guys are good example. They could probably make a little more profit by building cheaper houses (and selling them for about the same) but they’re choosing to build greener. I think it’s partially because of a personal belief in doing things that way – but I’m guessing it’s also part of a long term strategy. There will come a time when there is more demand for sustainable houses than for “traditional” ones – and if these guys have been building that way for years they’ll have a leg up on the competition.
Charlie makes a good point about what should qualify as “green” – which is why things like LEED were created. It seems to me that these certification systems (LEED isn’t the only one out there) are still quite costly to implement and so some builders don’t try for them. Kind of like “certified organic” food – some local farmers will tell you that they can’t afford to get certified so while their crops might be as organic (or more) than a large certified farm they can’t make that claim officially. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out over time for sustainable building practices.
Hey, I think the FCT should track down the GreenBuilt Homes guy and do an interview – he’s local. I think his name is Adam Bean.
Could the City have not condemned and taken the land for public use, that is, for use as a parking lot (perhaps only on part of the property) or as a park? This of course would have required paying the owner the land’s fair market value.
We need not have a City policy that penalizes OUR land owners by requiring practices related to greenhouse gases beyond what is required by state or federal law, because all such emissions everywhere on the planet are have identical, worldwide impact.
Dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is a federal responsibility — or conceivably a state one. Those governments may, should they feel the need, enact policies at their level. They are likely to do so by directly or indirectly raising the price of heating fuel, changing building standards, or by providing tax credits of one sort or another. The idea that a change in our City policy would have any impact on climate change is laughable – but a tough policy would have an impact on our tax base.
Property owners or developers who seek special favors in return for voluntary or mandatory “green” activities at the local level may be seeking to gain commercial advantage (by erecting a barrier to entry — advocating a policy or standard they feel they can meet more easily than their competitors) or to curry political favor (in order to gain something from office-holders down the road).
As noted, the impact on climate change would be infinitely small. Our decisions on permits, land use, and so forth should be as clear-headed as possible – so any favor granted in return should also be infinitely small.
I don’t understand why trees have to be cut down. I watched as the purchaser of our lots left all the pine trees and built a very green two story house with plenty of curb appeal. No, that’s inaccurate–he cut down two trees. It took planning and lots of conversation with the builder, but it proved to me that clear cutting is just lazy.
Sally:
My experience is that the builder says they need to pile dirt somewhere, or that they need to unload their equipment, or whatever, and unless the land owner cares, all of the trees are coming down. Another excuse (a la N. Virginia Ave.) is that there are so many other trees around that it doesn’t mattter – until your neighbor sells to a developer and they clear cut and then there are no trees left.
Hillel:
While I agree that there is a minimum impact, everything has to start on a local level. In the end, our city and its citizens will be better off in the future economically if we spend less money on energy. This will be a competitive advantage. Building energy efficiency now saves lots of money in the future.
I agree with Charlie that we have to start somewhere and encouraging development in Falls Church to be done sustainably is the way to go. Sure, it would have basically no impact on the global situation but I think it could have an impact on the local environment. I also think it could be a competitive advantage over other areas in terms of people and businesses wanting to be associated with sustainable living.
That said, I don’t think it would work to force these things. Incentives, like they have in Arlington, could hopefully get the ball rolling and then, with luck, the market will start to demand it.
Hillel, if you mean condemned the property via eminent domain I have to assume that would have been pretty hard to pull off – especially if the use was for a parking lot. Even if they could have done it I assume the fair market price for that lot is $800,000 – $1,000,000 – can the City afford that? Finally, how many trees would you be able to keep in a parking lot that size? Either not many or it would be a pretty small parking lot.
Don’t get me wrong, I was bummed when I saw the signs up up on the lot advertising new construction. I like having those big trees there (although I often wondered if the lot could have been used more effectively). But at the end of the day the owner has the right to sell/build and I think we have to respect that.
Regarding the owner/builder – Adam Bean – he lives in the City and has a good reputation and does a lot of work here.
I wish we had this fightabuot trees 4-5 years ago when Bob Young’s troops clear cut from Park Avenue to Broad Street for the ever empty parking lot (except for construction vehicles).
mbx, the Village Preservation and Improvement Society (VPIS) has been fighting for trees since 1965. Only now are others seeing the value and understanding the benefits trees provide our community. Go to http://www.vpis.org to see other issues that VPIS works for in this community. The public use to come out and help fight for issues, it seems anymore people just rollover and wait for the other guy to do it…..David, it was early 1970′s when the property was for sale and the city had an excellent chance to buy it, however, no political will to make it happen..
mbx – Bob Young built the lot you mention as a favor to the city for metro overflow parking while they built a garage. It turned out to not be needed. Then, the lot was used by Panera Bread building folks while Spectrum was being built. But really, Mr. Young consolidated as many lots as he could so that he could build a larger building with higher density in an area with relatively delapidated cape cods bringing more value to the city. Since some property owners wouldn’t sell, even at three times the value, he ended up with the T shaped lot that he wants to build the controversial Hilton Garden Inn. I really don’t know what is happening with that now.
Many groups in the city, headed by VPIS, have vigorously opposed the
indiscriminate cutting of trees, and we were able many times to stop
this or alter it. Falls Church was always known as the city of trees,
but developers have cut many down and this will gradually reduce the
canopy. It started on Maple Ave, where beautiful, old, talls trees
were eliminated to prepare for a paved street. I remember Elizabeth
Graham got out on Little Falls Street and personally stopped that effort
and saved many large tree that were on the sidewalk. Where is the
Tree Commission, and who is the developer? That’s the way many of us “quaint, old people” think, thought and still feel about so much of the city that is being
systematically destroyed by developers and by officials who can’t
stop them.
There is a difference between “minimal” impact and “effectively zero” impact.
Policies such as are being suggested need to be adopted widely. Falls Church is small. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide.
Its impact on global warming is precisely the same no matter where it is emitted. This is why we have the concept of carbon trading and credits being exchanged across long distances – indeed across international borders.
Forcing a property owner to do something uncoordinated with national policy, or providing incentives (who bears the burden of providing them??) is exchanging something for almost precisely nothing. Pure waste — pure burden. I’m sorry, but saying “we have to start somewhere” is simply a sort of appeal to emotion I find inappropriate. We’re involved in a national debate precisely because we need a national policy.
Obviously, if it makes economic sense to cut down on carbon consumption, or if government decides to raise the price of emitting greenhouse gases, people won’t need local incentives or regulations – they’ll figure it out for themselves.
Our comparative advantage here in a city full of educated people should be sensible policies. Can we try?
Andy, on the issue of condemning the land, your point was the one I was trying to make indirectly, and without knowing the numbers. As you know, while we can all “wish” for things, in this country, if we want them, and if they involve taking someone else’s property — well, we have to pay for them. It’s right there in the Constitution.
In reading your update today and the comments submitted after your July article (which I missed), I note that most comments concerned the loss of trees on that lot, which I also mourn. I also think it is too bad the City did not have the foresight to purchase that property, as it is not the place in my estimation for two large residences to be built.
However, I am equally concerned with the traffic and parking problems in that area and hope the City and Planning Commission plan to address these. Street parking along Park Avenue and the attendant lack of visibility when attempting to turn from either side of Virginia Avenue onto Park is a real problem now. It is a busy traffic area, it is very difficult to see oncoming traffic along Park and a challenge trying to make a turn without colliding with another car. Once there are large houses on that corner lot, I can only think the visibility and parking problems will be worse.
Meanwhile, another group of very mature trees have been taken out over by East Columbia and Cherry Sts. Oh, and the house they shaded has been torn down.
I was shocked and surprised to see the signs saying that the trees will be torn down and in their place will be single family homes. I think the developer should find a way to keep most of the trees. I agree with Cynthia, a lot of people park on Park Avenue and zoom out of Virginia Avenue without stopping at the stop sign to make a right hand turn. I have seen that happen a few times while driving. I am concerned that it will only get worse with the single family homes that will get built.
And this week the rest of trees at the corner of Pine and Lincoln were destroyed to make way for a bunch of million dollar homes on 40′ lots. All of this in the name of “property rights.” I hope everybody who is outraged by these travesties will come out and support the pending zoning code revisions when they are published later this year, and I hope we have the backbone as a City to enforce what we enact.
Regarding earlier comments on city requirements for new homes — it appears that the city has relaxed its requirements for stormwater control — the large infill home under construction (on a small lot) on my street was not required to have any stormwater BMPS.
Mr Maller — how can people see the draft zoning revisions?
LOTS of discussion here; to build green, not to buiild green, but that is not the question.
Fundamentally, I am just stunned that this green open space, an integral part of the City’s library/park core area, suddenly seems destined to be filled up. Smart growth planning experts tell us we need to (1) concentrate density around transportation and services to get us out of our cars and (2) reserve green open space for quality of life to go with the density. This project does neither.
Yet wherever an open space exisits, someone will show up to fill it.
Loss of this park space greatly diminishes the quality of this key part of the City. Is there no way – perhaps through an acquisition or property swap – that the City or a citizens organization can claim this for a park? It’s highest use would be to install a path and a couple of park benches and have the Cherry Hill park crew cut the grass.
It seems our collective failure that the few who gain, and do not have to experience the loss of this park, cannot be presented with an alternative by the rest of the community who will suffer the loss.
Craig, the land is privately owned. I’m not sure if the developer (Greenbilt Homes) bought the lots or if the owner is working out a deal to build and sell – but either way my guess is that the property alone is worth $800k.
If the City, or another citizens group, can afford to acquire the property and keep it undeveloped (or develop it with higher density than two single family homes) I think that would be great. But I don’t think the money is available.
I’m curious to hear about the zoning changes that Dan references – the fact that he puts property rights in quotes makes me a little nervous.
I like open, green spaces and trees. I also think that higher density development near the center of the City makes a lot of sense. If the code can be updated to encourage both of those things that would be great.
Dan speaks negatively of the million dollar homes going up – but keep in mind that the property taxes on those houses is what pays for our schools (and pretty much everything else in the City).
The property in question has been privatly held for a generation. The family members who now control the property can sell it as they see fit. I don’t think the City threw their collective hat in the ring with an offer to buy the lots. The tax bills have been quite burdensome for the owners. If folks disagree with the owner’s decision about selling to a developer….what would they suggest? The owner entertained many, many offers for such a grouping of contiguous lots. It wasn’t just about the money when they selected the “winner”.
TFC, thanks for the inside scoop on the owners’ situation. I actually thought it was nice that some environmental thought was going to be put into the houses going in on that lot (I know that’s another debate) – it could have been worse.
If the City wasn’t able to secure the lot for public use (not a surprise) I would have preferred higher density development there – maybe even commercial use (it seems like office condos in that part of town do well). Such a development could have added tax revenue without adding as much of a burden on resources. However, I’m guessing the zoning/permitting is such that it’s easier to build two houses there instead of office condos – maybe that’s going to change with the zoning update?
Andy, the “property rights” issue comes from the zoning office. Mr. Maller is referring to the substandard lot section of the code that allows for a substandard lot (various conformations including less than the required street frontage) to be developed if it has not been previously combined. The zoning department is allowing substandard lots to be split apart with the creation of separate holding companies that are actually owned by the same purchaser in order to circumvent this rule. The result is the proliferation around town of narrow houses that look like detached townhomes. This is done in the name of “property rights” while completely ignoring the rights of the neighbors who are denied the protections of the zoning code.
As a side note, the substandard lot issue is not the only circumvention of the zoning code going on as I have had personal experience. The changes in code “interpretation” really started in 2004/5 countering decades of tradition of upholding the actual code language and the meaning behind it. Want to know what happened in 2004?
Lastly, you point out the tax revenue that comes in, but the School Board will tell you that the greatest burden on our schools is residential infill, and here you have 8 houses going up where there should only be four, resulting in double the number of children entering the schools. This will easily negate any tax revenue gain.
Yeah, I don’t know much about the zoning – I’m all for rules being followed. If people are bending the rules to build these houses we should either change the rules to allow it (sounds like nobody commenting here supports that idea) or enforce the rules and prevent it.
My concern about “property rights’” was just the notion that if someone owned that land and it was zoned residential and they want to build a house on it then they should be allowed to do that.
That is a good point about the tax revenue. If two $1,000,000 houses go up on that lot and neither family has kids in the public schools then the net tax change (over the empty lot) will certainly be positive. If each house ends up with 4 kids in public school then it would almost certainly have a negative impact on the City’s bottom line. Can we change the zoning and other rules to encourage medium density commercial development on lots like that?
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same lot though – you mention 8 houses going in instead of 4 but this lot is slated for 2 house. Maybe you were speaking generically.
When these zoning loopholes are used are there public meetings reviewing the projects? Does anyone ever show up to protest bending the zoning rules?
Andy, sorry for the confusion. The eight substandard lots are at Pine/Lincoln – these are the lots Mr. Maller was writing about. He has “lived and breathed” substandard lot development in his neighborhood.
With regard to the lots near the library, I didn’t mean to imply there is any bending of the rules here – I am not aware of any. A while back, I took a look at the zoning of the lots near the library and they look to meet the zoning requirements for residential development (I can’t get Municode up tonight for more specifics). Once the actual plans are in the engineering office, one can look at the specifics with regards to location of the houses on the lots.
As to the proposed development near the library, the residential use is “by right” in the T (“transitional”) zone, and I did not mean to suggest that there is anything illegal about that particular proposal, but this is a useful example of the interplay between individual property owner rights and the broader community interests. My opinion is that this ground is symbolic of our ability to protect and to enhance the things that make our City what it is and what it may be (Cherry Hill Farm, Mary Riley Styles Library, and the other surrounding features). Each of us may have our own vision, but to my knowledge the City has never done any visioning regarding this parcel except that this block is suggested in the Comp Plan for consolidation and mixed-use development (http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Docs/FutureLanduse.pdf), which is certainly not guaranteed to satisfy my nor anybody else’s desire for a transcendental outcome.
With regard to the Zoning Code rewrite, I believe the ZOAC is planning a public presentation of the state of this massive undertaking in September, the main deliverable being framing the dozen or so issues that need to be addressed in the public political process that will ensue.
As to people “showing up” to protest, many of us have given of our time and effort, and there are too many episodes to enumerate, and several legal actions remain pending in various forums (actually I think mainly if not exclusively in the VA Supreme Court) resulting from these various efforts. Describing our process allows me to use two of my favorite words: Byzantine and Kafkaesque: citizens desiring to object face a daunting challenge, including a government that on a given day can play every role from the good guy to the bad guy and everything in between. I will be happy to name names and to catalog these successes and failures, but I guess my summary is that the struggle goes on. The good news is that we have managed to get the Zoning Code rewrite underway, and that we are setting about addressing the issues in a comprehensive way. The bad news is that really resolving these issues requires us to answer some pretty basic questions like: what do we want to be?”
Dan, thank you for your detailed response (even if it did contain some big words that I don’t get – ha). I obviously don’t know much about this issue – how/why/when the zoning rules are bent – but it’s interesting to me. I guess it’s still not totally clear to me who, at the end of the day, is responsible for allowing these rules to be bent.
If the rules are written too loosely and allows for a lot of interpretation then we should tighten them up. If the people interpreting the rules are just not doing a good job we should replace them. Do you like how I make things so simple to fix?
Seriously though, I agree that one question is: what do we want to be? After you answer that the question becomes: how do we get there? I’ve been living in the City for over a year now and when and how to answer that first question is what I can’t figure out. We’re going through this branding initiative – but I don’t think that will answer the question. The zoning rewrite seems to be a big part of it – but I’m not sure how people are really going to get their input in. The Comprehensive Plan is due for an update – and that sort of seems like the place to answer this question but I’m curious to see how that process turns out. Finally, we have City Council elections coming up – obviously that’s another avenue for getting this question answered.
Andy said:
“If the people interpreting the rules are just not doing a good job we should replace them.”
Exactly.
I do find it interesting that in these circumstances people always complain about the insidious actions of “developers”. Developers do what they do — they build stuff. The key question is really always about the property owner (usually one of our fellow City citizens) who wants to maximize his/her economic return from a large asset.
In this case, the previous owner might have hated the City government, but he personally subsidized green space by economically underutilizing his property for many years (paying taxes but getting no rents or other economic returns). Anyone who wants to maintain the trees should feel free to do the same thing. Buy it and sit on it for the benefit of fellow citizens.
It doesn’t surprise me that the owners’ heirs weren’t interested in that deal anymore — and they did what they had a right to do, sell it to someone at a price that reflected a higher economic use (if not a higher aesthetic use). I don’t know what that price was, but note that any action by the City to buy the parcels would have had to have been at this higher market price. Even if the City had the money to spend, I assure you that it would have cost the City a whole lot just to have this as a “pocket park.”
As to substandard lots, Dan Maller knows that he and I are absolutely on the same page. Those lots are a development abomination and should be stopped. The work we did on Council to at least limit the development of these lots was important — though not enough. But, again, note that by limiting substandard lots we will be economically impacting our neighbors — not some undefined class of “developers”. Forcing the consolidation of substandard lots will flatly reduce the potential economic return to current property owners, and we should just be honest about that. This issue is about people’s personal wealth and retirement savings, not some easy target like “developer profits” (heaven forbid!).
David, I agree with all of what you said.
David: In the case of substandard lot splitting, the present landowners and developers to whom they sell their lots are taking advantage of an interpretation of the code by the zoning department that is not within the sprit of the code. The value of the lots is to the developer – to be able to build two houses where there was one, to take advantage of setback reductions for substandard lots that don’t apply to standard lots. The previous property owner doesn’t really benefit because he/she isn’t doing the lot improvement.
It makes me wonder if the city assesses these substandard parcels as one house/lot or one house on two lots? Would the tax assessment decrease if the city was to stop allowing substandard lot splitting? Do I pay less in assessment by having one house on one standard lot than someone who has the potential to put two houses where they presently have one?
I’m new to the details of this lot splitting stuff and still don’t know much about it – but I assume that the person selling the lot (to become lots) does benefit from the fact that it will be split and developed. Certainly market forces are in play and the value of their lot is impacted by the fact that it apparently can be split and developed. If the developer who buys the lot can’t split it I’m certain they wouldn’t pay whatever they’re paying now.
And I suppose that relates to your next point. My understanding is that the assessments are supposed to reflect the actual value of property (I know there are many reasons why it doesn’t work out that way at any point in time). So, to the extent that lots can be split and developed impacts their value (i.e. selling price) I assume that does have an effect on assessments. If all your immediate neighbors had houses and lots exactly like yours and they all sold to developers who split them then that would inflate the assessment of your house (they would look at recent sales in your neighborhood to determine what the going rate was). If those lots couldn’t be split then their sales prices would be reduced – and so would your assessment.
It’s obviously way more complicated than that – and maybe I’m wrong about all this!
Maybe the Falls Church Times could write an article explaining this substandard lot splitting issue. I’d read it.