Loading...
Apartment Ordinance CITY OF FAIRFAX City Hall Fairfax, Virginia May 31 , 1962 APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF FAIRFAX An Invitation to All Residents of the City You will find attached to this letter a copy of a report entitled "An Analysis of Apartment Development Within the City of Fairfax." This report and its accompanying recommended changes in the Zoning Ordinance were approved by the City Planning Commission on May 31 , 1962. The attached report is the result of a study undertaken by the City Planning Commission early this year, well in advance of the sudden increase in apartment applications that we have witnessed in recent weeks. We are sure that you are aware of this sudden increase in apartment activity. Your Planning Commission is also concerned as to precisely what this increased rate of apartment development means in terms of the overall growth of our City. Our report clearly indicates the steps we feel should be taken to achieve a proper balance between apartment construction and other residential development. We also propose specific steps to prevent "creeping apartment-ism" in already developed residential sub-divisions latter being the most often discussed topic in our City in recent days. We are now advertising the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that we feel are necessary. A public hearing on these amendments will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on Thursday, June 14, 1962 beginning at 8:00 P.M. We feel that our recommendations are con- sistent with the views of the vast majority of the residents of the City. Nonethe- less, we want you to study our report and we want you to express your views at the June 14th hearing. We would like to hear either your endorsement of these recommended changes or a constructive alternative. We urge you to attend the Public Hearing on June 14th at 8:00 P.M. Sincerely yours, JAMES R. F. 'WOODS Chairman, City Planning Commission J RFW/dm l AN ANALYSIS OF APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA A REPORT BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Approved May 31 , 1962 JAMES R. F. WOODS Chairman BA C u;f ik t:ND On December 7, 1960 the Council of the City (then Town) of Fairfax adopted a new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. This Ordinance was drafted after an exhaustive study by a special Citizen' s Commission on Zoning appointed by the Council . Thereafter, both the Planning Commission and the Council held several public meetings at which large numbers of residents presented their views. Actually, the entire process from initiation of the study by the Citizen' s Com- mission until adoption by the Council consumed some 18 months. Early in 1962, the Planning Commission, as a part of its program of regularly reviewing all matters pertinent to the development of the City, began a study of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of determining whether the Ordinance, after 15 months of being in effect, had in fact achieved its intended purpose. A committee of the Planning Commission consisting of Chairman James R. F. Woods and Members Gordon Lombard and Gilbert DeBlois undertook this task. Mr. William M. Zollman, Jr. , the City Manager and a member of the Planning Commission, also worked with the Committee during its study and in the development of recommendations . The Committee had hardly begun its study when 6 applications for special use permits for the erection of apartment houses were filed with the City Board of Zoning Appeals. These 6 applications totalled 633 apartment living units to be constructed on approximately 39.43 acres . These 6 applications amounted to 3 times the number of apartment units then existing within the City and, if approved, would almost double the number of apartment units already constructed or approved for construction. This sudden "rash" of apartment applications met with immediate and positive public opposition. No community can face so sudden and dramatic a change of the character that these applications threatened without voicing their fears--and properly so. At this writing, 2 of these applications totalling 265 apartment units have been approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, 2 applications totalling 136 units have been disapproved, and 2 applications totalling 232 units are awaiting a public hearing. In April 1962, while this study was in progress, Councilman Edgar A. Prichard asked the City Council to pass an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would create a new R-4 zone exclusively for apartment development. The effect of the proposed amendment was to merely withdraw from the Board of Zoning Appeals the authority to approve apartment use permits and vest that same authority in the City Council . The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council take no precipitous action on the Prichard proposal or any other "quick fix" of the Zoning Ordinance pending completion of this study by the Planning Commission. It was the position of the Planning Commission, then, even as now, that the fears of the citizenry would not be allayed, nor their wishes properly protected by merely transferring the decision-making-process from one body (the Board of Zoning Appeals) to another body (the Council) . On May 16, 1962 the Council acknowledged the merit of the Planning Commission recommendation and direct- ed that the Commission: 1 . Complete its overall study of the Zoning Ordinance and report its recommendations to the Council within 60 days. 2. Complete its study of the apartment provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and report its recommendations to the Council within 30 days. The purpose of this report, then, is to respond to the Council 's direction last stated above. Page 2 EARLY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Ih THE CITY Up until the mid-1950' s the Town of Fairfax was indeed largely un- developed and--as it has often been described in public meetings of late--"a quiet village, steeped in history, with an abundance of open space, green grass and fresh air." Then the metropolitan city and the population expansion reached out and possessed the Town of Fairfax. Sub-divisions sprung up overnite. What was once open fields became Country Club Hills, Greenway Hills, Fairmont, Green Acres , Layton Hall , Lord Fairfax Estates, Westmore, Fairchester, and still more to come. Fairfax was no longer a quiet village--it was in fact suburbia in boom! Initially, there appeared to be no interest or market for apartments within the City. Indeed, the old Town Ordinance did not even contemplate apartments; however, as the Town developed the market for apartments also developed, principally to accommodate the influx of younger single people and married families with few offsprings who were employed by the ever expanding County government, its schools and the developing commercial enterprises of the Town. When the apartment market appeared so did the apartment investors and developers. Let us examine these early apartment developments : TABLE 1 Name Year Acres Eff. 1 B.R. 2 B.R. 3 B.R. Total Units Hunt 1953 .6 0 8 4 12 Higgenbotham 1957 4.0 0 17 17 0 34 Fairfax Gardens 1953 2. 1 0 16 22 0 38 Meridith Park 1;58 2.9 0 24 30 6 60 Layton Hall -, 1959 7.8 0 24 72 14 110 Totals 17.4 0 89 145 20 254 .. Originally approved for only 80 units. Later increased to 110 units by Court Order. The Hunt Apartments, while conveniently located to a major thoroughfare (Rte. 236 and Kamp Washington) and contiguous to commercial development (Williams- burg Shopping Center) , are typical of the type we condemn later in this report, i .e. , density too high, small lot size, inadequate parking and no green space; however, let us remember that at that time (1953) there was no demand for apart- ments and, indeed, the Hunt development is more duplex than it is apartment. The Higgenbotham -,partments have direct access to Route 236, face a major thoroughfare, are located between the City cemetery and commercial develop- ment, and back up to (rot facing) an undeveloped R-3 zone. While the design and layout of these units may leave something to be desired, we cannot find fault with their location. Certainly they do not encroach upon or detract from other residential development nearby. The Fairfax Garcons apartments also have easy access to a main thorough- fare (Routes 29, 50, 211) , :re contiguous to a developed commercial zone, are across the street from Fairfax High School and a much used Little League Baseball Diamond. They in nowise encroach upon nor infiltrate a single family dwelling area. Due to its location in respect to the commercial zone, the high school and the baseball field, we consider this apartment land use as being particularly sound as transitional zoning. Page 3 The Meridith Park apartments are much like Fairfax Gardens--direct oCcr3 to Routes 29, 50 kind 211 , adjacent to developed commercial and do not in- filtrate a developed single family dwelling area. This apartment tract is at- tractively designed and well maintained. We cannot fault it either on the basis of location or of making any change in the character of the neighborhood--indeed it is an asset to the area. The Layton Hall Apartments were the first of the so called "big" apart- ment developments. While their proximity to the Layton Hall Sub-division is no doubt obje-tionable to the single family dwellers bordering the west side of University [give, it must be conceded that here too, these apartments form a buffer or transitional land use between the Layton Hall single family sub-division and the still to be developed center-of-city commercial area. This is a prime example of the professional planning technique of setting up a transitional buffer zone from loss-restrictive (C-2) to the more restrictive (R-2 and R-3) zone. MOPE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS From the date of approval of the Layton Hall Apartments to the approval of the Oak Knoll development, there was a period of almost 2 years with little apartment activity (except for 2 abortive applications for the Orr Tract adjacent to Country Club Hills, which were quickly and firmly denied by unanimous vote of the Planning Commission and Council , and the W. P. Hunt application in Westmore which was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals) . Whether this inactivity was attributable to no market or no money is not known; however, beginning late in 1960 the apartment use permit activity picked up. Significantly, the rekindling of interest in apartment building is directly keyed in date to: The construction of Dulles Air Port, the expansion in the number of County employees; and the beginning of construction or announced plans for the construction of the new Lanier Intermediate School , Woodson High School , Green Acres and Mantua Elementary Schools. These new developments, plus the fact that the City was becoming a tredirg center for an ever expending area no doubt convinced investors to turn once again to apartments. Here is what happened: TABLE 11 Na Yoar Acres Eff. 1 B.R. 2 B.R. 3 B.R. Total Units Oak Knoll 1960 6.2 22 32 38 18 110 flosby Woods * 1961 11 .6 0 32 64 72 168 Mosby Village* 1961 9.3 50 64 75 0 189 Kay 1961 7.3 0 40 4o 0 80 Brynwona 1962 4.6 0 24 54 0 78 i! '31 Inv. 1962 2.5 15 20 29 3 67 _7.1 .eau Wood 1. 62 12.0 0 90 98 10 198 'i o,ta l s 53.5 87 302 398 103 890 * P r.ctcs proposed apartment projects on which Use Permits granted by the Board of 7on'ng P2peals have expired--this means that these projects are no longer au- thw _^ ; Th s, the above totals for authorized apartment projects mould 326 37 206 259 31 533 The foonote N to the above table shows that the Mosby Woods and Mosby Village projects, while originally approved in March 1961 , have been cancelled Page 4 be,:ao3e t`r deve i of r .<i;d :,c_ 'peg i n con s tract i ors within 12 months as required by Section 5.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the apartment use permits for these " tr c:o s r ' be disregarded insofar as this study is con- cerned. nn+. i �..., void C and c�r� cerned. Having disposed of Mosby Woods and Mosby Village, let us examine these latest approved apartment projects, of which Oak Knoll is the only one already under construction: Oak Knoll fronts on Route 236, is directly across the street from a Commercial Zone, and backs up to the American Legion--another satisfactory lo- cation. I'utu-1 Investment apartments are wholly within a commercial zone, are bounded on one side by the cemetery and on other sides by the County Court House and other government-owned and government-used land. There again we find a proper transitional zoning of land that cou':d never be properly developed as single family residences . There can be no challenge that Mutual Investment Apartments invade residential ar2.as. The i. y property is another transitional use. It has direct access to South Payne Street--(Route 123) , is to the rear of Ardmore Sub-division which is a high density duplex development, is adjacent to the County Yard (which certainly does not attract high value residential development) , and backs up to an undevelop- ed tract of R-1 . The latter R-1 area will be long in developing because of sani- tary sewer problems. The Brvrwpna. apartment tract on the extreme west of the City is on what one day will be well travelled Jermantown Road. It is directly across the street from the 1 ,000 pupil Lanier School and in no way encroaches upon any developed residential area. Obviously, Belleau Wood is of concern to the resi- dents of Fairview, but, on balance, it must be noted that it is located con- veniently to a 4-lane street (Route 236) and serves as a buffer between the commercial zone on Route 236 and the Fairview Sub-division. A SUMMARY OF WHERE WE STAND TABLE 111 Acres Eff. 1 B.R. 2 B.R. 3 B.R. Total Units Existing Ted_.y (1) 17.4 0 89 145 20 254 Under Ccnstruction(2) 6.2 22 32 38 18 110 Approved-;got Puilt(3) 2 .4 15 174 221 13 423 Totals 50.0 37 295 404 51 787 (1) Includes Hunt, Hiegenbotham, Fairfax Gardens, Meridith Park and Layton Hall . (2) Oak Knoll . (3) ! hclu es Kay, Crynwana, Mutual Investment and Belleau Wood. TH r;F.1�.t r'•1 If we are not exercised over the location of the apartments approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (and we are not) , what then is the problem? One part of the pr"blem simply stated is that residential sub-divisions are fearful that they r::.y wake up one morning and find an apartment project on their doorstep: This is a real fear in the minds of many and we feel that they have every richt to cxpee: t_he City government to take such action as is necessary to prevent The second part of the problem is to determine whether we are reaching Page 5 the saturation point in terms of the total number of apartments in the City. We disclaim any intent to dictate or by government order to fix the economical de- velopment of land . But we do claim jurisdiction when there is a danger that the essentially residential character of the City may be changed to essentially apart- ments. We feel that this point is dangerously close unless some changes (as here- inafter discussed) are made in the Zoning Ordinance. DO 41E HAVE TOO MANY APARTMENTS? Before we answer this question, it would be well to remember that the current and former ordinances as they applied to apartments did accomplish a very important purpose--that is, to stimulate the growth and progress of the City. Had we enacted a "tight" apartment ordinance in 1957 or later, growth would have been stiff led and progress stopped. In any community there is a need for apart- ments, i .e. , some people plainly like to live in apartments, some find it more practical to live in apartments and, in some cases, economic factors govern. The trick of the year is to determine the proper balance between all types of resi- dential (including apartments) land use within the City. One frequent charge heard at public meetings is that apartments "do not pay their way, tax-wise", and thus their development should be discouraged. The foregoing 'charge' , like many other statements that are more fiction than fact, is a popular one of the day. It is only partially accurate. Let us examine it in detail , particularly as it applies to schools . The Layton Hall Apartments are a good case in point. Layton Hall has 110 units on 7.8 acres . The land and buildings have an assessed value for tax purposes of $413,044. It should be noted that real estate is assessed for tax purposes at approximately 37% of the fair market value. They produce $14,250. in local real property taxes for the City ($413,044. @ $3.45 per $100. assessed value) . School officials estimate school population in apartment developments using a factor of .5 school-age child per each 2 or 3 bedroom apartment living unit. A factor of 0.0 is used for efficiency and 1 bedroom apartments. These factors have been proved out by actual census and we accept them as valid. Thus we find that Layton Hall contributes 43 school-age children estimated on this basis: 72-2 B.R. units + 14-3 B.R. Units = 86 units x .5 = 43 school children. Since Layton Hall contributes $14,250. in real taxes, simple division tells us that these apartments contribute $331 . in local taxes for each school-age child. On this basis, we must conclude that garden-type apartments do not pay their way; however, how do they compare with single family dwellings? Let us see. A comparable tract of 7.8 acres in the R-3 zone would have 25 singl family dwellings valuedfor taxes at approximately $7,000. each for a total assessed evaluation of $175,000. (remember Layton Hall has an assessed value of $413,044.) . This 25 home sub-division will contribute $6,037. in local real property taxes (25 x $7,000. @ $3.45 per $100. assessed value) . School officials estimate school populations on the basis of .94 school-age child per single family dwelling. Thus this comparable 7.8 acre 25 home sub-division would contri- bute 23 .5 school-age children to the City (25 homes x .94 = 23.5) . Simple arithmetic tells us that the single family development contributes only $256. per school-age child , viz: $6,037. real taxes = $256. per school-age child. 23.5 school children Page 6 Compare this single family tax contribution of $256, with the $331 . tax contribution per child by Layton Hall Apartments. To complete this discussion of tax revenues versus apartment domiciled school children, we have projected esti- mates of all existing and approved-but-not-built apartments in the City. Obviously, our projections of the still-to-be-built apartments are only estimates and can be confirmed only after construction is completed. But here is what we think the picture will look like: TABLE IV Averace Assessed Real Tax School Taxes~,:er ', me Acres Units Value „ Revenue Pupils Pupil -,t .6 12 $ 33,579. $ 1 , 158. 2 $579. „ , ggenbotham 4.0 34 77,331 . 2,668. 9 29w. Fairfax Gardens 2. 1 33 129,810. 4,478. 11 407. Meridith Park 2.9 60 204,660. 7,061 . 18 392. Layton Hall 7.8 110 413,044. 14,250, 43 331 . Oak Knoll 6.2 110 400,000. 13,800. 28 493. Kay 7.3 80 300,000. 10,350. 20 517. Brynwana 4.6 78 292,500. 10,091 . 27 373. Mutual Inv. 2.5 67 251 ,250. 8,666. 16 541 . Belleau Wood 12.0 198 742,500. 25,616.,. 54 474. Totals 50.0 767 $2,342,665. $98, 138. 228 $430. * Actual figures for completed apartments only--all others are estimates. From the above Table IV we conclude that the 5 apartment developments already built plus the 5 developments approved for construction will add 228 school-age children to City schools but will add $93, 138. per year in local real property tax revenue. This means a tax contribution of $430. per pupil . A comparable 50 acre R-3 zoned tract with 160 single family dwellings would add 152 school children but would produce only $38,640. in real property revenues for an average of $254. per pupil . Compare this single family dwelling rate per pupil of 1254. with the overall apartment rate of__$430. So the true answer to our "pay their way" question is: Neither garden apartments nor single family dwellings pay their full share of per pupil school cost in local real taxes. But-- Apartments do pay 69% more in local real property taxes per school pupil than do single family dwellings : Now our tax income vs. City burden is obviously not complete since we have not detailed other tax and municipal cost factors. We have not had time to assemble all the data we would like; however, we are convinced that the other forms of taxes and costs will not materially change our conclusions. Take personal property taxes as an example. Automobiles comprise the bulk of personal property taxes. The 787 apartment living unit residents will have at least 787 automobiles to pay taxes on whereas the comparable 50.0 acre-160 single family development would pay takes on only 320 cars if they were all 2-car families. Consider also that the City does not provide free garbage collection service to apartment developments--nor snow removal service. Having gone through this financial exercise in detail , we would now like to Page 7 honestly state that it is completely immaterial to our questions of: "Do we have too many apartments?" and "Are we changing the character of established residential neighborhoods?" Our purpose here is to achieve a well planned and balanced City with proper land use for all comers--not arbitrate which class of resident p ys more for what. Do we have too many apartments? There are several approaches to this question, e.g. , a. The ratio of acres of apartment developments to acres of single family dwellings. b. The ratio of apartment living units to single family living units. c. The ratio of apartment population to the population of single family dwellings. d. The ratio of apartment domiciled school children to single family domiciled school children. e. The ratio of assessed evaluation of apartments to assessed evaluation of single family dwellings. f. The demonstrated need or economic demand for apartments vs. the need for single family development. The following tabulations relate to the first 5 of the above factors: ;gyres: Apartments Ot+ier Residential Built 16.8 R-1 522 Under Construction C.2 R-2 1220.7 Approved--Not Built 26.4 R-3 1102•u Totals 50.0 2345.3 of R-Zones 1 .7% % of R-Zones 93.3% Living Units Other Residential Built 254 Single Family 3,024 Under Construction 110 Semi -Detached 250 Approved--Not Built 423 Trailors 90_ Totals 787 Totals 3,364 % of Total Dwellings 19% % of Total Dwlgs . 81% Population Apartments Other Residential ? . Today 623 persons 13,9^0 per;: % of Total City 4.3 % % of Total City 95.7 % 2. Projected After Completion of Approved Projects 2116 persons 15,420 per % of Total City 12 % % of Total City 88 % Page 8 School Population Apartments Other Residential i . Today 63 3719 % of Total City 2.2% % of Total City 97.8% 2. Projected After Completion 3874 of Approved Project 223 % of Total City 94.5% % of Total City 5.5 The need for apartments is directly proportionate to the economic pressures that convince investors that apartments are a profit-making enterprise. In general , planners throughout the United States guage allowable apartment development as a percentage of total population. Fairfax City is far below its neighbors in apartment development at this time. While 4.3% of our total popu- lation is now housed in apartments, we find that Arlington has 50% of its population in apartments, Alexandria has 40%, Prince Georges County 40%, and Fairfax County 9% (this does not include Merrywood) ; however, looking to the future we find that our apartment population will increase to 12% of the total population within 2 years, assuming that all currently approved projects are constructed. We are of the opinion that in order to retain the essentially residential character of the City, we should attempt to limit apartment develop- ments to not more than 15% of the total population. To not do so would be to court high density development, the dissolution of open green space, the over- burdening of City Streets and invite a complete change in the character of the City not wanted by us nor by our fellow citizens. What then is the solution? The solution is simple. Slow down but do not ban apartment development. By 1970 there will be 20,000 to 25,000 residents in the City. We still have a few, but not more than 4 or 5 tracts where apart- r ,,nts can be erected without encroaching upon or being contiguous to established .s; ngle family sub-divisions. Our future apartment growth should be restricted to such areas ; however, to zone them for apartments at this time would only hasten apartment construction out of all proportion to our total population growth and would also give a financial bonus to the current owners of these tracts. We have now reached the point in time and development when we should "tighten up" the Zoning Ordinance. We are of the opinion that the time is ripe for such a move. It should not have been sooner nor should it be much later. If we had closed the door on apartments two years ago, or even one year ago, we would have stiffled development, particularly those commercial and business developments based on population growth. We remind everyone that the City, in order to maintain a broad tax base and remain fiscally sound, must bank heavily on commercial and business tax revenues. At the present time there is no evidence that our industrially zoned land is in much demand. We can hold the line in apartment developments at 15% of gross City population if we do these things: ---- Larger minimum lot size for apartment projects in residential zones . T;,; will force builders into lower density projects and provide more open green space. To make it economically feasable to build, we should permit buildings up to 6 stories. But with a larger minimum lot size, and a reduction in the % of lot coverage, we can still have overall lower density development. The larger lot size will also prevent developers from "sneaking" into those many small parcels located adjacent or within established sub-divisions. Page 9 Bigger set backs from residential boundary lines. This again gives us more open space and forces developers to provide recreation areas without cost to the City. It will also force apartment developers into transitional tracts contiguous to commercial zones or into otherwise non-usable commercial zones. Prescribe in the Ordinance specific standards relating to water and sewer services, availability of schools without overcrowding, and adequacy of road nets and access roads to apartment uses to insure that apartments will not overcrowd streets and roads. Increase off-street parking requirements . Require apartment builders in residential zones to set aside recreation areas of a size commensurate with the number of living units in the developme,L. Approval of apartment use permits should remain with the Board of Zoning r ,neals. We have found nothing in our study to indicate that more effective de- .lopment will proceed by placing this task in the lap of the Council . Indeed, we feel the Council might well find itself devoting so much time to this subject as to reduce their overall effectiveness. A more practical reason is that by continuing apartments on a use permit basis, we force developers to build within one year or forfeit their permit. This gives us more control over development. If we established an R-4 or Apartment Zone as Mr. Prichard proposes, a developer could get his apartment zoning and then sit back and wait for the economical time to build. Conceivably, during any such delay the character of the neighborhood could change and apartments would no longer be proper; however, we would be powerless to stop the apartments once the apartment zoning was granted. We have seen Commercial Zoning laying fallow for years--there is no reason to believe apartment zoning wouldn' t do the same. We don't want to run that risk. We do feel , however, that the Planning Commission must and should participate in the apartment site selection process, if it is to be responsible for the proper planning and development of the City. APARTMENT AND POPULATION DENSITIES Since the crux of our proposals to limit apartment growth is founded on open space and densities, it is well that we here examine both area density (i .e. dwelling units per acre) and population density (i .e. persons per acre) . Here are the facts on apartmenL densities: TABLE V - Apartment Densities Total Estimated Average Persons Average Units " me Units Population Acres Per Acre Per Ac-0,_. lt 12 29.6 .6 49.0 20.0 ' . ,genbotham 34 83.4 4.0 22. 1 8.5 Fairfax Gardens 33 101 .2 2. 1 48.2 18. 1 Meridith Park 60 168.0 2.9 57.9 20.7 Layton Hall 110 327.6 7.8 42.0 14. 1 Oak Knoll 110 284.2 6.2 45.7 17.7 Kay 80 208.0 7.3 28.5 10.9 Brynwana 78 214.8 4.6 46.7 16.9 Mutual Inv. 67 160. 1 2.5 64.0 26.9 Belleau Mood 198 534.0 12.0 44.5 16.5 Totals 787 2115.9 50.0 42.3 15.7 *Estimated population based on factors of 1 . 1 persons per efficiency apartment, Page 10 2.2 persons per 1 bedroom unit, 3 .0 persons per 2 bedroom unit, and 4.2 persons per 3 bedroom unit. From Table V we find that our 787 apartment units, (including existing; plus approved but not built) average 42.3 persons per acre and 15.7 apartment :nits per acre. Table V1 demonstrates how these densities compare with other residential land use: TABLE VI -- Residential Densities Average Dwelling Average Persons Zone Units per Acre Per Acre R-1 1 .3 7.2 R-2 2.7 10.8 R-3 ( less apartments) 3.2 12.8 Apartments 15.7 42.3 Tables V and VI clearly demonstrate the high density development that comes with apartments . In the RECOMMENDATIONS Section of this report we are proposing that we reduce the number of apartment units per acre in resi- dential zones , which in turn reduces the average persons per acre. In order to accomplish this in the residential zone, we propose to increase minimum lot size to 5 acres with the actual lot size to consist of not less than 1600 sq.ft. for each efficiency unit, 3200 sq. ft. for each 1 bedroom unit, 4360 sq. ft. for each 2 bedroom unit and 6100 sq. ft. for each 3 bedroom unit. You will note that these lot area requirements per type of unit increase in_the same ratio as the average persons per type of unit (see footnote to Table V) . Now, how do our proposals for residential zone apartments vary from the existing Ordinance? In Table VII we have computed 3 typical developments of 100, 150 and 200 units each--with varying numbers of efficiency, medium and Marge apartment units. Those lettered A-1 , A-2 and A-3 are based on the exist! Ordinance, those lettered B-1 , B-2 and B-3 are based on our proposed changes. TABLE VII -. Comparison of Densities Acres Average Units Estimated Average Persons Type Units Required Per Acre Population Per Acre A-1 100 5. 1 19.6 260.0 50.9 A-2 150 7.7 19.5 392.5 50.9 A-3 200 10.2 19.6 522.5 51 .2 B-1 100 8.6 11 .6 260.0 30.2 B-2 150 13.0 1 1 .5 392.5 30.2 B-3 200 17.4 11 .5 522.5 30.0 Notice the sharp reduction in density our proposals bring. To further reduce density and create more open space we propose to restrict buildings and parking areas to 20% of the total lot. This means in a 5 acre development there will be at least 4 acres of open green space. Page 11 We propose to make no significant changes in the density of apartments in the Commercial Zone. The high cost of 1 -2, C-1 and C-2 land will require the developer to build high quality, high income units. We feel the economics in- volved will force such high quality apartments . We do propose that apartments in a C or I zone located adjacent to an R zone be set back 150 feet from the R zone. This is a 300% increase in the setback requirement and is justified on the basis of keeping residential zones residential . GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS That apartment developments be permitted on appeal (i .e. by special use ;;ermit) in R-3, C-1 , C-2 and 1 -2 zones only. That all applications for special use permits for apartments be filed with the Zoning Administrator who shall refer the same to the Planning Commission for study, holding a public hearing thereon (after due notice and advertisement thereof) and adoption of a recommendation with respect to the application. Thereafter, the application, together with the recommendation of the Planking Commission, shall be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals for advertisingi posting, holding of a public hearing, nd approval or disapproval of the ap- plication; provided, that if the Planning Commission submits to the Board of Zoning Appeals a recommendation (i) that the application be denied or (ii) that specific conditions be prescribed for the use permit, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall not act contrary to such recommendation except by the affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the Board. In considering special use permits for apartments, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals shall determine, before acting affirmatively, that the application meets the following standards: a. That the proposed apartments shall have no substantial adverse effect on the development or use of any R-1 , R-2, or R-3 zoned property located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed use. b. That the proposed apartments shall not disturb the serenity or essen. dally residential character of the neighborhood, if the proposed use is within; an. R-3 zone or contiguous or adjacent to an R-1 , R-2 or R-3 zone. c. That the proposed apartments shall not result in an increase in vehic: :a: raffic upon adjacent streets to such an extent as to materially over-burden s :ch streets, cause hazardous driving conditions or affect the safety of children cir .edestrians living in the neighborhood or living adjacent to streets serving e property on which the proposed use is to be located. d. That the proposed apartments shall not increase the density of school age children of the public school (s) serving the area of the proposed use to such an extent as to adversely affect the educational program of such school (s) . e. That public water and sanitary sewer facilities are adequate to handle the proposed apartment use. f. That one and three quarters (1 3/4) off street parking spaces be pro- vided for each living unit. Page 12 g. That apartment buildings, including accessory buildings , be set back: ( 1) 50' from any C-1 , C-2, I -- 1 , or 1 -2 zone. (2) 150' (side and rear) from any R-1 , R-2, or R• 3 zone, plus 2' additional for each I ' that the building is over 40 feet in height. The set back area may not include the parking area. (3) As required by Sections 5. 122a and 5. 122c, of the current Ordinance. h. That apartment buildings, including accessory buildings and required off-street parking areas , shall not cover more than 20% of the total area of such lot. 1 . Requirements applicable to apartments in C-1 , C-2 and 1-2 zones onl :: (1) Minimum height - 4 stories . (2) Maximum height ("( stories . The elevator housing mounted on the roof of any apartment building shall be excluded from the foregoing height restriction. (3) The area of any lot or tract used for apartments in C-1 , C• 2 and I -2 zones shall be not less than 2 acres and shall include the following land areas for each living unit located on such lot or tract: Number of Rooms Lot Area Requirements per Living Unit Per Living Unit 1 1500 sq. ft. 2 1800 sq. ft . 2500 sq. ft. 4 3000 sq. ft. Kitchen and baths shall not be included in determining the number of rooms in a given living unit. j . Requirements applicable to apartments in R-3 zones only: ( 1) Maximum Height - 6 stories . The elevator housing mounted on the roof of any apartment building shall be excluded from the foregoing height restriction. (2) The area of any lot or tract used for apartments in the R-3 zone shall not be less than five (5) acres and shall include the following land areas for each living unit located on such lot or tract: Number of Rooms Lot Area Requirements per Living Unit Per Living Unit 1 IG00 sq. ft. 2 3200 sq. ft. 3 4360 sq. ft. 4 6100 sq. ft. Kitchen and baths shall not be included in determining the number of rooms in a given living unit. Page l:. j . Requirements applicable to apartments in R-3 zones only: (Continued) (3) Each apartment development in an R-3 zone shall have a recreation or playground area, the area of which shall be a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. plus l',J0 sq. ft. for each living unit within the development. This recreation area is ex- cluded from the % of lot coverage restrictions of the Ordinance . however, no recreation area or swimming pool shall be located less than 100' from any R-Zone boundary line. There is no set back restriction for recreation areas adjacent to C or I zones. Each application for an apartment use permit shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn at a minimum scale of one inch equals thirty feet, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer and showing the information set forth in Section 2.25 of the Zoning Ordinance. That a fee of $50.00 be required for all applicants for a use permit for apartments . That prior to the issuance of any building permit for apartments, the Zoning Administrator shall first obtain the approval of the Planning Commission with respect to the site plans of the proposed structure. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to require appropriate screening and landscaping around and within an apartment development. It shall be the intent of the Planning Commission to screen, insofar as is practical , any parking area or recreation area from a public street or an adjacent R-zone. Recommendations not related to apartments: a. That Section G.01 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide 2 off-street parking spaces for each single family dwelling . b. That Section 2.2 be amended to read: "2 .22 Semi-detached house: Not more than two dwellings separated b•i not more than one common wall , each dwelling being on a separate lot, each of which separate lots shall conform in area to at lease the minimum lot size required under the provisions of this ordinan.c - . ' c. That Section 2.24 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by inserting after the word "device" on the first line: "including a revolving, blinking or rotating light (or lights) or, a light (or lights) other- wise in motion." d. That Section 7.03 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by adding sub- _ section h, as follows: "h. Signs cf fifty (50) square feet, or less, erected or maintained on property owned or occupied by eleemosynary corporations or as- sociations ." SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Two proposed amendments (identified as #1 and #2) to the Zoning Ordinance are set out below. Proposed Amendment #1 is the amendment sponsored by Mr. Prichard. Amendment #2 is based on the recommendations in this report. - ----The Planning Commission recommends that Amendment #1 Not be adopted. The Planning Commission recommends that Amendment #2 be adopted. 1^C NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA. Notice is hereby given of a public hearing before the Planning Commiss .; : of the City of Fairfax, in the Council Chambers , Municipal Building, Fairfax, Virginia, on Thursday, June 14, 19A, at 8:00 o'clock, p.m. , for the purpose of considering amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fairfax, in the following respects: Proposed Amendment No. 1 : Sub-Section 5. 12: Delete the following language: "In considering applications for special use permits apartments the Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following standards:" Sub-Section 5. 121 : Renumber this article as Section 5A. 121 and insert new section heading reading: "Section 5A. Apartments ." Sub- Section 5. 122: Renumber this article as Section 5A. 122. Sub-Section 5. 123: Renumber this article as Section 5A. 123. Sub-Section 5. 13: Delete this sub-section in its entirety. Section 11 - Zoning Schedule. Delete under "R-3 ; Uses Permissible on Appeal" the following language: "Apartments and apartment houses subject to conditions in Sec. 5. 12." Capitalize the word "Rcoming" to begin new sentence. Section 11 - Zoning Schedule: Add new Zone entitled "R-4" as follows: Set Backs Lot Lot Front Zone Average Minimum Restriction Line Side R-4 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq. ft. See sec. 5A. 122 50 ft. See Sec. SA. 122 Minimum Maximum Off-Street Uses Permissible by Rear 'Width @ BRL Height Parking Rigl:t 50 ft. 100 ft. 3 stories See Sec. E All uses permissible See Sec. in R-3 Zone. Apart- 5A. 122 ments and apartment houses . Page 15 Uses Permissible on Appeal Uses Prohibited All uses permissible on appeal in R-3 zone All uses not specifically permitted. Section 11 . Under Commercial-1 Uses Permissible By Right and Uses Per- missible on Appeal . Change "R-3" to "R-4" Zoning Map: Add new zone entitled "R-4" and change zoning of all tracts within the city on which apartment Houses are now exist- ing, on which apartment (houses are under construction or for which building permits for apartment houses have been issued to "R-4." Effective Date: Above amendment shall be effective from enactment. Proposed Amendment No. 2: General Provision: Delete throughout existing ordinance, wherever appeari , , the work "Town" and substitute therefor, the word "City." Section 2 - Definitions 2:05: Add to definition of Building: "The term 'building' shall be deemed to include a swimming pool or pools." 2:22: Delete existing sub-section and substitute therefor: "2 .22 Semi -detached house: Not more than two dwellings separated by not more than one party or common wall , each dwelling being on a separate lot, each of which separate lots shall conform in area to at least the minimum lot size required under the pro- visions of this ordinance." 2:2.4: That Section 2.24 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by inserting after the word "device" on the first line: "including a revolving, blinking or rotating light (or lights) or, a light (or lights) otherwise in motion." Section 3 - General Regulations 3: 13: Delete "Zoning Permit - No Charge" Add: Special Use Permit for all uses other than apartments - $20.00 Special Use Permit Apartments - $50.00. Section 5 - Board of Zoning Appeals 5.03: Delete first sentence of existing sub-section 5:03 and substitute therefor: "whenever any appeal is made to the Board, or an ap- plication for a special use permit is referred to the Board by t e Planning Commission, the Board shall within thirty days therea`t _r publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the of the time and place of hearing of such appeal or referral , not less than 10 days before such hearing." 5:08: Insert after word "schedule," line 2, the following: "and in Section 5. 12." Page 16 5: 10: Add: "and/or Section 5. 12" 5. 12: Delete sub-sections 5. 12, 5. 121 , 5. 122, 5. 123 and 5. 13. Add new sub-sections as follows: 5. 12: Applications for Special Use Permits for Apartments All applications for special use permits for apartments shall be fi 's. ; with tl-e '_oning Administrator who shall refer the same to the Planning Commission for study, holding of a public hearing thereon, in the manne:- provided in Sub-Section 3. 15 pertaining to applications for rezoning, a: L:e. due notice and advertisement thereof, and adoption of a recommendation with respect to the application. Thereafter, the application, together with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals for advertising, posting, holding of a public hearing, and approval or disapproval of the application; provided, that if the Pi<annir.g Commission submits to the Board of Zoning Appeals a recommendation (i) that the application be denied or (ii) that specific conditions be prescribed for the use permit, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall not act contrary to such recommendation except by the affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the Board. 5. 121 : Standards - In considering special use permits for apartments, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals shall determine, before acting affirmatively, that the application meets the following standards in addition to those specified in Sub-sections 5.08 and 5.09: a. That the proposed apartments shall have no substantial adverse effect on the development or use of any R-1 , R-2, or R-3 zoned property located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed use. b. That the proposed apartments shall not disturb the serenity or essentially residential character of the neighborhood, if the proposed use is within an R-3 zone or contiguous or adjacent to an R-1 , R-2 or R-3 zone. c. That the proposed apartments shall not result in an increase in vehicular traffic upon adjacent streets to such an extent as to materially over-burden such streets, cause hazardous driving conditic, a or affect the safety of children or pedestrians living in the neighborhoc or living adjacent to streets serving the property on which the proposed use is to be located. d. That the proposed apartments shall not increase the density of school age chiiiren of the public school (s) serving the area of the proposed use to such an extent as to adversely affect the educational pro- gram of such school (s) . e. That public water and sanitary sewer facilities are adequate to handle the proposed apartment use. 5. 122: Apartment Setbacks - Each apartment house within the City shall comply with the following setback requirements : a. No apartment house or its accessory structures shall be located Pa e i less than 100 feet from the center line of any boundary street nor less than 30 feet from the right of way of any service drive paralleling a boundary street, nor less than 60 feet from the center line of any interior street. b. No apartment house, accessory building or parking area shall be located ens t='a-1 50 feet from any side or rear property line contiguous to any C• ; , C-2 or 1 -2 zone. No apartment house, accessory building or parking a: ea sl.ail be located less than 150 feet, plus 2 feet additions . for each ; root that the bu' Iding is over 40 feet in height, from any side or rear property line contiguous to any R-1 , R-2, R-3 or I -•1 zone. c. Itany -f the structures in an apartment house project are so located th-J. the front or rea- of one structure faces any other structure, a distam.a of r"•t less, than 60 feet shall separate such structures ; if any of the structures are arranged in a row, end to end, no such structure sh:J11 be c■ose- a~, other such structure than a distance equal to the average ot their heights. 5. 123: °e.rcen of Lot Coverage - Apartment Houses - Apartrr'nt Houses, including accessory buildings and required off-street parking oreas, shall not cover more than 20% of the total area of such lot. 5. 124: PA iiirements applicable to apartments in C-1 , C-2, and 1 -2 zones o: 1v - a. Min;muri height - 4 stories . b. Maximum height - 6 stories. The elevator housing mounted on the roof of any apartment building shall be excluded from the foregoing height restriction. c. The area of any lot or tract used for apartments in C--1 , C-2 and 1 -2 zone.: shall be not less than 2 acres and shall include the following land areas for each living unit located on such lot or tract: Number o;- Rooms Lot Area Requirements per Livinc Unit Per Living Unit 1 1500 sq. ft. 2 1800 sq. ft. 3 2500 sq. ft. 4 3000 sq. ft. Kitchen and baths shall not be included in determining the number of rooms in a given living unit. 5. 125: Requi -ements applicable to apartments in R-3 zones only - a. Maximun Height - 6 stories. The elevator housing mounted on the roof of any apartment building shall be excluded from the foregoing height restriction. b. The area of any lot or tract used for apartments in the R-3 zone shall not be less than five (5) acres and shall include the following land areas for each living unit located on such lot or tract: Page 1� Number of Rooms Lot Area Requirements Per Living Unit Per Living Unit 1 1600 sq. ft. 2 3200 sq. ft. 3 4360 sq. ft. 4. 6100 sq. ft. Kitchen and baths shall not be included in determining the number of rooms in a given living unit. c Each apartment development in an R-3 zone shall have a recreation or playground area, the area of which shall be a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. for each living unit within the development. This recreation area is excluded from the % of lot coverage restrictions of the Ordinance; however, no recreation area or swimming pool shall be located less than 100 ft. from any R-Zone boundary line. There is no set back restriction for recreation areas adjacent to C or I zones. 5. 126: Site Plan - a. Each application for an apartment use permit shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn at a minimum scale of one inch equals thirty feet, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer and showing the information set forth in Section 2.25 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for apartments, the Zoning Administrator shall first obtain the approval of the Planning Commission with respect to the site plan of the proposed structure. The Planning Ccmmission shall have the authority to require appropriate screening and landscaping around and within an apartment development. It shall be the intent of the Planning Commission to screen, insofar as is practical , any parking area or recreation area from a public street an adjacent R-zone. 5. 13: Any reference to apartments, set forth in Section 11 , Zoning Schedule, in conflict with the provisions of Sub-Section 5. 12 are hereby repealed, and, Sub-Section 5. 12 shall apply. 5. 14: The requirements herein set out as to density shall be considered maximum requirements. The Board of Zoning Appeals, upon granting a use permit, may not impose more restrictive conditions as to density. Section 6, Off-Street Parking - 6.01 : Delete word "One" and substitute the word "two." 6.02: Delete the words "one and one-quarter" and substitute the words "One and three-quarters." Section 7, Signs - That Section 7.03 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by adding sub-section h, as follows: h. Signs of fifty (50) square feet, or less, erected or maintained I i on property owned or occupied by eleemosynary corporations or associations ." )1/<4..e&d..`t; Dorothy M. Ladwig, lerk Planning Commissi of the City of Fairfax. June 4, 1962.