This is not about some new form of traffic accident.
Instead, I’m going to do a mash-up of several of my prior posts to come up with a suggestion: Create two (or maybe three) formal electric scooter/ebike routes, to bypass Maple, in the Town of Vienna.
There are two public meetings this week relevant to MAC zoning.
Monday 8/19/2019, starting at 7 PM in Town Hall, Vienna Town Council will have a work session followed by a meeting at 8 PM.
The work session (7 PM) will be a presentation on the “Joint Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study”.
No documents or other materials appear to have been posted for this session. The web page describing this event can be accessed here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4086168&GUID=3555C726-7394-4291-A1FA-32D9382ADF93&Options=&Search=
The 8 PM meeting includes three relevant items:
Item 19-1308: Feasibility study with options for a Patrick Henry Library parking garage.
Item 19-1378: Rescinding the narrowing of Wade Hampton Drive for 380 Maple West (37 condos plus retail, Wade Hampton and Maple),
Item 19-1394: Amending the existing standard commercial zoning to provide a streetscape closer to what MAC requires.
Meeting materials can be found at various points on this page:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=684462&GUID=3202EA1F-D3E6-4BCC-84F2-732A3A357BF3&Options=info&Search=
See Post #347 for my writeup of what will be discussed.
Tuesday, 8/20/2019, at 7 PM in Town Hall, the Vienna Public Art(s) Commission agenda includes discussion of public art requirements for MAC projects.
The Town’s calendar announcement for the Public Art Commission is at this link:
https://www.viennava.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=4622&month=8&year=2019&day=20&calType=0
The agenda for the Public Arts Commission (MicroSoft Word) is at this link:
https://www.viennava.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=4346
N.B.: The website calls this the Public Art Commission, the minutes are labeled Public Arts Commission. I’m not sure which one is correct.
Hey, is this new? Or have I just not been paying attention? The Town has a series of maps summarizing development activity in the Town of Vienna:
https://www.viennava.gov/index.aspx?nid=1346
Or go here for the map itself.
This is the first time I’ve stumbled across it, and certainly the first time I’ve ever seen the associated map. Kudos to the Town of Vienna, as this how such activity should be tracked, for benefit of the public, in the modern world.
Previously, the Town had a map for MAC projects, but I never could get much use of it. This current effort seems an order of magnitude better, largely for use of a better map.
That said, be aware that these maps have a few limitations. Mostly, these maps appeared to show anything requiring Town approval via some public meeting. So there is construction that does not go through that process, and there are things that go through that process that are not construction.
Omitted construction: My guess is that any purely by-right construction will be omitted. Mostly, that omits all of the tear-downs all over Vienna. Those are handled entirely within Planning and Zoning and Public Works (I think) and so are not subject to any sort of public exposure. But also notably absent is 901 Glyndon. I’m not sure whether that’s due to the age, or due to that project having been determined to be by-right (no-public-review) construction.
Omitted construction: I would also guess that anything done by Town of Vienna Public Works or by Fairfax County would be omitted. So construction relating to roads, schools, parks, sidewalks, and other public property likely won’t show up here. In fact, I can see that sidewalk revisions don’t show up, because we’ve had several in the past years and none appear. Again, that’s probably because those aren’t reviewed and approved in public by the Town of Vienna.
Included but not construction: This map shows changes in any conditional use permits. So, e.g., if a restaurant wants to have live music (a conditional use of the property, requiring Town approval due to the potential for annoying the neighbors as Bey Lounge did), that will show up on the map. But that’s not new construction. The marker for “Blend 111” is one such case — it’s on the map, but it has nothing to do with construction, just with how the property is used.
This does not give you a link to some document repository for each site, but it does at least link to (e.g.) the documents that were provided during the last available public meeting on the project, if any.
One little quirk is that they didn’t know where to put denied applications, so Sunrise (assisted living, Maple and Center, denied by the Town, currently the subject of a lawsuit) shows up on the “Under Construction/Completed” page. I understand the logic from Town staff point of view — they are done with it — but I think I’d at least give the denials a different shape or color or something.
All in all, a vast improvement over what was available previously, and particularly relative to the half-baked attempts by private citizens to do the same sort of tracking. I believe that I will now retire that project tracking page.
Note: After I published this, the same colleague who introduced me to FIDO suggested that I add one major caveat: Things only appear in FIDO once they are in the hands of Fairfax County. Issues that are handled solely by the Town of Vienna, or that are handled first by the Town and then by the County, either never appear or appear with some time lag. So FIDO gives you a look at what’s going on with a property, but it’s not necessarily a complete look, or the most timely look, at what is happening. That said, practically speaking, is the only look we’re going to get — the Town of Vienna does not have a similar publicly-visible permit-tracking system in place.
Original posting follows.
A colleague clued me in to the Fairfax County FIDO system. There, for any address, you can look up the status of any building, occupancy, or other permits or licenses issued by Fairfax County. The FIDO system can be used to provide some reassurance that projects that appear to be in process really are. Continue reading Post #351: FIDO
A colleague just sent me an email that was a quick lesson in the complexities of Town of Vienna zoning rules. My head is still spinning, and that was just about the rules applying to one new building.
As it turns out, much of what I thought was true, when I wrote Post #346 may or may not be true. I’m still trying to decide if I believe and/or understand what I think I was just taught, about our zoning rules. The upshot is that Town of Vienna zoning rules are a lot more loosey-goosey than you might think if you just read the plain language of the statute. And as a corollary, where there is discretion, that discretion can be used to favor or hinder specific projects, depending on … it’s not clear exactly what.
You can find the zoning regulations at this website. You might want to try to read along, if you read the rest of this posting.
The first thing that stuck out, from this brief lesson, is that Town staff and developers have significant discretion in applying the zoning rules. Discretion as to what parts they claim apply to a particular project, and discretion as to how those parts are interpreted. So, as I have guessed all along, yes, the Town does in fact make-it-up-as-they-go-along, to a significant degree, in many cases.
If that’s not enough, the second major item is that the Town Council can waive many (but not all) of the zoning rules, period. So if they like/want a commercial development, they can (e.g.) allow greater density and smaller setbacks than the law otherwise allows, skip brick walls and other shielding for the adjacent neighborhood, and so on. Almost anything, as I understand it, other than building height. Apparently that explains the high density, reduced setbacks, and lack of brick wall shielding for the townhouse condos that went up next to Town Hall.
The third is “determinations”. If the first two did not provide enough looseness in the rules, the Director of Planning and Zoning can issue a “determination” on any issue for any particular project. And, once issued, that acts just like it is a part of the zoning rules. (This “determination” process is why the Wawa is about to occupy a commercial lot, adjacent to residential area, with no brick sound wall separating the two. Back in the 1970s, a “determination” was issued that no such wall was needed — uniquely for that one lot, in that area. See this post for description.)
So with that in mind, let me explain two of my own misconceptions about Town of Vienna zoning. With the idea being that maybe other people were unaware of this.
Continue reading Post #349: I was given a quick lesson in Town of Vienna zoning
In an earlier post, I summarized how the City of Falls Church goes about doing “MAC-like” projects, versus the Town of Vienna’s MAC zoning. You can read the details in Post #306.
In a nutshell, Falls Church uses “Special Exception” zoning. Instead of dictating how the buildings must look (as with MAC), Falls Church described what the City of Falls Church is expecting to get from any such development, and then says, in so many words, within limits, “make me an offer”. If you want an exception to the standard zoning, tell us what you’re going to do for the City of Falls Church in return.
Turns out, Leesburg also uses special exception zoning. A colleague brought this new project in downtown Leesburg to my attention.
Put aside the fact that this stumpy (mid-rise timber-framed concrete podium apartment building) could easily be mistaken for the 444 Maple West/Tequila Grande building. It has the same, look-alike, pseudo-many-buildings facade that appears to be mandatory around here but is already passé on the West Coast.
The important issue is that when I went to find the plans, the Town of Leesburg lists it as one of their special exception zoning projects.
OK, at this point, I have to wonder how many other local jurisdictions take this “Special Exception” zoning approach, and how many take an approach like the Town of Vienna’s MAC zoning? Is our approach like our hundred-day rule (Post #247), rule, i.e., something that only exists in the Town of Vienna and is use by literally no other jurisdiction in Virginia?
Just a quick search for “Special Exception” and then various jurisdictions reveals that, at the minimum, Fairfax County also has a special exception process. (But I suspect that’s in addition to a generally more complex set of zones throughout the county — so, likely, they have some sort of MAC-analog zones as well.)
Beyond that, I had a hard time telling whether Herndon or the City of Fairfax used special exception zoning in the same way that Falls Church and Leesburg do.
My only point is that the “special exception” approach to redevelopment is not the exception. At least three local jurisdictions — Falls Church, Leesburg, and Fairfax County — use that method. Maybe, then, this is worth a look, if the Town ever gets around to revising MAC in any fundamental way.
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.
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
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
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:
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
