Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

According to a good source, GSA and WMATA are working on a new policy to allow GSA to modify its rent caps for sites that meet certain transit oriented development criteria (i.e. sites within a certain proximity to Metro stations, etc.).  As many of our readers know, GSA caps its rents as a result of negotiations with OMB per rules created to implement the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. OMB (through Circular A-11) created a set of rules which are used to determine whether a federal lease is an "Operating" or "Capital" Lease. To make a long story short, GSA and OMB have agreed to rent caps to make it easy to stay within "Operating Lease" guidelines. The current Operating Lease rent caps are $34/SF in Maryland, $38/SF in Virginia, and $49/SF in the District of Columbia.  With vacancies finally falling and rental rates starting to rise, the natural effect of these caps will be to push federal office space development away from mass transit locations, which yield the highest rental rates.  Currently, big chunks of space for federal agencies just aren't normally available below these price caps where there are mass transit services available.

This clearly goes against the current policies for transit oriented development being advocated by the current administration, the EPA, HUD, pretty much all of our regional localities, and our state level transportation agencies.  So enter the solution: GSA and WMATA are working together to achieve modify current guidelines to be in line with modern transit oriented development goals to allow GSA the flexibility to adjust rent caps upwards to allow large government employers to locate in areas where there is mas transit systems available to handle the commuter volumes they will create.  Apparently, GSA and WMATA are about five months away from realizing this new policy.  This has the possibility of having sweeping impacts to how and which localities and private interests can capture federal tenants/departments/agencies and the resultant collateral economic development benefits these opportunities provide.  How these new transit oriented development guidelines/policies will define which sites are eligible for upward flexibility for rent caps remains to be seen, but we'll keep on top of it and keep you posted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Have you heard the DC Zoning Commission is looking into adopting a new set of GAR requirements?  No, we're not talking about the kind of fish that eats every other kind of fish it can fit in its mouth, we're talking about Green Area Ratio ("GAR") requirements.  According to the report prepared by DC zoning staff, the GAR concept is not a new concept, but is a Low Impact Development best management practices tool used in major cities in Europe such as Berlin and Malmo.

According to the USGBC, GAR "..is the ratio of the weighted value of specific landscape elements to land area... [and] is determined by calculating the area of specific enumerated landscape elements, multiplied by a factor assigned to each element, which is then divided by the lot area of the project."  According to DC zoning staff, GAR "...is an environmental site sustainability metric intended to set requirements for landscape and site design that meets goals for stormwater runoff, air quality and urban heat island... [based on] allowing a user to pick among optional elements in order to meet an overall [minimum] GAR score."  DC is proposing to include the GAR regulations within Subtitle B and Subtitles D through J with Subtitle B containing an explanation of the GAR system and the other land use subtitles containing zone specific permission, conditions, and requirements.

In a nutshell, what they are talking about doing is requiring property owner to meet a certain weighted score in relation to the amount of land area they have as a requisite to filing for building permits and approval will be a prerequisite to obtaining a certificate of occupancy.  Submission requirements are outlined in proposed Section 1305, and of course you can get a variance if your site is particularly difficult per Section 1306.  If you need to understand the specific details of what is being proposed, the text amendments and staff report are available here for your review, and the hearing is slated for December 20th before the DC Zoning Commission, with the Zoning Review Task Force considering it on November 27.  Here's staff's slide presentation from October if you want a primer before you dive into the details.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the second posting in my station by station land use analysis of Northern Virginia's new Silver Line.  The first station (at the Silver Line's eastern terminus) is the East Falls Church Metro Station, which will serve as the transfer station from the Silver Line to the Orange Line.

The East Falls Church Plan is currently undergoing its public review process, and is a collaborative effort between the City of Falls Church, Arlington County, VDOT, WMATA and the community.  It has been in the works for several years at this point and has been a hard plan for everybody to get behind, not because everyone doesn't want to prepare for the inevitable fact that the East Falls Church Metro Station will need to be able to handle the increased number of commuters funneled into the Orange Line from as far out as Loudoun County, but instead because they can't start from scratch, and are trying to provide a solution to a difficult set of existing circumstances.

The first thing you'll notice about the plan is that the station area is located in a predominantly single family home neighborhood.  The second thing you'll notice about the plan is that the East Falls Church station area is cut up by a number of multiple lane highways and major arterial roads (click here for a full size vicinity map of the plan), including I-66, Lee Highway, Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street, and their associated merging/ramp systems.  This creates a number of complicated problems from the start - a single family community obviously does not want to have a ton of density dropped into the middle of its neighborhood, and because the neighborhood is already fractured by these major roadways, it makes it very difficult to connect density to the Metro Station.  Separating density from mass transit clearly goes against what many consider one of the basic tenants of modern urban planning. 

As you can see from the plan, the planned upgraded metro and transit station is not really centrally located within the plan.  Instead, density is planned along Lee Highway on both sides of the I-66 overpass.  The result has been a bit of an identity crisis about whether this is the Lee Highway "gateway plan" or whether this is in fact a new plan for the East Falls Church Metro Station, and no real defined sense of "place" when it comes to East Falls Church.

Setting all of those issues aside, the plan itself is pretty limited in scope, with only a little over a dozen sites planned for redevelopment (the redevelopment sites are shown here).  The plan keeps most of the planned redevelopment sites to 5 to 6 stories, with a few sites on the Falls Church side of the line having the potential to creep up to 8 stories (click here for the Building Heights Plan).  The plan is for a mix of uses, though given the location I imagine (here's the use plan) the market will demand more residential uses than commercial, and, except for the new planned transit station, there is not a lot of retail planned.

The plan for the upgraded station itself is really the highlight of the plan.  The station (projected to be a 450,000 SF facility) is planned around a 30,000 to 38,000 SF public plaza that will be framed by retail to serve the surrounding neighborhoods, and will provide an additional 75 to 100 spaces of retail parking.  Here's an elevation of what it might look like.  A massing study was also prepared which helps give it some context, and can be viewed here. 

Next stop: Tysons East.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The second draft version of the International Green Construction Code being prepared by the International Code Council (Public Version 2.0) was released last week as anticipated, which incorporates the actions taken at the hearings this past August.  If you have any suggestions on how to improve on Public Version 2.0, Code Change Submittals are now being accepted and the forms are available on the ICC's website.  The final action to adopt the IGCC is a year away, and the public review process will continue until then.  The schedule can be found on their website here, and we'll endeavor to keep you updated as it continues to evolve.

It is a lean, 221 page document, so you're going to have to set some time aside to wade through it.  In a nutshell, it really is a lot like the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, so if you are familiar with that already, as many of our readers are, it is pretty much the same thing repackaged, but your local Building Official will be interpreting it, enforcing it, conducting commissioning, etc., rather than the current "voluntary" system set up by the USGBC.  There are a lot of kinks that will need to be worked out by each jurisdiction as they elect which components of the IGCC to adopt, as there is a lot of overlap and conflict with federal environmental law, ADA regs, zoning ordinances, etc.  Hopefully, this opportunity is used to clean up some of the conflicts.  Also, where the development community has been in a position to resolve a lot of these conflicts on its own during the various special exception processes, being flexible with design and being able to pick and choose which LEED credits it wanted to chase, we now stand to lose some of this flexibility (i.e. certain components of the IGCC will be mandatory and while other provisions will be elective), so hopefully an eye toward the appropriate amount of flexibility will be maintained during the process - but this may very well be part of the trade-off in the transition from an incentive based system to a mandatory system.

Also, there is no distinction in the IGCC between building types, as it proposes to apply to "...every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures and to the site on which the building is located."  The IGCC won't just apply to new construction, either, but to "...the design, construction, addition, alteration, change of occupancy, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure..."  That's some pretty broad language...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I was discussing some of Arlington's Community Energy Plan goals with an architect friend of mine the other day, it was apparent to both of us that a number of the County's stated goals for energy efficiency (such as the 30% increase in efficiency) in its plan track the time line for the incorporation of the the International Code Council's Green Construction Code in one form or another by Virginia.  After spending some time reviewing the Synopsis of the International Green Construction Code currently in process to be adopted by November of next year by the ICC, it was clear that what has been contemplated and encouraged by USGBC's third party rating system was adopted by the proposed ICC Green Construction Code.  In fact, the requirements set out for election by jurisdictions should sound pretty familiar to you, such as Site Development and Land Use, Material Resource Conservation and Efficiency, Energy Conservation and Earth Atmospheric Quality, Water Resource Conservation and Efficiency, Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance, etc.  There's even a handy checklist to use, just like the one the USGBC provides.

With the revised public version due out as early as tomorrow (Public Version 2.0), and the Final Action Hearing to be held November 3rd through November 6 of 2011, Virginia will be in a position to review and decide on how to incorporate this new code proposal in 2012, with plenty of time to coordinate and be prepared to implement these new changes by 2015. 

So, how would this impact what USGBC presently does?  Well, it would obviously be profound.  If the International Code Council's Green Construction Code is broadly adopted, mandating equitable green building design in jurisdictions across the country, need for a third-party certification body would be in question.  Ongoing monitoring and enforcement would fall under the legal purview of your local Building Official, rather than a remote "voluntary" certification body, and everybody would be subject to the new code, rather than just those electing to go through the process, broadening the environmental and efficiency impacts dramatically.  However, one difference I noticed that kind of jumped out at me was the lack of reward for innovation, which may unfortunately become a trade-off for mandating design requirements.

So if any of you are wondering how Arlington County expects to be in a position to mandate improvements to by-right projects (both new construction and renovation) through its new Community Energy Plan, hopefully this clears things up.  Here's the official primer video explaining the proposed Green Construction Code if you are interested.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, now that I've had the chance to really focus on and review Arlington County's Community Energy Plan Summary of Preliminary Recommendations and its Addendum, published on October 13th, it looks like the County has taken its first step toward its goal for a Community Energy Plan.  As with prior explanations about the Community Energy Plan, there are quite a lot of facts and statistics, and there is a lot of information presented, which really doesn't answer the basic question that everybody is asking, which is: "How will this plan impact me?"  For this reason, without commenting on the policies or goals behind the plan, I thought it might be time for a fact sheet that distills out the implications of the preliminary plan.  As with most policy documents, the plan will change and evolve over time once it is adopted.  So here's the tip of the iceberg:

Governance:

The County Manager would administer and implement the plan.  This means the County Manager will eventually delegate the implementation to the various department heads necessary to pursue the policies set forth in the plan, and implementation would then trickle down to the staff level from there.  There would also be an Advisory Board, presumably appointed by the County Board and made up of involved community representatives, to consider ongoing policy issues and to provide input on specific initiatives, similar to other commissions in the County, such as the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, etc.  Also, there would be implementation teams created at the neighborhood level to encourage implementation of the plan, and to identify localized neighborhood-scaled projects/initiatives.

Impacts on the Single Family Home Owner:

For single family homes, the County has identified, beginning in 2015, new construction and renovations of existing single family homes will be expected to increase home efficiency by 30% more than today's average (to increase to 50% by 2050).  Therefore, if you were to submit any plans for a new home or home renovation, you would be expected to establish how this increase in efficiency would be achieved.  It is unclear how the County will implement this goal, as neither the Uniform Statewide Building Code nor the Zoning Ordinance presently permits the County to require this on by-right single family home construction or renovation projects.  At a minimum (there are Constitutional implications) the County would need enabling legislation at the state level to implement this goal as a "requirement" for by-right projects.  Also note, the County wants to bring community energy planning to the civic association level, so the County will be looking to encourage single family home owners to comply with neighborhood-level energy plans adopted by your local civic association and probably vetted through the public process.

Impacts on the Commercial Property Owner:

As with single family homes, starting in 2015, all new buildings (and renovated buildings) will need to operate 30% more efficiently than today's average (to increase to 70% by 2050).  While increased energy efficiency has been an ongoing bartering item during the County's various special exception processes, it is also unclear how the County will implement this goal with respect to by-right commercial projects without enabling legislation at the state level.

As with other planning documents, the Community Energy Plan will be broken down into corridor and sector plans for fine-tuned planning purposes.  This means when you are scoping sites and doing your due diligence on projects, whether as a developer, architect, engineer, or some other professional, you will need to consult these plans, as you would any other component of the Comprehensive Plan, to determine the impact of what the plan proposes on the site you are looking at.  These more specific corridor and sector energy plans would be created at a later date per their own planning processes.

For certain "to-be-determined" high density areas, there will be a requirement to be part of a "district energy" system beginning in 2015, with the goal of having 70% of buildings in these designated areas part of the district energy grid by 2050.  Unless there is state level enabling legislation, this will likely be implemented through the various special exception processes as most buildings in these designated areas are already subject to special exceptions.  Without state level enabling legislation and dealing with certain constitutional issues, it is unlikely these new requirements could be applied retroactively to existing approvals (until you come back for a new project or to modify an existing project).  If you need a primer on what district energy is, click here.  The plan is silent so far on who would own and operate these district energy systems, and how they would be financed and maintained once in place.  For commercial buildings located outside of these high-density designated areas, where district energy is not as viable, lower-scale systems would be the requirement to achieve a goal of 50% energy reduction, such as localized heating and cooling systems, i.e. PV, solar thermal and geothermal systems.

Incentives to Normalize Practices:

While the County currently awards bonus density to projects that achieve certain LEED certification levels, it is silent as to whether bonus density will be available for achieving Community Energy Plan goals.  The plan seems to suggest a very different concept, which is to create an on-going performance-based system of incentives,  through tax and other financially comparable incentives to make projects attractive to investors.  What these comparable incentives might be, how they would work, and how ongoing performance-based evaluation would be managed is not explained.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is no secret that the Commonwealth of Virginia is the first choice for business in the Washington-Metro Region (being exceedingly more pro-business than the District of Columbia and Maryland), and for the past several decades, Arlington County and the City of Alexandria, with a few exceptions, have had a virtual monopoly over the Metro in Northern Virginia, access to quite a bit of DOD and other federal bucks (in part because of the access this mass transit provided to federal agencies for businesses and federal employees, etc.)  But let’s be blunt; while good urban planning has played a serious role in the urban expansion across the river from DC in Virginia, good urban planning is basically a symptom of great location, location, location.  Arlington and Alexandria have had the benefit of being immediately adjacent to the federal trough in the most business-friendly state in the region with a monopoly over mass rail transit.  These are the core reasons that they have enjoyed their prosperity and growth.  

Recently, however, quite a lot of changes have occurred in Northern Virginia, which cumulatively will eventually have sweeping impacts on inter-locality competition for businesses and economic development, a lot of which we still haven't really begun to feel the effects of.  Often, many of these changes are dealt with as solitary issues by journalists, self-pronounced experts, the person talking the loudest, etc. and I often wonder whether they can see the forest for the trees. 

Our current sequence of evolutions has been underway for years, the seeds being planted even before Eisenhower picked Burke Lake Park for the location of Dulles Airport and the construction of the Beltway began. Then I-66 was constructed, then the toll road and the Greenway. Now, finally, the Silver Line is being constructed, allowing metro to extend as far out as Dulles, which will effectively make the East Falls Church Metro Station the transfer station to the Orange Line, much like Rosslyn serves as a transfer station today. 

Not only are our western counties now well situated to be connected to the DC federal market more competitively, many of those federal agencies and related businesses, which have subsidized the Arlington and Alexandria economies and helped them weather recessions and unemployment disproportionately well for so long, are relocating to western and southern localities due to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s recommendations, taking jobs and federal money with them.

The Tyson’s Corner Plan is also the first really modern, mega-urban plan to be located just a few short metro stops from Arlington County and the District of Columbia on the Silver Line, which, once realized, will offer over 1,200 acres worth of the benefits that good urban planning can provide to businesses and residents, literally on Arlington and Alexandria’s doorstep.  In Virginia, Arlington and Alexandria have never had to deal with this kind of competition and I’m not sure they are prepared for this eventual reality, however distant it may seem.  If there is any doubt, just look at the impacts Arlington and Alexandria have had on the DC market.  They've been able to offer an alternative for businesses not to have to be located in the District of Columbia in business-friendly Virginia, with metro and federal access, for less money, etc.  How are the western counties not going to eventually be in the same position in relation to Arlington and Alexandria?

Collectively, this really is all a lot of large-scale change underway for Northern Virginia.  So what will the cumulative impacts be, when will we start feeling them and what will all this mean for real estate interests in Northern Virginia?  Well, one thing is certain - the cat is out of the box.  I guess all that we can know is that the market will change, and, provided the regional economy continues to grow, it is clear that the western counties have no way to go but up.  It seems to me, though, that Arlington and Alexandria will likely also benefit from being in a central location between all this new density and the District of Columbia, although it will get more competitive to retain and attract new private business interests and federal agencies once things in the western counties start to come into focus, as the western counties find themselves in a better position to aggressively pursue those opportunities which used to be disproportionately available solely to Arlington and Alexandria. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As promised, just wanted to circle back with the results of yesterday's Commonwealth Transportation Board hearing.  It is official, the Commonwealth Transportation Board passed the actions necessary to transfer Columbia Pike to Arlington County, with assurances from Arlington County staff that they would preserve the functionality of Columbia Pike and that there were plans to do so in place.  This action is a major step for the Columbia Pike Revitalization Initiative, giving Arlington County the control it has wanted over streetscape, pedestrian, transportation, street and intersection alignment, and its street car planning.

All this comes despite the ongoing lawsuit between Arlington County, VDOT and others.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commonwealth Transportation Board is scheduled to finalize the deal and take the necessary actions to convey Columbia Pike to Arlington County tomorrow, being the culmination of many years of urban and transportation planning by Arlington County, the Columbia Pike community, and the Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization.  This is in response to the Resolution passed by the Arlington County Board back in July of 2009 to acquire Columbia Pike from the Commonwealth in order to clear the way for construction of the planned street car system along Columbia Pike in Arlington County and to help realize the goals and visions of the Columbia Pike Revitalization Initiative. 

Arlington is one of only two Counties in Virginia that owns and operates its own local street system, with the Commonwealth operating the rest of the roadways in all other localities.  Once the transfer is complete it will be up to Arlington to maintain and operate Columbia Pike on its own.  Mike Estes' recommendation to the CTB is for the CTB to authorize the Commissioner to execute the transfer agreement with Arlington County this month, have the CTB transfer Columbia Pike from the Primary Road System to the Local Road System, and then in October to have the CTB approve the 2011 fiscal maintenance payment to Arlington County include Columbia Pike.  It is my understanding that the Commonwealth Transportation Board is moving forward with the transfer of Columbia Pike despite Arlington County's ongoing lawsuit against VDOT and the Commissioner of Transportation over the environmental and civil rights claims surrounding the "Hotlanes Lawsuit" (click here for my posting on this lawsuit from last year, which was updated and opined on by one of our co-bloggers last week here)

The hearing will occur down in Richmond at the VDOT Central Auditorium at 10:00, but if you cannot attend or observe here are copies of Michael Estes' presentation and the hearing agenda.  Also, here is the proposed Resolution for action by the CBT, and here is the actual proposed Memorandum of Agreement if you are interested in some of the finer the details.  We'll keep you posted on the results of the hearing, though I imagine the press releases will be flying around pretty quickly tomorrow. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arlington County Board will be deciding whether to approve a series of amendments to Arlington's Comprehensive Plan relating to Crystal City at their hearing at the end of September, after several years of evaluation on how best to react to the loss of approximately 17,000 jobs and over 4 million square feet of occupied office space due to the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC).  Specifically, the County Board will decide whether to adopt the new Crystal City Sector Plan 2050, and modify the General Land Use Plan and the Master Transportation Plan.

With Long Bridge Park and the Pentagon to the north, the airport and the river to the east, Aurora Highlands and Pentagon City to the west and Alexandria/Potomac Yards to the South, existing metro and VRE access, Crystal City seems well poised to make a comeback.  Here is an exhibit showing Crystal City's existing conditions.  The plan specifically outlines which sites are expected to be redeveloped, which sites have potential for redevelopment, and which sites are expected to remain for the life of the plan (click here for the comparison). Much like the Tyson's Corner Plan, Crystal City's 260 acres are broken up into proposed "districts" (shown here), including the Northwest Gateway, Northeast Gateway, Central Business, Entertainment, South End and West Side Districts, each with their own respective district-level focus.

The areas planned for the highest densities are basically limited to certain principle areas, including the sites in proximity to the planned multimodal transit hub facility and also those sites a the center of the Entertainment District.  The "Base Densities" referenced in the plans show what the existing GLUP designations contemplate for density, and are shown on the Base Density Map.  The plan models a 61% increase in density for Crystal City over the life of the plan, but rather than calling out specific densities caps for specific sites, density under the Crystal City Sector Plan will be controlled by bulk restrictions, shown on plans for height, setbacks, bulk angles, tower coverage, massing, etc.  Land use is set forth on the plan's new Land Use Map, and required on-street retail space is shown on the Retail Frontage Map.

Of particular interest in the plan is the "...addition of a dedicated surface transit-way to Crystal City's existing [transit] system...," that will include a streetcar or trolley system.  The recommended alignment for this system is shown here, as well as a new eastern entrance to the Crystal City Metro Station.  A multi-modal transfer hub facility (shown here) is planned to connect metro, VRE, bus and trolley systems at the location of the existing entrance to the Crystal City Metro Station.

One of the most unique things about Crystal City has always been the Crystal City Underground which connects a lot of Crystal City for pedestrians via a network of tunnels, underground and interior  spaces.   While the plan guides how retail, pedestrian systems and planned open space will make use of these existing features, most of the Underground is contemplated as remaining in place.

The Crystal City Sector is also going to be one of the proving grounds for Arlington's currently developing Community Energy Plan, with carbon reduction and sustainability as some of the major plan objectives, as well as incorporating the proposed streetcar/trolley system's energy needs in Crystal City's district energy plans.

All said, it is a fairly extensive and unique plan, and I don't think a simple blog posting can do it justice.  For those of you that want all the details, here's a link to the entire proposed plan and the staff report for the September hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I attended the meeting last Wednesday night regarding the impact of Arlington County's Community Energy Plan on the Arlington development community, held by the County's lead consultant, Peter Garforth, of Garforth International, Jay Fissette, the Chairman of the Arlington County Board, and numerous industry representatives.  I initially blogged about this several months ago (see the post "From Ad Hoc Incentives to a Comprehensive Community Energy Plan") when the Arlington Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force began to develop a forty year energy plan for Arlington County.  It is now unofficially official that the end goal of the task force is to create a new, additional component to the County's Comprehensive Plan to be implemented during the various local land use/special exception processes.  It will therefore have major impacts on the development and capital projects industries, as well as a number of utility companies.

The plan is modeled after a number of plans already implemented and apparently successful elsewhere, such as Copenhagen and the City of Guelph, which have been able to identify and align both short-term and long-term energy goals.  We are told the currently unreleased draft plan considers the following:

• Concepts for "district energy" systems,
• Reshaping infrastructure for localization of systems,
• Use of cogeneration systems,
• Goals to reduce the County's carbon footprint (possibly up to as much as 50%),
• Continuation of an emphasis on efficient building design,
• Smart/monitored metering, and
• Public and private investments.

It also sounds like they contemplate this new shared infrastructure possibly being owned, operated and maintained by an independent, third party entity.  Clearly, shared systems and involving a third party entity/owner will make development substantially more complicated from a lot of different perspectives.  Hopefully, however, adequate time is given to consider what kind of incentives/benefits may be available to help private entities hedge or offset some of the risks until these practices become normalized.

I've asked for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation Peter made which outlines a number of these points and I'll post it as soon as I get it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I know most people out there who follow land use in the DC metro area are pretty familiar with the Columbia Pike Revitalization Plan and the Columbia Pike Form Based Code.  Then, like many others, you've probably wondered what will happen to the trolley system once Columbia Pike hits the Arlington County line?  Well, instead of continuing to head west down the corridor, it abruptly bangs a left at the county line, and heads south up the hill to Skyline (here is a transit plan showing approximate station locations and here is an aerial transit plan overlay).

Actually, this is in conformance with the transit plans that have been in place for several years now, so it is no great shock to see this concept on the "Preferred Plan" which is the latest culmination of two prior land use plans presented to the community last month and updated and posted yesterday on Fairfax County's website.  Not surprisingly, the highest densities are planned along the proposed street car system, which culminates at the existing high density sites at Skyline.  As you can see on the Preferred Plan, however, the system only tracks the eastern periphery of this first portion of the Community Business Center plan area (the "CPC"), leaving much of the planned area geographically disconnected from the trolley system, and in particular the Columbia Pike corridor.

So rather than seeing higher densities planned along the Columbia Pike Corridor as might be the intuitive preconception, right now the idea is to concentrate higher densities in Land Unit C between Leesburg Pike and South Jefferson Street, with street car stations straddling both the north and south sides of Leesburg Pike on Jefferson Street.  Adjacent to the conceptual transit center and and station north of Leesburg Pike is where the highest density mixed use sites and the high density retail nodes are proposed to be located under this portion of the CPC.

While this is a revitalization plan for the Baileys Crossroads area rather than an extension of the Columbia Pike Revitalization Plan into Fairfax, it does seem, at least initially, counter-intuitive to connect the old Skyline density to the planned Columbia Pike transit corridor.  But life is not perfect, and Fairfax has to deal with the existing, built densities at Skyline, and probably needs to take advantage of the new transit system now  to alleviate some of the immediate conditions at Skyline.  I just wonder if it would not be more wise to take a longer view and realign the density and transit capability up Columbia Pike rather than focus on connecting the aging density at Skyline.  I also have to admit though, it is pretty exciting to think of Pentagon City and Skyline being connected by a street car system.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you that follow our blog who are familiar with land use planning in Virginia, I'm sure you already know that localities are required by the Code of Virginia to create and adopt a Comprehensive Plan.  Typically, a Comprehensive Plan contains a land use plan component, a transportation plan component, various engineering plans, and open space plans, among other things.  Makes sense right?  It is common sense that localities should plan the build-out of their communities in a logical manner, taking into considerations planned densities and uses, necessary transportation systems, and the infrastructure to support everything.

Up until now in Virginia, however, promoting efficiency in energy use and encouraging other sustainable design elements have been accomplished pursuant to ad hoc incentive programs for new construction, and almost universally applicable as part of the public negotiation process for special exception approvals, such as committing to certain USGBC LEED certification levels, etc.  This has resulted in a spattering of improvements to individual buildings and site designs throughout localities in Virginia.  Anybody with a background in engineering knows, however, that a city or county is not just a bunch of separate, distinct buildings, but rather is a large, connected system made up of all of the various components that make localities tick, such as water, sanitary sewer, storm water, communications, electrical and gas systems, etc., etc.  While commercial buildings are a major user of these systems and resources, localities up until now have focused on the users of the systems, rather than focusing on a comprehensive analysis and plan for the entire system.

Well, Arlington County may now be doing just that, and at the direction of Chairman Jay Fisette, has created the Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force to guide the development of a "Community Energy Plan" for Arlington County.  The purpose of the Community Energy Plan is to take a holistic look at the County's energy use from a systemic perspective, and to establish a plan to achieve specific goals for the County, rather than just focusing on improving the County's energy efficiency on a building by building basis (although individual building and site design incentives will remain). 

I could be wrong, but I believe Arlington County is the first locality in Virginia to do this.  It is unclear at this early stage whether the end result Community Energy Plan will become a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan or a separate, stand-alone policy, however, as we've seen before, Arlington might be the setting the next trend in Virginia, provided that localities actually have the authority to do this.  I cannot imagine this will not have an impact on the public negotiation process for new development - building and site design, components, etc. may very well be part of broader public systemic goals in the future.  To what extent at this point, though, is hard to say.  It is also certainly likely to have a broader impact on Virginia's public service corporations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In what appears to be an effort to allow localities to provide additional incentives to redevelop certain areas or sites, both houses of the General Assembly have voted to modify Section 15.2-2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, better known as the "TDR Statute" (inclusive of Section 15.2-2316.1 as well).  Previously, transferable development rights ("TDRs") severed from a "sending" site or area could only be equal to the TDRs permitted to be attached to the "receiving" site.  The modification now allows TDRs transferred to receiving sites to be greater than those severed from the sending sites. 

I have to admit, you can read this modification to mean a number of things.  If localities are smart, they could really use this modification to their advantage.  Read one way, this could allow localities an additional method to encourage owners of transferable development rights to transfer their density to sites that are less favorable from a business standpoint but more favorable from a planning standpoint.  It arguably provides localities with the ability to prioritize which sites should receive density through what amounts to a receiving site bonus density program.   It also could potentially allow the regulation and/or balancing of the TDR market because the locality now has what appears to be the additional ability to control market demand of TDRs (i.e. if the market has 15,000 SF of density available for sale, and only 8,000 SF worth of receiving site density permitted, market price for TDRs will be lower than if the ratio is reversed). Localities arguably now have more ability to control the supply and demand for TDRs.

As anyone in the land use racket can see, this is a significant amendment to the TDR Statute, and, as always, the political nuances of who will eventually benefit in any given locality will be interesting to follow.  It is certainly another tool in the planning toolbox localities should not ignore, and of which owners and developers should be aware.   If you want to read more about TDRs, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I don't know how many people out there tracked the events at the sustainability forum out in Portland a few weeks ago, but one of the notable take-aways from the event was that HUD Secretary Donovan used the event as an opportunity to announce that HUD was launching it's new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) under Deputy Secretary Ron Sims.  OSHC is funded in HUD's 2010 budget.  This follows on the heels of the announcement to create the Inter-agency Partnership for Sustainable Communities between DOT, HUD and EPA last June.

The purpose of OSHC is to work with DOT, EPA and other federal agencies to ensure coordination between housing and other departments involved with sustainable community public policies that effect transportation, utility infrastructure, jobs and environmental planning.  It will also "...strengthen HUD's Energy Efficient Mortgage product and other retrofit financing options - both for single family homes and multi-family rental housing - through a $50 million Energy Innovation Fund... and will also make available an Affordability Index that measures the costs of where a home is located in relation to jobs, schools and transportation."  Additionally, $100 million will be available for integrated metropolitan regional planning initiatives per the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program, and HUD expects to award grants to between 10 and 15 regions around the country.

HUD and OSHC are also seeking input from stakeholders related to creation of regional plans for sustainable development, execution plans and programs, implementation incentives and entities eligible for funding.  You can make recommendations via HUD Wiki, is pretty easy to do.  Also, Builder Magazine interviewed OSHC's Director, Shelley Poticha, last week, where she shed some light on her thoughts on how the federal government fits into regional land use planning.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recently completed study by Arlington's Retail Task Force outlined some interesting conclusions for ground floor retail, suggesting something contrary to the status quo of conventional urban planning thought .  Traditionally, in Arlington County, as well as other urban jurisdictions, it has been a moot argument that good urban planning require ground floor space to be used almost solely for retail, or other similar uses that are thought to improve the pedestrian experience and serve the immediate vicinity's every-day needs.  Quite frankly, ground floor retail is simply expected by jurisdictions for almost all urban projects.

The study was a holistic review of modern retail policies that would be of value to any urban locality, focusing not just on any one piece of the puzzle, but instead on economic development/jurisdictional competitiveness, urban planning and transit goals, availability of space to both national and local retail businesses, and the cold, hard numbers that are the result of current land use policies in Arlington County.  The report concluded that "[r]egional retail destinations, including Tysons Corner, Old Town Alexandria and Georgetown are siphoning sales within a very mobile and competitive market.  Whereas Arlington’s land use policies have successfully concentrated development along Metro corridors, our 'retail everywhere' policy - the requirement for first floor retail in nearly all new development - has inadvertently resulted in producing marginal retail spaces in problematic locations...." as well as  an overcapacity of retail space.  The report provides that "[s]uccessful retail cannot be located just anywhere and everywhere. Retail needs sufficient concentrations and massing to build and benefit from synergies and to attract a solid customer base. Spreading retail away from these concentrated nodes dilutes its ability to work cohesively." 

These are a pretty dramatic conclusions, given that virtually all ground floor space of virtually every project, for the past decade or so, has been absolutely required to be retail space.  Clearly, empty retail space that cannot be filled fails to provide any of its intended benefits, and requiring "retail everywhere" may very well have had the opposite of its intended effects.  Empty retail space is not good planning, and is hardly engaging to the pedestrian.  Clearly, nobody wins when space sits empty.

So what does the report suggest as solutions?  Here are the recommendations in a nutshell: (i) focus retail uses in planned retail nodes that provide the convergence of transit/accessibility options (including both walk-ability, transit, and yes, convenient parking), retail density, and retail business mix necessary for sustainable retail success (ii)  broaden the definition of "retail" in the Zoning Ordinance to allow not only classical retail uses, but also other uses that would achieve and/or compliment the same intended planning and economic results, such as studio and service uses, etc., (iii) allow additional flexibility for signage necessary to allow retail businesses to succeed, and (iv) allow more flexibility in first floor building design during the County's special exception processes so that tenant space is more readily and efficiently adaptable to attract prospective tenants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link