Author: chogan@directresearch.com

Post #347: Next Monday’s Town Council meeting, 8/19/2019

This meeting is interesting for what will occur, and what will not occur, at the work session and meeting to be held on 8/19/2019.  Work session starts at 7 PM.  Meeting starts at 8 PM.  I am sure that the meetings are televised and webcast, but I am not 100% sure about the work session.  See Town Council & Planning Commission Video broadcasts for instructions on viewing.

What will not occur:

No discussion of extending the MAC moratorium.   Everybody I talk to seems to think this is a done deal.  But … time is short for getting that done (Post #323 , Post #325).

What will occur:

1:  They’ll have another briefing on the “Joint Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study“.  Meeting materials are located here, such as they are.  This won’t even address MAC.  It’s just a list of things that the consultant says the Town could do, on its own, right now, to deal with … multimodal stuff.

I continue to focus on this graph, whenever that comes up.  This keeps me from getting too excited about the effectiveness of multi-modal transportation for reducing Maple Avenue congestion.  (In practice, multi-modal means anything other than driving your car.)

Given the January 1 2020 deadline for regulating rental electric scooters (Post #338), probably the most pressing “multi-modal” question is how to deal with that.  And, key within that, will it be legal to ride rental electric scooters on the Maple Avenue sidewalk?  Those scooters are the fastest-growing segment of urban multi-modal transport, the Town faces a hard deadline for regulating their use, and if they can’t use the Maple Avenue sidewalk, they will likely play no significant role in reducing car traffic on Maple.

I have also continued to ride the bus (Post #225) to get from one end of Town to the other.  It’s a nice way to get up and down Maple car-free.  But in addition, I’d consider myself a hypocrite if I were to talk about multimodal transit on Maple without actually having used some of it.  I don’t expect most of the discussants will share that view.

2:  The Town will look at three scenarios for a parking at Patrick Henry library.   Meeting materials are here, again, for what they are worth.  Take thirty seconds, and you can probably guess the three scenarios.  (Hint:  Goldilocks.) So:   No garage, small garage, big garage.

3: The Town will look at taking back the four feet of roadway that they gave to the developer of the 380 Maple West MAC project.  I think. If you can make head or tail out of the Town’s writeup of this, you’re smarter than I am.  Meeting materials are here.  As expected, it appears that the developer is doing his best to make it unattractive to the Town for them to take back that part of the roadway.

4: The Town Council will direct staff to determine how to change the current commercial zoning so that all new commercial development looks like the MAC streetscape.  Or something like that.  Meeting materials are here.  This is Councilman Majdi’s suggestion, from a prior Town Council meeting.

Post #346: The 901 Glyndon precedent needs Town Council attention

As noted in Post #333 and Post #339, the project at 901 Glyndon proceeded as an unquestioned by-right development.

That lot was zoned as commercial property.   In theory — or, at least, historically — commercial zoning meant that at least half the building had to be occupied for commercial purposes.   I.e., any housing had to occupy less than half of the building.  That’s more-or-less the point of commercial zoning — you want to restrict an area to be primarily for commercial use.

Yet, in the case of 901 Glyndon, more than two-thirds of the occupied space is housing.  It’s two floors of condos over first-floor retail space/parking ramp.

We have yet another building proposed in Vienna, 145 Church Street (across from the U.S. Post Office), in a commercial zone, where, again, more than two-thirds of the occupied space appears to be housing.  Same model:  two floors of housing over some retail.   The only information I can find is from a flyer circulated to the neighbors.  Rumor has it that the Town of Vienna will buy parking spaces in this proposed new building.  If true, then presumably the Town of Vienna is on board with it.

For 145 Church Street, that’s within the Church Street zoning district (C1-B), so many special rules apply.  Maybe that’s by-right development, maybe not.  I’m not really sure this counts as an example of by-right construction of a building that is mostly housing, with some retail, in a commercial zone.  But it certainly counts as evidence that this type of construction appears to be profitable in downtown Vienna.

So here are my questions.

First, am I correct in thinking that, historically, the Town of Vienna required that at least 51% of the occupied space in any commercial building be used for commercial purposes?  That seems to be the plain reading of the statute, where “principally occupied and used” for commercial purposes is written into the law.  I certainly recall having heard that this is one reason we needed MAC zoning — to allow mixed-use buildings that would not be otherwise be feasible due to the existing commercial zoning requirement that buildings be used primarily for commercial (not housing) purposes.  (The idea being that second-floor retail space commands such low rents that it makes a building uneconomic.  And you’d have to have half the second floor be retail or office to meet the “principally occupied” clause.)

Second, what changed, exactly, to allow primarily residential buildings to be built, by right, in the commercial zone?  Is there some legal fiction involved (e.g., they now count the parking places along with the actual occupied area, and the retail space with the associated parking is half the building?)  Or does Planning and Zoning simply ignore the “principally used” clause, as long as their is some retail space on the first floor?

Third, is this the intent of the law?  At some point in the distant past, Vienna Town Council passed the zoning regulations as they now stand.  Presumably, the intent of that portion of the law was to make sure that Vienna’s commercial districts were used for commerce.  But now, with no public discussion, the interpretation of that law appears to have changed materially.  Now, apparently, if a building has some of the occupied space devoted to commercial activity, Town staff interpret that as satisfying the regulations for by-right construction in the Town of Vienna commercial zone.

This is now an important point, because the 145 Church Street proposal makes it seem that construction of this type may be profitable within the Town of Vienna commercial zone.  In other words, the change in Town staff’s interpretation of the law may actually result in new buildings being built, based on that new interpretation.

I’m neither for nor against this new interpretation of the Town’s commercial zoning.  If we’re going to have mixed-use buildings, I’d rather have three-story 35′ (plus parapets and decorations) than 62′ (including parapets and decorations).

But I do think that the Town Council ought to step back and ask, in public, is this what we want?  Is by-right housing, with some retail, on Maple Avenue, what the Town of Vienna wants as its future?  (Rather than simply stumble into it, as a side-effect of Town staff’s interpretation of statute.)

And here, I am specifically calling on all those people who made a big deal about MAC protecting the Town of Vienna, because those mandatory review processes in MAC were supposed to guarantee a quality outcome.  About how awful and dreadful it would be to allow by-right construction in place of MAC construction.  All of you people — and here, I think our Department of Planning and Zoning requires a specific mention — all of you should have some public discussion as to what you make of the 901 Glyndon precedent and the proposed 145 Church building.  Because if Town staff’s interpretation of the law now provides a back-door approach to profitable by-right construction of housing on Maple, that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with in a rational fashion.  Not just ignored until the next big building goes up on Maple Avenue.

If this is the new normal for by-right construction along Maple, then, among other things, that shifts the balance of power between developers and the Town when bargaining over MAC proposals.  For example, the Director of Planning and Zoning briefly mentioned the option to change MAC to a three-floor limit at the ends of Maple (two floors of housing over some retail) and reserve four-floor construction for the core of the town.  From the standpoint of economics, that would not seem to be feasible if two-floors-of-housing-over-some-retail is a by-right option.

Post #344: MAC-related meetings this week

There is only one public meeting this week relevant to MAC zoning.

Thursday, 8/15/2019, at 8 PM, in Town Hall, the Board of Architectural Review will review plans for the Vienna Market/Marco Polo development.

This will be the last item on the agenda.  Plausibly, they may vote to approve the final plans.  The meeting materials are located here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4083844&GUID=91C9A320-23F5-4C7D-8754-A6A563052311&Options=&Search=

The Town reserves the right to change or cancel meetings on short notice, so check the Town’s general calendar before you go, at this URL:
https://www.viennava.gov/Calendar.aspx?NID=1&FID=220

Post #343: Where’s Wawa, MODIFIED 8/15/2019

EDIT/ADDENDUM:  After I wrote this, a colleague directed me to look at the Fairfax FIDO website.  There, you can look up the status of all Fairfax County building permits, for any building in the Town of Vienna.  Based on that, the Wawa application for a permit to operate a food service establishment is still active.  (In fact, now that I look closely, they have half-a-dozen permits, everything from signs to electrical work to interior remodeling).  As of now, based on that, it definitely appears that Wawa is coming to Vienna.  Despite the prominent “for rent” sign that remains up at that property.

Original posting follows:

As noted in this earlier post, and continuing to Post #241, earlier this year, Wawa sought and obtained approval to remake the Coldwell Banker building (corner of Nutley and Maple) into a Wawa convenience store.  

Meanwhile, yet a different entity sought permission to revive the dead gas station at Maple and Park, and add a full-sized convenience store. 

This led me to speculate that we were going to end up with more full-sized convenience stores than the Town of Vienna could support.  At least based on the history of 7-11s in Vienna (outlined in this post).  If all this planned development occurred, we’d have four full-sized convenience stores, plus mini-marts at some of the gas stations.  Whereas the Town did not appear to be able to support three 7-11s.  (The third Vienna 7-11 was located at Maple and Courthouse.)

Anyway, a colleague pointed out that the property-for-rent sign has not come down at the Coldwell Banker building.  To the contrary, it looks like they put up a brand new and more prominent sign.

So that’s a bit of a puzzler.  And a bit of a worry.  For the following reasons:

  1.  One corner of that intersection is already slated to be covered by a big MAC building (444 Maple West/Tequila Grande).  You have to wonder whether somebody will want to build its twin right across the street.
  2. The building next door to Coldwell Banker is also vacant (the former Joe’s Pasta), and is being offered for rent by the same company handling the former Coldwell Banker building.
  3. In a prior Town Council session, one Town Council member let slip that it would be OK to lengthen the left-turn-lane on Nutley, at that intersection, because the buildings across the street would be combined anyway (and so would still have a viable entrance on Maple).  So, apparently, almost a year ago, something may or may not have been in the works regarding those properties.
  4. For these narrow, deep lots, erasing a lot line (combining lots) is hugely profitable under MAC, because it allows much more building to be built on the same acreage, assuming that individual buildings on individual lots would sit five or ten feet off the common lot line.
  5. But, isn’t the Town going to extend the moratorium on new MAC buildings?  That seems to be the common assumption, but so far there has been no discussion and no progress on that.  And time is short, as noted in Post #323 and Post #325.
  6. And maybe they don’t need MAC.  It sure looks like 901 Glyndon may have set a precedent of unquestioned by-right construction of two floors of housing over one floor of retail, merely by the Town declaring that such a building is “primarily occupied” for commercial use.  In other words, it looks like Town staff can simply declare that three-story mixed-use construction (two floors of housing over one floor of retail) is now OK, by right, under Vienna’s standard commercial zoning.

Maybe that new sign is just a harmless bit of theater.  It might be there just to help reinforce the narrative that Maple Avenue retail is in crisis.  Then again, maybe it means that Wawa changed its mind.  All told, I think I’ll feel more comfortable when I see Wawa get started on making over the Coldwell Banker building.

Post #342: The Sunrise lawsuit: $30M and counting.

First, a tip of the hat to Dave Patariu, a lawyer here in Vienna who obtained a copy of the Sunrise legal complaint from the Fairfax County Circuit Court and shared that with me.  If you want your own copy (.pdf), you may download it at this Google Drive link.

Next  — and don’t get me wrong here, my tax dollars will end up paying for this just as much as yours will — this is not a surprise.   It seemed like the logical thing for Sunrise to do, as I noted in Post #321.

OK, now for a summary of the complaint.  Here’s where it starts to get weird.

Continue reading Post #342: The Sunrise lawsuit: $30M and counting.

Post #341: Recession

The recent dips in the stock market got me asking how the next recession might affect the Town of Vienna, including property values and tax revenues.  This is my first look at how Vienna compared to the U.S. during the last recession.  The question I am eventually working toward how the Town of Vienna revenues changed during and following the last recession.

In 2008, the US very nearly suffered a collapse of its financial system.  And as time passes, we tend to for get that.  Because, in the end, the various Federal rescue efforts — and deposit insurance — were successful.  For now, at least, we still have a banking system, and housing prices have large recovered.

The first section briefly reviews the national impact of the 2008 financial collapse, the second section looks specifically at DC and Vienna housing prices.  Continue reading Post #341: Recession

Post #340: Choices for the Town’s election process

This brief posting points out two simple changes the Town of Vienna could make to ensure greater election transparency and greater voter participation.   The Town Council could vote to have the Virginia Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CDFA) apply to Town of Vienna elections.  And it could vote to move Town elections to coincide with the November general election.

Continue reading Post #340: Choices for the Town’s election process

Post #339: More on Maple Avenue valuations and investment

One oddity of Maple Avenue retail property is that  little of it is advertised as being for sale.  That’s an oddity, if you think there is some sort of crisis in retail.  But not if you think that returns on current investments appear reasonably good.  If the returns are adequate, sales should be infrequent, if only to take advantage of the tax-deferred nature of the investment: Capital gains taxes only have to be paid upon sale of the property.

In any case, my internet search turned up only three advertisements for Maple Avenue retail property for sale.

As noted in Post #319, the combined Starbucks drive-through and Just Tires properties are being offered for sale at $961 per retail square foot.  (See this reference for the ad.)  From that ad, you can infer something like a $60/sq ft/year rental on the retail space.

The two medical office buildings at Maple and Center (where the Sunrise assisted living was proposed):  $7.5M, $682/retail square foot, at this link.

The Princess Jewelers shop, 527 Maple Avenue West, $1.7M, calculated as just over $500/square foot, at this link.

And that led me to thinking about what is and isn’t a feasible investment under existing C1 zoning.

And here, I’m not thinking of just rehabbing existing space.  We know that buildings along Maple are being rehabbed and repurposed all the time.  So that level of investment clearly appears profitable.  A few recent examples finished or in the works include:

  • Taco Bell –> Starbucks;
  • Magruders –> restaurants;
  • Dead gas station –> gas station plus convenience store;
  • Coldwell Banker offices –>  Wawa
  • Pro Feed Pet Supplies –> Ramen restaurant
  • Sandy Spring Bank –> Animal hospital

I could go on.  The point is, there is no lack of examples for redoing existing space.  (And this doesn’t even count the cosmetic make-overs of various shopping center fronts up and down Maple.)

But a more serious question is, how profitable might new construction be?  We have seen some new construction (Sweet Leaf, 2010) in living memory.  But not much.  Is that because it’s sufficiently profitable to remake existing buildings, or is that because it’s just not profitable to build something new, along Maple, under existing zoning?

Obviously, I’m not a builder.  But let me try a rough cut at a pro-forma calculation.

Continue reading Post #339: More on Maple Avenue valuations and investment

Post #338: Rental electric scooters, again.

This article is about decisions that the Town must make, in the near future, regarding rental electric scooters and rental bicycles.  It ends with some discussion of the presumed environmental benefits of electric scooters.

Bottom line:  Thanks to a change in Virginia law, the Town needs to come up with some form of regulation for “dockless” rental electric scooters by 1/1/2020.  If not, we end up with open season for rental electric scooters in Vienna, which we probably want to avoid.  Unregulated dockless bike and scooter rentals have become a nuisance in many major cities (see examples in this post).

Here, I line out what a minimum set of regulations probably ought to cover.  (Which is no great shakes — just look at what other local jurisdictions have done.)

Separately, the Town needs to find places for racks for the “docked” Capital Bikeshare rental bikes.

N.B:  In “docked” systems, bikes (or other devices) are picked up from and returned to dedicated racks.  (If not, steep charges mount up for the renter.)  Smartphone apps show how many bicycles/scooters are available for use at each rack.  By contrast, in “dockless” systems, scooters or bikes may be picked up and left anywhere, tracked by a combination of on-board GPS and internet connectivity.  Smartphone apps show the location of available scooters or bikes.   Rental is accomplished via smartphone app and account, or in some cases, via credit card swipe.

Continue reading Post #338: Rental electric scooters, again.