Rosslyn, connected to the District of Columbia by the Key Bridge, is considered by many as Arlington County’s “downtown” of the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor. It includes a significant amount of office space, a number of corporate and government tenants, and is the location of the new Artisphere. There has been recent development activity in Rosslyn with the approval of JBG’s Central Place and Monday Properties 1812 N. Moore Street developments. Both of these developments, as well as general growth in the County, have brought to light questions about the future of Rosslyn in terms of built-form, urban design, the skyline, open space, as well as other elements. In response and because development in Rosslyn is guided by the 1977 Rosslyn Transit Station Area Study and the 1992 Rosslyn Station Area Plan Addendum, Arlington County has initiated an effort to update the 1992 Rosslyn Station Area Plan Addendum. On June 14, 2011, the County Board approved a 2012 Rosslyn Sector Plan Addendum Scope of Work, which will build on the 1992 Rosslyn Station Area Plan Addendum. The new Rosslyn planning effort will focus on creating a framework to improve urban design quality, refining and improving transportation options, recommending a building heights strategy, and developing a more cohesive and functional parks and open space network. Currently, this planning effort is in the beginning stages, which includes initial engagement of the community and stakeholders, as well as the engagement of a consultant to aid Arlington County in its efforts to update the 1992 Rosslyn Station Area Plan Addendum. Arlington County hopes to complete the update by the Fall of 2012.
The Land Lawyers Blog
Updates to Arlington County Sign Ordinance
Since early 2011, County planning staff has been conducting public outreach and working with consultants to draft a Sign Ordinance that can be administratively regulated by codifying current County Board practices. The proposed ordinance may significantly impact the approval of future signage, most notably in the areas of roof-top signage, lighting and electronic communication.
In December 2010, the County Board approved a work plan for updating the Zoning Ordinance. The first phase of the work plan called for a comprehensive revision to the Sign Ordinance (Section 34 of the Zoning Ordinance). Since early 2011, County planning staff has been conducting public outreach and working with consultants with the intent of drafting a Sign Ordinance that can be administratively regulated by codifying current County Board practices. The revised Sign Ordinance is currently slated to be before the County Board at their July 2012 meeting.
In contrast to the present Special Exception process, staff has endeavored to create regulations to allow all sign related applications to be entirely administratively reviewed and approved, without the need for Board review and action. As currently drafted, the revised Ordinance would limit Special Exception requests to only the following modifications: reallocation of sign area among sign types, placement standards and hours of illumination. In addition to the approval process, other significant changes include: new methodology for the measurement of rooftop and wall signage, restrictions on lighting standards and proposed limitations on signs facing residential zoning districts.
Despite the stated objective to codify current approval practice, the proposed Sign Ordinance has significant implications on the approval of future signage, most notably in the areas of rooftop signage, lighting, and electronic communication.
Acting on then Chairman Zimmerman’s small business initiative, the County Board approved minor changes to the Sign Ordinance in December 2011 to allow flexibility for temporary sidewalk and umbrella signage. The December 2011 revisions were intended to be temporary revisions, as the proposed Sign Ordinance will be presented to the County Board in July 2012 with a staff recommendation to approve. In conjunction with their recommendation, staff will propose several alternatives for certain sign types, from which the County Board will choose which to approve. For example, in the most recent draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance, staff has suggested four alternatives regarding the standards for lighted signs. These four alternatives for further restricting lighted signs are as follows:
[OPTION A: no additional restrictions]
Under no circumstances shall a sign placed above a height of 40 feet and directly facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway or Arlington Cemetery be lighted between midnight and 8 am.
[OPTION B: reduced hours of illumination]
Under no circumstances shall a sign placed above a height of 40 feet and directly facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway or Arlington Cemetery be lighted between 10 pm and 8 am.
[OPTION C: no lighted signs]
Under no circumstances shall a sign placed above a height of 40 feet and directly facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway or Arlington Cemetery be lighted.
[OPTION D: no signs above 40 feet]
Under no circumstances shall a sign be placed above a height of 40 feet and directly facing the monumental core, George Washington Parkway or Arlington Cemetery.
Similar alternatives may be presented for illumination levels and commercial signage adjacent to residential zoning districts.
Throughout the drafting and review process, staff has received a number of comments regarding the proposed Sign Ordinance. The most significant comments have addressed the entirely administrative process, rooftop signage and illumination. On the topic of administrative approval, most agree that administrative approval of signage would provide a more streamlined and certain process for applicants, but also remove the flexibility to encourage new sign proposals. With a narrow opportunity for modifications, both the public and industry have opined that meaningful review of worthy proposals will be stymied. During a joint Planning Commission and County Board work session on the proposed Sign Ordinance, several Board members expressed their desire to allow a small percentage of sign requests to still come before the Board. However, it remains to be seen whether the proposed Sign Ordinance, as currently drafted, will fulfill the Board’s desire.
CLICK HERE to read the most recent draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance.
CLICK HERE to read the current Sign Ordinance.
Arlington Funeral Home Site Plan Approval
Nan Walsh, with assistance from Elizabeth McKeeby, led Crimson Partners though the approval process for a major site plan amendment for 3901 Fairfax Drive, notorious as the Arlington Funeral site. After two previous site plan approvals in 2004 and 2007 for residential development, also represented by Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC, the 2012 approval secures zoning entitlement for a mixed-use project that includes a LEED Gold Certified, class ‘A’ office building, community black-box theater and a public plaza. Development of this relatively small site was made challenging by detailed guidance in the Virginia Square Sector Plan. The Plan included recommendations to remove the funeral home use from this site, provide a community black-box theatre, a public plaza with a minimum size of 12,000 SF, provide a special treatment of adjacent 10th Street and numerous other design constraints, all while serving as a signature gateway building into the Virginia Square neighborhood.
The review process included three SPRC meetings (7.5 long hours of review!) as well as an extensive amount of outreach to and coordination with the neighboring residents, County Staff and Planning Commission members, the larger Arlington Arts community and County Economic Development office. Main discussion points at the Planning Commission and County Board hearings was relative to the black-box theatre, design of the plaza and policy relative to parking reductions. The County Board finally approved the project on January 21, 2012. Following the Board’s motion of approval, Board Member Jay Fissette commented that “this was a winner of a project and it will really enhance the community around it.” Post-approval, the site will undergo an intense, two-day community design workshop to refine the design for the plaza and 10th Street.
Town of Leesburg Application Fee Increases
On November 30, 2010, the Leesburg Town Council voted to approve Ordinance No. 2010-O-025 to revise the Review and Inspection Fee Schedule referenced in the Subdivision and Land Development regulations and the Zoning Ordinance.
Community Development Authorities Article Published by University of Richmond Law Review
The article, appearing in the most recent edition of the University of Richmond Law Review, was written by Andrew A. Painter, an associate at Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich, and Walsh, P.C., and explores Community Development Authorities (“CDAs”), including an overview of their history, legal structure, process, and use across the Commonwealth. Virginia’s local governments are increasingly exploring alternative financing methods as a part of their overall financial and public services strategy.
First authorized in Virginia by the General Assembly in 1993, Community Development Authorities (“CDA”) exist as special taxing districts created by local governments that may be used to finance a broad range of infrastructure, including transportation improvements, public water/sanitary sewer lines, storm water management, parking, landscaping, and more. Where properly used, CDAs not only provide a way to shift certain capital infrastructure costs to the private sector, but also deliver key infrastructure projects faster than traditional methods and ultimately free up needed local revenue and debt capacity to pay for other critical services and projects. Establishing a new bond-issuing authority through a CDA only comes as the result of deliberative negotiations between private individuals and local government.
Significant Changes Proposed For PWC Environment Chapter
Pete Dolan
pdolan@pw.thelandlawyers.com
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) is scheduled to review changes that would overhaul the Environment Chapter of the County’s Comprehensive Plan at a public hearing on December 7, 2010. The BOCS will have two versions of the draft Chapter to consider: one prepared by County Planning staff and a second recommended by the Planning Commission.
The development industry has expressed concerns with many of the proposed changes and many have urged the BOCS to defer the update and associated environmental policy decisions until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) render their final policies for the control of storm water runoff (via new total maximum daily load mandates) and the protection of streams and waterways within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Another concern being raised is the regulation of features that exceed state and federal regulatory regimes. Examples include the proposed protection of “Significant Non-RPA Streams” (i.e., streams that are not perennial and thus, not regulated under State Chesapeake Bay methodology) and “Unique Habitats of Special Concern.” The County would also require the identification of jurisdictional wetlands regulated by the Corps of Engineers and DEQ and would emphasize preservation of jurisdictional wetlands over disturbance and mitigation. The proposed text also adds minimum submission requirements for analysis, reports and maps with rezoning and special use permit requests.
State law envisions the Comprehensive Plan as a document “general in nature” that sets forth the goals for the physical development of the County. While some of the proposed text is goal-oriented, much is quite specific and calls for sweeping changes to the Zoning Ordinance and DCSM. Examples include: a) regulation of shrink/swell and marine clay soils; b) protection of “Significant Non-RPA Streams” via buffers and setbacks; c) adoption of a new Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Overlay District (setbacks and additional use restrictions); and d) adoption of a tree preservation ordinance.
DCSM Revisions – New Landscaping Requirements
Pete Dolan
pdolan@pw.thelandlawyers.com
The Prince William County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 2010 and voted to recommend to the BOCS approval of changes to the DCSM landscaping requirements as prepared by County staff. The changes would increase the amount of plantings required in buffers and landscape strips without increasing required widths. One change would permit utility easements in landscape strips in certain circumstances (e.g., within a conduit), a change many industry representatives are supporting. For more information see:
http://www.pwcgov.org/planning/documents/pln2011-00093.pdf
(Staff report and proposed changes)
http://www.pwcgov.org/doclibrary/pdf/11861.pdf
(Staff presentation has been removed from Prince William site)
http://www.pwcgov.org/doclibrary/pdf/13055.pdf
(Comparison photographs have been removed from Prince William site).
The BOCS will consider the DCSM landscaping changes at a public hearing on December 7, 2010.
Revisions to the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan
Stafford County is currently undertaking a major Comprehensive Plan update, which includes the designation of eight Urban Development Areas (UDAs) and four redevelopment areas. The next Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2010 and the Board of Supervisors hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2010.
The anticipated designation of UDAs is expected to provide for the construction of approximately 14,661 new residential units, equivalent to 10 years of projected growth. To view additional information and the latest draft of the Comprehensive Plan update, see: http://www.co.stafford.va.us/Departments/Planning_&_Zoning/ and follow links to the draft Comprehensive Plan.
Development authorities need a look in recession
No one knows how the commonwealth’s dire $4.5 billion budget shortfall dilemma will be resolved, but it is likely that the General Assembly will again shift a significant portion of the state’s budgetary woes to local governments, effectively forcing them to raise local taxes to pay for education, public safety and social services. This year’s budget crisis is emblematic of the constant dilemma whereby the needs of citizens far exceed the ability of their local governing bodies to finance and pay for these needs.
In an era of unpredictable revenue cycles, localities have explored alternative financing arrangements to cope with anticipated revenue shortfalls and growing infrastructure demands. Fortunately, Virginia permits local governments to utilize a myriad of public-private partnership tools to finance local government services, including community development authorities.
Locally, CDAs have previously been discussed in the context of transportation infrastructure improvements associated with development on U.S. 29 North, including Hollymead Town Center, Albemarle Place and North Pointe. Given tough economic times, Charlottesville-area governments should again give serious consideration to the use of CDAs to help alleviate their budget difficulties and assist with major transportation projects and revitalization initiatives.
CDAs, first authorized by the General Assembly in 1993, exist as special taxing districts created by local governments to independently issue tax-exempt bonds. These bonds finance public infrastructure improvements associated with new development. In recent years, the use of CDAs has proliferated across the commonwealth and, to date, nearly 30 CDAs have been authorized by local governments. CDA bonds have helped to finance a broad range of infrastructure, including transportation improvements, public water/sanitary sewer lines, storm water management, parking, landscaping and more.
CDA bonds are typically repaid over a 20- or 30-year term solely from revenue generated from properties within the district, including special property taxes, special assessments and/or incremental tax revenues. The value of CDA properties is presumably enhanced by new development and infrastructure improvements. Where properly used, CDAs not only provide a way to shift certain capital infrastructure costs to the private sector, but also may ultimately free up needed local revenue and debt capacity to pay for other critical services and personnel.
While some localities may be receptive to the idea of creating a CDA, others may be skeptical. Certainly, the real estate industry is vulnerable to cyclical downturns, and CDAs are not the answer in all instances. Local governments may be concerned about financial forecasts, citizen opposition, a developer’s capitalization or the project’s consistency with the jurisdiction’s land use plans.
For most jurisdictions, concerns about the potential for default on bond payments are paramount, and, even where the risk of default is low, many localities remain concerned about how authorizing CDA debt will be perceived by credit rating agencies and how it may indirectly impact their debt capacity. These concerns, while valid, can best be addressed jointly by the governing body and developer through proper financial due diligence, the crafting of well-written authorization agreements, proper notice to bond holders, governmental control and prudent fiscal policies.
The establishment of a new bond-issuing authority through a successful CDA only comes as the result of careful, deliberative negotiations between private individuals and local government. In such a rapidly evolving area of the law, forging a mutually beneficial partnership between the developer and the locality, developing a transparent process with citizens and crafting tight ordinances and agreements are critical. Moreover, it is imperative to have an experienced, well-capitalized developer with a strong project in a strategic location that guarantees a reasonable return on investment and an acceptable level of assurance to the participating jurisdiction.
Regardless of the outcome of the commonwealth’s 2010 budgetary mess, local governments in the Charlottesville area would be wise to explore innovative financing alternatives as a part of their overall financial and public services strategy. Existing CDAs across the commonwealth have shown that they can provide faster delivery of key capital projects than traditional financing arrangements and can have a positive impact on a jurisdiction’s taxable real estate values. Wise leadership, strategic partnerships and strong projects that deliver public services and new economic development would be an asset in any budget year.
