Purpose/Principles:
Treat all sites equally, eliminating the advantages of downsloping lots as well as the disadvantages of upward sloping lots.

Guidance from Board:

• No interest in reducing building height to 30 feet
• No interest in changing calculation of building height from present method of roof style
• Measure from within the lot
• Support general principle that house should be built on the existing grade rather than regrading of the site

Discussion/Issues:
35 feet is uniform standard measurement for area jurisdictions. However, where the measurement is taken differs greatly. [See Appendix I]. One of the main issues, that of existing grade, is handled differently depending on where measurements are taken.

Recommendations:
1. Keep the maximum allowed height of 35 feet

• STAFF Comments: Staff supports this recommendation to retain the current maximum height limit of 35 feet for one-family residential buildings. The thirty-five-foot building height limit is commonly used throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area

2. Change the method of measurement:

OPTION 2A. Measure from the perimeter of the site using language similar to that found within RA districts. [See Appendix II]

• STAFF Comments: Staff supports this option for discussion purposes. This is the third option by staff preference. Staff prefers these three options in the order of Option B, Option C, and Option A. The perimeter of the site is a more permanent part of the site, and alteration of grade within the site will not affect this method of measurement. This option, however, has significant drawbacks. Building height under this option does not reflect the "true" height of building. In addition, the method proposed under this option creates a rather substantial change from the current method. This proposal will require homeowners to hire surveyors to prepare plans for permit applications. For applicants building new houses, this method would not be a significant burden. However, for the applicants for small additions, this requirement will create significant economic burden. Furthermore, zoning office staff will need to be trained to review applications under this method, and walk-through permit reviews would be eliminated. The additional staff time needed to review the applications filed under this method may result in higher permit application fees or the need for additional staff members.

OPTION 2B. Measure from the perimeter of the main building at existing or approved grade.

• STAFF Comments: Staff supports this option. This method will use the "true" height of buildings, and take into account the building height change of a house built on a slope. This method would be easier to use than the method in Option A, and would work better for building additions. There is one drawback with this method. Property owners building a new house could alter the grade within the site, thus possibly building a house sitting on a "mound" at a higher elevation than the original elevation on the site.

OPTION 2C. Measure from the front setback line at the side lot lines.

• STAFF Comments: Staff supports this option for discussion purposes. This is a simplified version of Option A, and has similar drawbacks as Option A. In addition, this Option will not resolve the issues associated with the wall height change of a house built on a sloping-down site, exposing a tall building wall at the bottom of the slope.

NOTE: For additions to existing houses, it is assumed that the same (new) method of measurement would be used.

Additions should be using the same method as for totally new construction. (Variance can always be requested for hardship cases.)

Purpose:
Provide open space, both in front yards (as seen from street) and back yards (as seen from neighboring homes); to help ensure privacy; to prevent overcrowding

Principles:

• Preserve the existing tree canopy
• Don't pave over front yard for parking
• Make calculations easy for staff issuing permits
• New homes in neighborhood should "fit" in (no "monster" houses)

Guidance from Board:

• Support to reduce overall maximum coverage
• Would like to see effects of separating building coverage from other types of coverage
• Sliding scale for different R districts is "interesting" concept
• Want to know how would reduced coverage affect properties
• No interest in requiring percentage of open space on a lot
• Must not interfere with the ability of Arlington builders to compete in the marketplace

Discussion/Issues:

• What is the right level of coverage
• What is the footprint of
•                -- A "contemporary"house
•                -- A "monster" house
• How would additions be impacted?
• How many houses/what types wouldn't be in compliance?

Footprints of existing and new houses range from 700 sq. ft. to 3000 sq. ft. Average footprints have been going up each decade:

• Prior to 1960=1469;

• 1960- 69=1694;

• 1970-79=2061;

• 1980-89=2247;

• since 1990=2614

• How do garages (both stand-alone as well as attached) impact coverage
• Should coverage allowances be made for stand-alone garages built behind the main structure?
• How do we define "open space"?
• What should be included in coverage?

•     patios
•     sidewalks
•     other walkways
•     decks on the ground
•     decks off the ground

• What is included in coverage?
•     -- all buildings and all areas for parking, driveways, maneuvering and loading space.

• What would be the implications of using the term "impervious"?
• What exactly does it include?
• Would creating a standard for pervious and impervious solve a problem or would it actually just create different categories for staff to deal with

Perception of what is the acceptable building envelope differs between developer and neighbor (what is monster house to one is just the market to another)
 

Recommendations:
1. Revise description of coverage [see Appendix III] and add definition for coverage.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this option. Currently, there is no definition of lot coverage in Section 1. Definition of the Zoning Ordinance. Subsection 32. C. Coverage has a description of coverage, but it is outdated and needs to be revised. Thus, adding lot coverage into the definition section with clear definition would improve the Zoning Ordinance, and would make it easier to read and understand the Zoning Ordinance.

2. Total coverage should continue to include building footprint, parking areas and driveways. To the extent possible, patios and interior walkways should not be counted.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

3. Reduce the overall coverage allowed, preferably on a sliding scale, possibly dividing out coverage for a separate maximum for the buildings.

R-5 5000 SF
R-6 6000 SF
R-8 8000 SF
R-10 10,000 SF
R-20 20,000 SF

OPTION A
Total
50% (2500 SF)
50% (3000 SF)
50% (4000 SF)
45% (4500 SF)
35% (7000 SF)

Buildings
32% (1600 SF)
35% (2100 SF)
40% (3200 SF)
35% (3500 SF)
25% (5000 SF)

OPTION B
Total
40% (2000 SF)
40% (2400 SF)
35% (2800 SF)
35% (3500 SF)
25% (5000 SF)

OPTION C
Total
45% (2250 SF)
Same (2700 SF)
Same (3600 SF)
Same (4500 SF)
Same (9000 SF)

Building
40% (2000 SF)
Same (2400 SF)
Same (3200 SF)
Same (4000 SF)
Same (8000 SF)

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this option for discussion purposes. This recommendation will result in lot coverages that are more consistent with coverages of existing properties. One drawback of this method is that this is a relatively more complex method than the current method that uses one coverage standard of 56 percent for all five zoning districts. Concerning establishing a separate coverage ratio for a building, staff also supports this option for discussion purposes. The bulk of buildings can be controlled to a certain degree under this method. Drawbacks of this method are as follows. This is a relatively more complex process than the current method of one lot coverage for a total of buildings and other improvements regulated by coverage, and would increase the workload of the Zoning Office staff. This method would be less flexible than the current method.

4. Create language that prevents front yards from becoming paved over. Such language would consist of setting a maximum percentage of coverage allowed within the front yard.

OPTION 4A. On a sliding scale, set a maximum coverage for driveways (30% in R5/6, for example) and a maximum for semicircular driveways (50%).

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept, but this option needs further study.

OPTION 4B. Set a separate percentage of coverage in the front yard (still within the overall total coverage). One suggestion would be to mirror overall coverage on the site.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept..

Purpose/Principles:

• Truth in lot width, simplicity
• Needs to be easy to compute
• Lots need to actually meet the minimum width requirement

Guidance from Board:

• Pursue simple formula of dividing the lot area by the lot depth
• Explore single point measurement/no average lot width calculation

Discussion/Issues:

• Would like to get rid of the diagonal rear lot line

• Eliminate opportunity for hour glass shaped lot

Recommendations:

1. Eliminate minimum average lot width altogether, including "odd shaped lot" (See Appendix VI for existing definitions)

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

2. Use simple formula of WIDTH= LOT AREA DIVIDED BY DEPTH

NOTE: The existing ordinance contains language regarding oversize lots. In order to retain pipestem lots, staff has suggested the existing language regarding lot width calculations for oversize lots would need to be retained (or some similar language would need to be developed.)

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation, provided that the existing language in the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot width calculation for oversized lots is retained. The existing language in the Zoning Ordinance states that:

"... Where an odd-shaped lot exceeds the required area for its particular district, the width of such lot may be computed within the boundary of that portion of the lot, which meets the minimum area requirements. In this case, the front and rear boundary lines substituted for the front and rear lot lines must be parallel to the front and rear lot lines, respectively."

3. Include a requirement that the lot width requirement for that zoning district must be met at the midpoint of the lot depth.

This would ensure that the lot width requirement of the ordinance is actually met.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation. Purpose/Principles: Create method of keeping backyard privacy for neighbors as well as develop methods which would enable pipestems to fit in better in neighborhood in terms of site layout.

Guidance from Board:

• Do not consider ideas which prohibit pipestems
• Encourage building in the stem
• Explore special exception (use permit) for pipestem development
• Explore sliding scale of minimum frontage
• Explore increased setbacks
• Explore restricting width of driveway
• Explore requirement of landscaping for screening in conjunction with width and use of driveway
• Encourage shared driveways

Recommendations:
The Committee has formulated ten recommendations, designed to be used together, all of which center around creation of a new section of the Zoning Ordinance for pipestem lots. The recommendations listed below are designed to be used together in this proposed new code.

1. Create a new, separate section of the Zoning Code governing the regulation of pipestem lots in single family residential (R) districts.

The creation of such a section to detail all requirements for the creation of and building on pipestem lots would be a practical improvement for all parties.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation. To address issues that are peculiar to pipestem lots, pertinent requirements for pipestem lots can be added to the Zoning Ordinance.

2. In the preamble to this section, it should be noted that a pipestem is designed to provide an optional form of development.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

3. Minimum Frontage:

OPTION 3A. The current standard requirement of 40 feet access for a pipestem property should be maintained.

Over the years this standard has changed several times, going from 10 ft. in 1938 to 20 ft. in 1971 to the current 40 ft. in 1979. In order to encourage building in the stem, we believe no less than 40 ft. would be needed. In addition, keeping the frontage as it now exists might promote shared driveways.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

OPTION 3B. Sliding scale of frontage

The sliding scale would follow the pattern already established by the 40ft. width, which is 80% of the frontage requirement in the smallest zoning district (R-5). By continuing with an 80% frontage requirement for all zoning districts, pipestem frontages would not be as "out of scale" as they now appear to be in larger zoning districts. In addition, houses built in the stem would be more in scale with surrounding homes in the same zoning district.

Zoning District Minimum Frontage Proposed Pipestem Lot Frontage (80%)
R-5                     50 ft.                             40 ft.
R-6                     60 ft.                             48 ft
R-8                     70 ft.                             56 ft.
R-10                   80 ft.                             64 ft.
R-20                 100 ft.                             80 ft.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this recommendation. This recommendation is not consistent with one of the County Board's principles, which states that pipestem lots should not be prohibited. Lots that could meet this minimum frontage requirement will need to contain a sizable site area. Further more, this option will encourage cul-de-sac development. This Option will require 80-foot street frontage for pipestem lots in the R-20 District, and 64-foot street frontage for pipestem lots in the R-10 District, when the minimum street width dedication allowed for cul-de-sac is 40 feet

4. Minimum Lot Size: Keep current system of calculation.

Although it had formerly been suggested that the area in the stem of a pipestem lot be excluded from the calculation of minimum lot size, that option is no longer being recommended. Such an exclusion would preclude the building of houses in a stem, something that can be desirable, especially in smaller single family zones (R-5 and R-6), particularly in order for such new construction to fit in with existing setbacks of other houses on a given block.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

5. Restrict the driveway maximum to 12 feet in width in the stem portion of a lot.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff generally supports this recommendation, but is not sure that this should be included in the Zoning Ordinance. On properties with long stems, however, narrower driveways would be the rule by the developer's own choice because of the proposed change to reduce lot coverage ratio.

6. Driveways that are shared between two pipestem lots should be a maximum of 15 feet in width and driveways shared between 3 or more lots would have a maximum of 20 ft.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept. However, further study would be needed to ensure maneuverability in and out of garage before finalizing these numbers.

7. Setbacks for main building built in the "backyard":

We propose that the setbacks used for determining the buildable area of a pipestem lot be changed. These changes respond to several issues raised by citizens concerning pipestems in general, including: houses built too close to neighboring houses, including the home in front of a pipestem lot and houses not conforming to prevailing neighborhood front setbacks.

Currently, what is the rear lot line of the existing house becomes a side yard line for a pipestem lot when the land is subdivided. Since it is treated as a side lot line, a new home in the rear lot could be as close as 8 feet to rear lot line of the existing home. Such small side yards lead to homes that are too close to older homes and make the new houses appear to loom over the older home.

OPTION 7A. An aggregate 40 foot setback at the side lot lines with a minimum of 15 feet on either side; a 25 ft. rear yard setback; and a 10 ft. setback from the side property line segment which serves as the rear lot line of any abutting lot.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept to require a separate set of placement requirement for pipestem lots. However, the proposed dimension standards need to be reviewed further before finalizing the requirements.

OPTION 7B. 20 foot setback from both side lot lines and a 25 foot setback from any segment of a side lot line serving as the rear lot line of an abutting lot

This option may make building in the rear of a lot difficult in R5 and R6 districts (or render 10 feet wide homes) but such setbacks are doable in the larger zoning districts.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this recommendation. Under the current placement requirements for the R-5 and R-6 Districts in the Zoning Ordinance, a main building can be placed with a minimum distance of 8 feet from the property line along the rear lot line of a neighboring property, when the rear yard of one property and side yard of another property are placed side by side. Accordingly, staff believes that this requirement does not treat the similar situations equally, and may be difficult to justify. In addition, this requirement would make pipestem lot development in the R-5 and R-6 Districts very difficult. This requirement would, more often than not, result in the removal of an existing house remaining in the front lot to provide enough buildable area for a house built in the main portion of the pipestem lot. Consequently, this requirement may result in changing the character of the neighborhood by replacing the existing house with a new house, which is typically larger than the old house.

OPTION 7C. Dimensions of the distance between the property lines and the main building in a pipestem lot would be set by a sliding scale in each of the five single family zoning districts.

• STAFF COMMENTS: This option may eliminate one of the issues identified in Option B, depending on the placement dimensions used, and could be more equitable than Option B. One drawback will be that this option is more complex than Options A and B, and will be difficult to administer.

8. Setback requirements for main buildings when built in the stem: such setbacks would follow the usual setback regulations for the single family zoning district in which the pipestem lot exists.

In smaller districts this would make building in the stem a much more attractive option, thus preserving backyard space in a smaller zoning district, and conforming to the regular street setbacks in the neighborhood.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation.

9. Landscaping:

Landscaping has been long utilized as a buffer between commercial and residential properties. Requiring such buffering in pipestem lots would not only help to shield the new development but it would assist the surrounding neighbors in retaining at least a portion of the tree canopy they would otherwise lose.

OPTION 9A. Require landscaping or fencing around property lines.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this recommendation. Landscaping requirements should be developed comprehensively for all residential lots in the future. Adding mandatory fencing installation requirement into the Zoning Ordinance may be difficult to justify, particularly if it is limited to pipestem lots. Also fencing the narrow pipestem lot could create unattractive narrow fenced area.

OPTION 9B: Require tree canopy replacement for trees lost from lot due to pipestem development.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has some reservations about this recommendation. Tree canopy requirements should be developed comprehensively for all residential lots in the future.

OPTION 9C: Require landscaping or fencing only under the special exception option.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept. However, staff does not recommend including this requirement into the Zoning Ordinance. This requirement would be more appropriate when it is included in the use permit conditions.

10. Allow a special exception when a project does not meet these specifications. This would create a method of providing relief for a builder and would allow for greater community participation in the development of such a project.

It is recommended that, rather than pipestem variances going to the BZA, a special exception option would be written into the new zoning category. This option would allow the developer to vary from the standards in the ordinance and would allow a public review of any proposed pipestem development which could not meet the standards.

OPTION 10A. Create a use permit option.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation, assuming that a clear by-right option for pipestem lots are retained in the Zoning Ordinance.

OPTION 10B. Make required changes to Unified Residential Development to allow a two lot site to use this provision.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation as a concept. Applying Unified Residential Development provision to two-lot subdivisions may be appropriate, depending on how many modifications should be allowed for these two-lot subdivisions.

Several issues were discussed with the Board last fall which were outside the scope of priority issues the Board had previously identified. After more discussion, the committee has decided they are outside the scope of ZORC and the following recommendations are given to the Board.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD:
1. Tree Canopy and Coverage
Direct appropriate staff to work with relevant County departments as well as interested committees and commissions and the public toward future tree canopy, preservation and/or tree replacement ordinance(s).

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation. However, this should be in the next phase of Zoning Ordinance amendments, and should not be included in this residential infill development study.

2. Neighborhood Character
A. Request NCAC to work on the creation of a design manual which would include, at a minimum, landscaping and design plans. (This could be done in several ways, one section of which could be the development of a set of computerized house plans to distribute to Arlington builders which could be annotated to indicate in which neighborhoods these house designs would blend.) While such plans would not be mandated, it is hoped that, through this tool, builders might become more sensitive to neighborhood design issues.

B. In order to assist in community building and public education, we suggest an ongoing segment be created for our Cable TV channel showing examples of building design and additions.

• STAFF COMMENTS: Staff supports this recommendation with the understanding that this would not be included in the Zoning Ordinance. These are outside of the scope for zoning ordinance review for one-family residential development. A non -regulatory approach outside of the Zoning Ordinance would be more appropriate and effective to encourage the type of development that community desires.

3. Land Trusts
Several groups and commissions have expressed interest in setting up such an initiative within Arlington. Helping to establish such a committee and provide staff assistance would go a great way in getting such a private initiative off the ground. The Arlington Community Foundation could be approached to help seed this initiative.

• STAFF COMMENTS: These are outside of the scope for Zoning Ordinance review for one-family residential development.

4. Private Covenants and Easements
There are several examples of such initiatives which have already been undertaken in Arlington. It would require such elements as: publicizing the possibility of such initiatives to civic associations and neighbors, the creation of a template for use by individuals, building a list of attorneys willing to volunteer their time to assist in the creation and recording of such documents. We recommend turning such a project over to either NCAC or the Land Trust initiative described above.

• COMMENTS: These are outside of the scope for Zoning Ordinance review for one-family residential development.

Recommendation to the Planning Commission
ZORC recommends setting up an ongoing IN-FILL subcommittee to explore changes to the Zoning Ordinance regarding other infill related issues. The subcommittee will meet monthly, using the expertise of ZORC's existing staff persons. The committee will liaison with ZORC as needed. The ZORC Vice-Chair will chair this subcommittee. Recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance would go through the normal channels (community feedback, ZORC review, Planning Commission and County Board). While we would always have the option of going to the Board for guidance, at this time, we do not anticipate the need for future work sessions with the board on in-fill issues.

NEXT ROUND OF ISSUES (Initial list):

• Setbacks
• Substandard lots
• Height of Accessory Buildings