A Citizen's View of In-Fill Development
Presented by Ted Weihe
of Yorktown Neighborhood
at the
Arlington Committee of 100
February 12, 1997
Introduction
Tonight, I want to offer three citizen perspectives on in-fill
residential development: as a homeowner, president of my civic association and vice chairman
of the Neighborhood Conservation Advisory Committee.
As a homeowner living a block from Marymount University, my education
began as 20 in-fill houses were built over the last seven or eight
years within two blocks. There were 11 houses constructed at Brandywine
and 26th St. in which one house exceeded the 35' height limit
and was given a variance. In another one, the developer had to
redig its foundation because the house was located too close to
the road.
The most inappropriate houses are: two modular homes with siding
in our brick neighborhood, and two others along 26th Street that
are built out to the porch lines, creating a three story solid
brick barrier between three Cape Cods. They have almost no side
yards and their front doors are nearly two stories up.
Two houses were built at the corner of Brandywine and 26th Street
when a single lot was subdivided: one house was too tall and inspectors
made them order a new roof. The other one was built with double
doors high up on a side for a nonexistent deck. The developer
told the new owners there would be no difficulty in getting the
necessary variance to build beyond the allowable building space.
He was right.
On Yorktown Blvd, a house was built and got approval for an easement
across county-owned property for its driveway. For a house built
across the street from us, a garage was torn down and the land
was subdivided. In this case, the county allowed a substandard
lot on the original house to make up sufficient acreage for construction
on the new lot.
In two of the cases, neighbors got together and used old deed
covenants to gain concessions from developers: one in siting to
preserve a large oak tree and with the other, the design of the
roof and brick accents were modified to emphasize horizontal rather
than vertical lines to make the house fit in somewhat better.
In all of these cases, houses were built "by right"
with no official opportunity for input from citizens. They demonstrate
how developers stretch the current procedures to maximize bulk
and height for what one of my neighbors dubbed, new "McMansions."
My second perspective comes about as president of the Yorktown
Civic Association. Again, we had to deal with a major development
along Rock Spring where all the trees were clear cut for seven
large houses. We have two in-fill houses looming over Rock Spring
Park, our most important neighborhood open space; and another
two planned next to Yorktown High School's Greenbrier Play Field.
Currently, three more in-fill homes are planned between Rock Spring
and 30th Street and we have calculated it is possible to put 33
additional new houses in this heavily wooded area because of its
large lots.
My third perspective is as a participant in the Neighborhood Conservation
Advisory Committee (NCAC) program. The Yorktown Civic Association
included in-fill development as our most pressing issue in its
Neighborhood Conservation Plan. Barcroft, Highview Park and Courtlands
also urged action in their plans. It is clear from NCAC discussions
that in-fill development is destroying the character of all our
neighborhoods, rich and not so rich, older and new areas, and
in north, central and south Arlington.
Through approval of our Conservation Plan in 1992, we found strong
support for this view on NCAC and at the Planning Commission.
The County Board responded with a work session with staff, and
the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee was reactivated to look
at this and other zoning issues. Representing NCAC, Nancy lacomini
and I serve on this committee and we have tried to address the
in-fill development issue in a county-wide fashion. But, we have
made little progress.
Background
While uncontrolled high-rise development was the issue of the
1960s and 70s, in-fill is the land use challenge for the 90s and beyond. Arlington has done
a good job at channeling high-rise development into the corridors. The county has developed
flexible zoning tools and site plan conditions that have gradually improved the quality
of high-rise and multi-residential development. These changes have adjusted to new economic
realities, for example, most recently enacting a new higher density zoning category to allow
Rosslyn to redevelop.
While Arlington pioneered in the CO and multi-residential zoning
approaches, we have left essentially untouched the single family
residential zones: R5, R6, R8, R10 and R20. These zoning provisions
are a legacy of Rusty Arms, a former Arlington Planning Director
who developed them in 1962 to be flexible and easily understood.
The zones were placed over a 1942 zoning system and designed for
well developed residential areas.
Most planners would agree the zones are "oversimplified"
compared to other jurisdictions. The goal was to make the zones
fit all existing lots and to be flexible so that minor residential
improvements did not require (or minimized) the need for variances.
The unintended effect is to provide for very large building envelopes.
Changed circumstances
As Arlington land values have increased, residential conditions
are different today. Older homes of the 1940s, 50s and 60s do
not provide the same living space that many people want today.
The market demand is for multi-purpose rooms, central foyers,
walk-in closets, eat-in kitchens, etc. Many owners either upgrade
their homes or move to the outer suburbs for these amenities.
For Arlington, it has become a status symbol to have a dumpster
in your front yard for extensive renovations.
Small developers have decided to take advantage of this new market.
They scour over zoning maps looking at every oversized lot or
combinations of lots to subdivide or cul-de-sac. While most of
the additions by residents fit because they expand existing homes,
the developers build to the new market. These new houses are shoe-homed
into older neighborhoods made up of 1930s bungalows, 1950s ranch
homes and 1960s two-story brick Broyhills. They max out the developable space.
Not alone
Arlington is not the only jurisdiction facing this problem. Highly
valued and well-located suburbs in other states are experiencing
the same situation. What is different, according to a recent Wall
Street Journal article (Huge Houses Squeeze Into Tight Spaces)
is that these communities are doing something about it. The
article said that "People in towns across the country are
tearing down small houses on small plots and building in their
place what brokers have taken to calling 'monster homes' that
eat the front yard, spill over the edge of the property line,
and block the neighbors' sunlight and views."
In response to inappropriate in-fill houses, these communities
have lowered height requirements (Burbank, CA), limited house
square footage (Beverly Hills, CA, Gulf Stream, FL and Hillsdale,
Chicago), and limited land coverage (Mission Hills, Kansas City).
While we may have been in the forefront on innovative zoning for
high-rises, we are not leaders in trying to preserve our older
neighborhoods from inappropriate in-fill residential development.
Politically, the problem of in-fill development is different from
the corridors where the basic plan is agreed to and at least some
site conditions with citizen input can address compatibility and
impacts on nearby residents. In other sections of Arlington, residents
are surprised and often outraged by an unexpected in-fill development
near them and express their opposition vocally. But, they are
told by the county officials and staff that there is nothing that
can be done. It is "by right."
In fact, this is not the case. There are many changes that can
be made to better "direct" in-fill residential development.
Arlington has the power, it is only a question of political will.
Solutions
Here are some ways to better control in-fill residential development:
1. Change the current coverage requirement.
Currently, houses and related structures can cover 56% of the lot. This was a compromise figure
in 1962. There is no reason that it can't be changed. We should reduce the coverage to 45% and
grandfather current houses. This change would address the major concern about bulk for in-fill
houses and provide for larger yards, thus preserving more mature trees and vegetation.
New houses would not look like they are squeezed in-between existing homes with more traditional
side and back yards.
2. Reduce the 35' building height by changes to the formula
or reduce it to 30'.
Currently, height is measured at the
mid-point of the curb. It could be moved to the front construction
line so that the topography does not allow taller houses that
exceed the already too high limit. The formula also can be changed
so that four story back structures would not be permitted (another
problem created by the current formula). . Currently, there are
few variances for heights other than due to unusual topography.
This formula change or lower height limit would encourage developers
to dig basements or design homes without the high vertical roofs
that are out-of-character and tower above adjoining homes.
3. Restrict pipestem development. A pipestem occurs when
a house is built in someone's backyard and the lot looks like
a pipe. We should prohibit houses that do not front on streets and are in someone's back or
side yard. Pipestems destroy the orderly nature of neighborhoods and cut down mature trees
that hurt community ambiance. There are at least two ways to stop
pipestems. We could require that all houses must have at least
60% of their frontage on a street. This is the formula in many
New England communities. Another way would be to increase the
current 40 foot access requirement to 50 or 60 feet for new subdivided
lots. Again, this change would not affect current subdivided lots,
but prevent future pipestems.
4. Set new county policy guidelines for the BZA. Currently,
many citizens believe that the court-appointed Board of Zoning
Appeals is too lenient on variances especially for developers.
While this is a quasi-juridical process, BZA should represent
community views. In this regard, the County Board could adopt
policies that better define the test of "hardship" which
is required for variances. Variances should be reserved for residents
and discouraged for developers who should design houses within
the current building envelope, rather than change setbacks to
fit their computer-drawn standard designs. For example, we should
not allow developers to build houses and, then, tell new owners
to get a variance for a planned deck or other structure
5. Increase penalties for developers that break the rules and
reward those who are sensitive to neighborhoods.
Developers have exceeded building heights or setbacks and Arlington
staff has often caught them. But, the dilemma has been that if
they exceed the requirements, the choice is either to rebuild
the house or approve a variance. We should increase civil penalties
for developers to send a message that we expect them to comply
fully with our rules.
On the other hand, there are developers who are sensitive to neighborhoods
and want to make their houses fit in better. We need to find a
way to encourage this sensitivity through awards or other acknowledgments.
We need to demonstrate that new, bigger houses can sell faster
and at higher prices when mature trees are retained and designs
fit the character of the neighborhood.
The county staff, who work with developers, can be more forceful
in encouraging consultation with the neighborhoods beyond mere
notification. County planning staff, can be trained and instructed
to act as mediators between developers and citizen groups to encourage
better design and sensitivity to the environment. The county could
offer workshops for small developers and civic activists on building
standards and better ways to work with neighborhoods for better
designs and siting.
While the proposed unified residential zone may help control small
groups of houses, this new zoning category will not address the
real issue. We must not only add to our zoning tools, but retool
them for the new economic times when the value of lots is often
higher than the houses situated on them.
Thank you.
This page was last revised on: September 14, 2000.
|
