|
'
|
 |
|
Arlington,
Virginia 22207
|
|
INFILL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ZORC Comments
on County Staff's Report
The Zoning Ordinance and Review Committee (ZORC) of the Planning Commission agrees with much of the report developed by staff on the complex issue of maximum lot coverage in single-family residential areas. However, there are several issues on which the views of many ZORC members differ from those of staff or where ZORC believes additional Zoning Ordinance changes are needed in order that the proposed changes in maximum lot coverage will function properly for the benefit of property owners, local builders and County employees. These points of difference are summarized below. They are explained in more detail in the sections that follow. I. Set the caps under Option B based upon the minimum allowable lot size in the zoning district. II. Reduce maximum lot coverage in R-20 areas to 25%. III. Adjust the maximum lot coverage formula to reasonably accommodate construction on substandard sized lots in each zoning district. IV. Set a separate requirement that the residence building may not cover more than 25% of the lot. V. Identify the specific improvements that the Zoning Office is to consider in calculating coverage.
ZORC and staff spent considerable time discussing the appropriate maximum lot coverage percentages that should be applied to each R-zoned district. The new percentages will replace the current 56% coverage figure, which is universally acknowledged as permitting excessive development on individual building lots. In general, the group was able to coalesce around the percentages summarized in staff's report (with the exception of R-20 lots discussed under Section II. below). These vary from a maximum lot coverage percentage of 45% in R-5 districts to a coverage of 30% in R-20 districts. Since many lots in a particular zoning district are larger than the minimum size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, the question arose of whether the percentages should be applied to any lot in the district, no matter what its size. If so, then in a neighborhood zoned R-6, for example, maximum allowable coverage on a 6000 sq. ft. lot would be 2700 sq. ft. However, if a neighboring lot in that R-6 district were 10,000 sq. ft. in size, maximum coverage on that lot would rise to 4500 sq. ft. ZORC and staff generally agreed that this "straight percentages" approach to maximum lot coverage could undercut the policy of encouraging size compatibility of homes in a particular neighborhood. Thus the impetus for a "cap" on maximum coverage in the case of oversized lots in a particular R zoning district and the overall support of Option B as described in staff's report. The initial proposal made by staff to ZORC (which met with broad approval) was to set the cap based upon the minimum lot standard for the zoning district. Thus in an R-6 zoned area, it would be based on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot size. Thus maximum lot coverage would be 2700 sq. ft., regardless whether the lot were 6,000 sq. ft. in size or 10,000 sq. ft. Since the proposed coverage limits will be set at a level well above the level at which most owners intend to build, it should meet the needs of most owners of oversized lots and at the same time tend to preserve consistency of home sizes in a neighborhood. In the case of a greatly oversized lot, the proposed maximum coverage limit may encourage subdivision of the lot into smaller building parcels that more closely mirror neighboring lots in size. However, as time wore on, staff started adjusting the proposed cap figures that would apply to oversized lots. Those figures were adjusted upwards more than once. Staff's report now recommends an additional coverage allowance of 10% or 15% for oversized lots. The report offers no rationale for this coverage bonus other than to say that it was done "to accommodate [the] large number of oversized lots in R-5, R-6 and R-8 Districts" (p. 8). ZORC believes that the larger caps proposed by staff undercut the principles that brought people to support Option B in the first place. The enlarged caps tend to encourage the construction of homes in oversized lots that are out of scale with houses on nearby lots. Staff has gathered no evidence to suggest that this increase in caps is needed in order to preserve the marketability of home lots in Arlington. Indeed, the surge in single-family lot land values in the County during the past year is concrete proof that Arlington will remain a highly desirable location for people to live even if reasonable developmental limits are placed on residential lots. Recommendation: That the original maximum coverage caps presented by staff be the ones approved by the County Board for public advertising, to wit:
Staff's report proposes an orderly reduction in maximum lot coverage from the smallest lot single-family zoning district (R-5) to the largest lot district (R-20). In most cases this is done by a decrease in maximum lot coverage by 5% for each zoning district. The current exception is R-5 and R-6 lots, which both staff and ZORC agree should be changed to a maximum lot coverage percentage of 45%. This 5% reduction in allowable coverage as one climbs the zoning "scale" still allows the owners of a lot in a "higher" zoned district (e.g., R-8) a larger maximum lot coverage amount than allowed in a zoning district with smaller lots (e.g., R-6). Thus maximum lot coverage in R-8 areas would be 3200 sq. ft., whereas the maximum coverage in R-6 would be 2700 sq. ft. This is as it should be. It allows larger houses on higher-zoned residential lots but still preserves a larger percentage of the lot as undeveloped open space. Open space is one of the hallmarks of Arlington's small number of R-20-zoned properties, many of which abut on critical stream watersheds. Preserving for future generations the rustic character of this small but critical section of residential Arlington should be a high priority. ZORC members believe that the 5% step-down principle that is applied to most of the lower zoned residential districts breaks down when applied to R-20 zoned properties. The incremental change between one R zoning district and another in Arlington varies between 1000 sq. ft. and 2000 sq. ft. from R-5 up through R-10. But the jump from R-10 to R-20 is far more dramatic-a 10,000 sq. ft. difference. To reduce the coverage percentage by only 5% here when the minimum lot size has doubled makes little sense and does too little to protect open space in the critical R-20 zoned neighborhoods. In part to protect the existing mature tree cover in these neighborhoods and the impact of development on critical watersheds, the maximum lot coverage percentage allowed on R-20 lots should be reduced even further. Figures of 20% coverage and 25% coverage have been discussed. ZORC as a whole ultimately settled on recommending a figure of 25%, though the Board may choose to push that figure even lower. Few existing R-20 lots in the County have been developed to date to a coverage level greater than 20%, and most of these are presumably developments on undersized lots. Recommendation: That the maximum lot coverage percentage for R-20 lots to be approved by the County Board for public advertising be set at 25% (with a 5000 sq. ft. cap as discussed under Section I).
As noted earlier, staff and ZORC in its many meetings on the topic of maximum lot coverage have given serious thought to the impact of tighter coverage limits on the owners of oversized lots. However, little attention was paid to the other large block of residential property owners-those with undersized lots in particular zoning districts. Since the residential zoning network was imposed some decades ago over an existing stock of residences in the County, many lots do not meet one or more of the minimum requirements for that zoning district-but they have been "grandfathered in". Problems arise only when the lot owner wishes to further develop the property. The system of lower maximum lot coverages proposed by ZORC and staff (leaving aside the differences in recommended numbers discussed in Items I and II above) generally accommodates the owners of lots that meet or exceed the minimum square footage for that zoning district. But a special rule is needed for application to substandard lots in order to avoid an inequitable result in many cases. An example can illustrate the potential problem. If one lives in an R-10 zoned area and has a lot of 10,000 sq. feet or more in size, the actual maximum coverage allowance under the ZORC proposal would be 3500 sq. ft. If the lot were only 8000 sq. ft. in size in this zoning district, the coverage limit recommended by staff would be 35% of 8000 = 2800 sq. ft. But if this 8000 sq. ft. lot lay instead in an R-8 zoned area, the maximum coverage allowance would be 3200 sq. ft.-400 sq. ft. more. Thus the owner of an undersized lot is in effect penalized by being part of a "higher" zoning district, and the development potential of his lot is reduced accordingly. Staff's proposal does not address this inequity. After discussion of this problem, some ZORC members believe that it can be addressed by a simple adjustment in the coverage calculation formula. Staff's formula sets maximum coverage as the smaller of the maximum coverage percentage for that district or the square footage "cap" for that zoning district. In the case of undersized lots, a more equitable maximum lot coverage allowance would be achieved by using the average of those two numbers. In the example in the previous paragraph, application of this approach would yield a maximum lot coverage figure of 3150 sq. ft.-350 sq. ft. more than the owner would get by applying the "smaller of the two" general rule. Some other ZORC members do not prefer the formula adjustment outlined above. They recommend that the County simply let the owners of undersized lots in particular R zoning districts seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals if they believe they have been unduly penalized by the new proposed maximum lot coverage allowances Recommendation: That as regards maximum lot coverage for substandard sized lots, the County Board either:
The County Board recommended in an earlier work session with staff and ZORC that we "explore establishing maximum lot coverage ratios for buildings, in addition to total lot coverage ratios" (staff memo, p. 4). This matter was discussed from time to time at several ZORC meetings. It was considered by some as "too difficult" to do, and it was unclear what additional burden it might place on County staff. This option is not discussed directly in staff's memorandum, though it is alluded to on pages 3 & 7 of the memorandum. Several ZORC members believe that adoption of a separate coverage limit for the residential building on a single-family lot would be beneficial to the County and would prevent some of the most egregious examples of infill development. One of our neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Falls Church, has a flat 25% coverage limit on all buildings on residential lots in the city (staff memo, p. 5). Adopting a similar 25% coverage rule for Arlington, but limiting its application only to the residential building on a particular lot, would require little additional staff work on individual building permit requests. It would have bearing on probably less than one in 500 building permits, yet it would put a brake of sorts on the kind of inconsiderate overbuilding of residential lots that has the most dramatic visual impact on a neighborhood. Some would argue that this proposed building percentage should be even lower. But most ZORC members suggest that it is more important to get some sort of maximum building size percentage into place at this time-even if it is not the "ideal" number-just to establish the concept of a separate building coverage ratio in our residential districts. This concept has long been used in Arlington's commercial districts-there it is expressed in terms of a floor-to-area (FAR) ratio. But conversion of all our residential zoning rules to the full FAR model was considered by almost everyone as too much to tackle at this time. Establishing a separate percentage coverage limit for residential buildings is a small yet meaningful step in this direction. It will then be up to future generations and future County Boards to determine whether this residential building size allowance should be refined further. Recommendation: That a separate Zoning Ordinance provision be established to limit maximum coverage of residential buildings to 25% of the lot area.
Under the current maximum lot coverage allowance of 56% there has been little argument about how to calculate that percentage, since so few builders or home owners have pushed close to that coverage limit. That will change once the maximum lot coverage numbers are reduced to more realistic and neighborhood-friendly levels. A review of the current Zoning Ordinance (ZO) language (and that proposed by staff in its report as replacement language) indicates that further tightening of the phrasing is needed. For example, staff recommends (p. 11 of its report) that the definition of Lot Coverage in Section 1 of the ZO be revised to the following: * * * Lot Coverage. Determined by dividing that area of a lot occupied by all structures, including covered porches, accessory buildings, off-street parking, and driveways, by the gross area of that lot. * * * The problem here is that it is unclear what is meant by "all structures". The proposed definition indicates that it embraces "covered porches" and the other structures specifically identified, but the word "including" implies that this list is not exhaustive. How is a developer, a property owner, or the Zoning Office employee asked to apply this language supposed to know what "structures" to include in the calculation of current (and proposed) lot coverage? Should the sidewalk running from the public right of way up to the front door be counted? What about decks, raised or otherwise? What about patios? During discussions at ZORC meetings we were advised that it is the custom of the Zoning Office to count in its coverage calculations such "structures" as raised decks (over 18" above grade), but not surface decks. The office does not count patios or walkways in determining coverage. This practice does not seem compatible with the proposed ZO language. What is counted appears to be related to which lot improvements require a building permit to be issued. We would suggest that a Lot Coverage definition closer to the following would offer more useful guidance to the public and to staff and avoid the need for the Zoning Administrator to make administrative interpretations that could be subject to overrule by the Board of Zoning Appeals: Lot Coverage. Determined by dividing that area of a lot occupied by all structures by the gross area of that lot. "All structures" means each structural improvement to a lot that creates an impermeable or semi-permeable footprint area at least 25 sq. ft. in size. It includes covered porches, accessory buildings, off-street parking, driveways, patios and decks. It does not include walkways and fences. While some further refinement of this language may be needed, it goes a long way beyond the current definition in the ZO to clarifying exactly what should and should not be counted in calculating coverage. ‡ Note: At its May 14, 2001 meeting, ZORC reviewed the recent memo prepared by staff listing many of the coverage items possible on a residential lot and indicating which of those are apparently currently being counted by Zoning Office staff in determining lot coverage. Treatment of some of the items listed was "news" to even the developers on ZORC. The group did not discuss the merits of including/excluding each item, since the primary concern was to have a definitive list that was comprehensible, stable, and readily available to all interested parties. (The only significant improvement noticed missing from the list was swimming pools.) The Committee was still uncertain how such a list should be fixed so that all would rely on it. Should it be part of the Zoning Ordinance, or can it be endorsed by the County Board and effectively become binding on the Zoning Administrator and the public in some other manner? We recommended that staff bring this issue to the County Attorney for an opinion. CONCLUSION The suggested ZO language below reflects the areas of consensus between staff and ZORC on the maximum lot coverage issue. However, it also incorporates each of the changes to the maximum lot coverage rules discussed earlier in Sections I through IV of this memorandum. The language further clarifies the rationale for the coverage requirement. ‡ Note: The language below was not reviewed directly by ZORC at its May 14 meeting. Thus it does not reflect the discussions held that evening on points III and V above. Section 32. Bulk, Coverage and Placement Requirements * * * C. Coverage 1. For the purpose of securing open space to provide for light, air circulation, privacy, and landscaped area, except by site plan approval, no building or structure in "R", "RA," and "C-1-O" Districts, including accessory buildings and all areas for parking, driveways, maneuver and loading space, shall cover more than fifty-six (56) percent of the area of the lot, except as may be specified in the various district classifications. However, the paragraphs below shall apply to the portions of "R" Districts developed as single-family residences. 2. For the purpose of securing open space, maximum lot coverage in those parts of "R" Districts developed as single-family residences shall be the smaller of the following two amounts:
However, in the case of a lot smaller than the normal minimum lot size for the "R" District, the maximum lot coverage shall be the average of the two amounts. 3. In all "R" Districts, the footprint of a single-family residence building shall not exceed 25% of the lot area.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Please
provide comments/inputs for this web site to the Web
Editor
|
|
Williamsburg
Civic Association
Arlington, VA 22207 |