ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of November 18, 2017

Transcription

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of November 18, 2017 DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECTS: Request to authorize advertisement of public hearings by the Planning Commission and County Board to consider establishing a Housing Conservation District, consistent with adopted affordable housing goals and objectives, through: A. Adoption of the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework [see Attachment A]; B. Amendments to the General Land Use Plan [see Attachment B]; C. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Master Plan [see Attachment C]; and D. Amendments to Articles 6, 12, and 16 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance [see Attachment D]. C.M. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution to authorize advertisement of public hearings by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2017, and the County Board on December 16, 2017, to consider establishing a Housing Conservation District, consistent with adopted affordable housing goals and objectives, through: A. Adoption of the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework [see Attachment A]; B. Amendments to the General Land Use Plan [see Attachment B]; C. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Master Plan [see Attachment C]; and County Manager: ##### County Attorney: ***** Staff: Russell Danao-Schroeder, DCPHD, Housing Division Andrew Douglass and Jennifer Smith, DCPHD, Planning Division Rebeccah Ballo, DCPHD, Neighborhood Services Division PLA

2 D. Amendments to Articles 6, 12, and 16 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance [see Attachment D]. ISSUES: The proposed Housing Conservation District (HCD) would implement adopted Affordable Housing Master Plan goals and objectives and would encourage the retention of affordability in those areas of the County that continue to provide market-rate affordable rental housing. Based on a series of impacts identified in the HCD Policy Framework, townhouse development is proposed to be reclassified as a special exception use within those RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts that are within the proposed boundaries of the HCD. Staff has updated the Housing Commission, Historical Affairs and Landmarks Review Board, and Zoning and Long-Range Planning Committees of the Planning Commission (ZOCO and LRPC, respectively) on the proposed HCD. ZOCO and LRPC committee members raised concerns that the proposed reclassification of the townhouse use may create new demand for townhouse development in areas outside proposed HCD boundaries and questioned the proposed date of effect for the changes. These considerations are discussed in the Public Engagement section of this report. No issues have been identified regarding the HCD Policy Framework or the proposed amendments to the GLUP and AHMP as of the date of this report. SUMMARY: In April 2017, the County Board directed staff to develop a Housing Conservation District to encourage the retention of affordability in areas identified to include market-rate affordable housing. The proposed Housing Conservation District would advance the County s policies to encourage the construction and preservation of affordable rental housing and to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable rental housing. The Housing Conservation District (HCD) is proposed to be implemented in three phases. Phase I (the subject of this report) will establish the district on the General Land Use Plan (GLUP), with a set of goals, objectives, and defined boundaries. In Phase I, staff proposes to establish the district via four separate yet related actions: 1. Adoption of the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework (Policy Framework) to set general parameters for future implementation efforts; 2. Adoption of a GLUP amendment to map and describe the district in the GLUP booklet; 3. Adoption of an AHMP amendment to reference the HCD; and 4. Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use requiring site plan approval within the HCD, responding to impacts identified and assessed in the Policy Framework. Although the Policy Framework will recommend a general direction for future Phase II and III planning efforts, specific policies will be refined through additional analysis and public engagement. It is important to note that authorization of advertisement of public hearings on these Phase I amendments does not imply that the County Board supports the proposed changes. BACKGROUND: Market-rate affordable housing provides housing opportunities to thousands of Arlington households. While this resource has been diminishing owing to strong housing demand, it remains an important component of the County s housing stock and is necessary to maintain a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable community. If this supply is not preserved, many lower- and moderate-income households will be priced out of Arlington. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

3 Housing is considered affordable when a household spends no more than 30% of its monthly income on rent or mortgage payments. Rents that are market-rate affordable are within the means of households earning up to 80% of area median income (AMI). Since 2000, the subset of market-rate affordable units (MARKs) that are affordable to households earning up to 60% AMI has declined by over 14,400 units. These losses have resulted primarily from rent increases, although they have also been influenced by redevelopment. Currently there are 13,775 marketrate affordable housing units in the County, only 2,780 of which are affordable up to 60% AMI. The proposed Housing Conservation District contains 4,724 market-rate affordable units, or 34 percent of the County s inventory. In September 2015, the County Board adopted the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) and incorporated the AHMP as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The AHMP establishes the County s affordable housing policy, and calls for the production and preservation of a supply of affordable rental housing sufficient to meet the County s current and future needs (objective 1.1). This objective is reinforced by supporting policy statements including guidance that the County should make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing (1.1.3). In adopting the AHMP, the County Board communicated its concerns about the loss of market-rate affordable housing and directed staff to identify and study the remaining supply of MARKs, occurring mostly in areas that have not previously been studied by sector or small area plans. In March 2017, County staff completed a preliminary study of these MARKs, and published a report titled Market-Rate Affordable Housing: An Approach for Preservation ( MARKs report ). The MARKs report summarized existing tools used to provide affordable housing and generated an inventory of MARK buildings and complexes. The report also found that MARK buildings and complexes tend to be located in nine general areas: Along the edges of the Rosslyn Metro station area Along the edges of the Ballston Metro station area Central Lee Highway East Lee Highway Westover Lyon Park Shirlington Penrose Nauck/Long Branch Creek/Aurora Highlands Recognizing that the County would need to pursue new strategies to preserve affordability in MARK areas, the MARKs report recommended the creation of a new GLUP district that could provide access to affordable housing tools and incentives. During an April 4, 2017 County Board work session to discuss MARKs report findings, the County Board responded to this recommendation by directing the County Manager to develop a Housing Conservation District. DISCUSSION: Based on this direction from the County Board, staff has developed a policy framework for the proposed Housing Conservation District (HCD). At a glance, the proposed HCD will be a special district on the General Land Use Plan designed to encourage the retention of affordability in areas with market-rate affordable housing. It will allow for a spectrum of development projects, ranging from renovation and minor addition to infill and redevelopment. In RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

4 exchange for the ability to complete these projects, property owners and developers will be required to dedicate a share of on-site housing units for lower- and moderate-income households (or those earning up to 80% of area median income). Housing Conservation District Policy Framework (Attachment A) Staff has analyzed the properties included in the MARKs report in further detail to identify common patterns of land use and building form. The common pattern that emerges to describe MARKs report areas is that they comprise aging and often historically-significant garden-style apartment buildings surrounded by lower-scale residential and commercial development. These areas are in locations planned and zoned to support low-medium and medium-density apartment blocks. As summarized in the Policy Framework, these common features pose a series of challenges and opportunities when it comes to developing new affordable housing policy. More detailed assessment of MARKs report buildings and complexes has also revealed complexities that will need to be addressed in future HCD implementation. The HCD will need to acknowledge and respond to the following: MARKs have a median construction year of 1941; Half of the MARKs report properties are listed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI); Approximately 56% of the MARKs report properties are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; These historic qualities, as evidenced by architectural features, established tree canopies, and purposefully-designed gardens and courtyards contribute to local neighborhood character; Many MARKs may be non-conforming to the Zoning Ordinance, meaning owners cannot pursue structural renovation or addition projects unless they redesign the sites to comply with current standards for density, parking, height, lot coverage, and/or setbacks; MARKs are set in low- to medium-density areas where the levels of density required to support and subsidize one-for-one replacement of the existing number of affordable dwelling units is neither feasible nor desirable; When MARKs are demolished, they are typically replaced with more expensive housing products, and with by-right townhouse development in particular; Townhouse development may impact MARKs areas, introducing units that compete with single-family homes into areas planned to support multiple-family apartments; and While the County has successfully partnered with non-profit affordable housing providers, offering financial assistance through the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) to help dedicate affordable housing units, there are insufficient AHIF funds to preserve the existing number of MARK units, which are usually owned and operated by independent landholders. The HCD Policy Framework provides a more detailed analysis of MARK areas, summarizes a series of opportunities and constraints that apply to the MARK buildings and complexes, and identifies components of existing affordable housing tools and programs that could inform HCD development incentives. The Policy Framework also identifies how the established character and affordability of traditionally market-rate affordable neighborhoods are impacted through by-right RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

5 townhouse development. Based on study findings and analysis, the Policy Framework lays out a series of recommendations for implementing the HCD that include: 1. Establish the Housing Conservation District, adopting goals, objectives, and mapped boundaries in the General Land Use Plan, and creating a new reference in the Affordable Housing Master Plan; 2. Establish consensus on a future spectrum of Housing Conservation District policies and incentives through adoption of a policy framework; and 3. Implement Housing Conservation District policies and incentives in phases. Consistent with Recommendation 3, staff is proposing to implement the HCD in three discrete phases. Phase I is the subject of this report and will establish the HCD in the GLUP and by reference in the AHMP, laying out its goals and objectives and mapping its specific boundaries. Phase I will also respond to the impacts that may result from by-right townhouse development in MARKs areas by reclassifying townhouse development as a special exception use requiring site plan approval within certain zoning districts in HCD boundaries. Phase I includes the following four separate yet related actions that are discussed in further detail below: 1. Adoption of the HCD Policy Framework; 2. Amendments to the GLUP to designate the goals, objectives, and boundaries; 3. Amendments to the AHMP to reference the HCD; and 4. Amendments to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use within the HCD. The future Phases II and III are anticipated to explore zoning- and tax-based incentives that could respond to HCD goals and meet HCD objectives within the general parameters recommended in the Policy Framework. This analysis would be driven by form- and economic-based modeling. Form-based modeling would identify the types of context-appropriate building forms and layouts that could result from new incentive-based zoning standards. For example, how much new space for housing could be created if setbacks were reduced by a certain amount? Economic modeling would assess development costs and potential profits implied by various types of development projects to determine how many affordable units could feasibly be provided. The Policy Framework outlines a general approach to addressing the identified opportunities and challenges. This general framework involves a range of tools where affordability requirements are tied to the degree by which new development results in changes to existing conditions. Given that MARKs are located near areas of lower- and medium-scale development, often double as historically-significant architectural resources, and are not capable of supporting the types of density that would be required to subsidize one-for-one preservation of existing MARK units as currently planned by the GLUP and local zoning district, a spectrum of development incentives is proposed, ranging from renovation and minor addition to infill and full redevelopment. As development types evolve across the spectrum, the affordability requirements and review processes would become more stringent, with projects that add more density and result in more physical changes requiring additional review. It is recommended that these incentives be RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

6 structured into three tiers, ranging from those causing the least degree of change to those causing the most. While Tier 1 would only allow for any increased density within the limits of existing zoning requirements, Tiers 2 and 3 would allow additional density beyond what may currently be possible through local zoning. Tier 1 would be designed to encourage investment in, and retention of, existing multiplefamily buildings while maintaining affordability and minimizing physical impacts to sites and neighborhoods. It would allow for rehabilitation and preservation of existing units despite non-conformities with current zoning within defined parameters through an administrative review process. Tier 1 would also allow for small additions that expand the size of existing units or add amenities benefiting the property. An additional benefit could include requiring on-site parking spaces only for new units added through addition projects, rather than requiring new spaces for both existing and new units. In exchange for these benefits, the property owner or developer would need to dedicate a percentage of units as affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI for a fixed period. Rents for the remaining units would continue to be set by supply and demand forces in the market. Tier 2 would be designed to allow additional investment in existing multiple-family buildings while maintaining affordability. It would permit additional density to be added on-site (beyond what is currently possible by zoning) through new construction (larger additions and infill) while retaining the existing buildings. Tier 2 options would be structured through either an administrative review or use permit depending on the scale of development. The scale of possible changes would be informed by both form- and economic-based modeling. These projects would similarly require a percentage of units to remain affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI for a fixed period. Tier 3 would be designed to allow redevelopment or partial redevelopment scenarios. Where larger changes to existing conditions occur, greater affordability requirements and use permit review would apply to ensure that development is at a scale appropriate to the setting. As these types of projects would result in more physical change to existing buildings and neighborhoods, affordable units provided through Tier 3 could potentially be structured to meet the needs of households earning 60% AMI and below. As with Tier 2, form and economic modeling will inform the level of changes recommended for Tier 3 development incentives. This spectrum of development incentives would allow for a range of projects, appealing to a wide array of property owners and developers. It would provide a series of incentives designed to address the varying opportunities and constraints identified in the Policy Framework. Most importantly, it would provide for dedicated affordable housing in exchange for development projects that are compatible with established neighborhood character and surrounding land uses, and that do not need to rely on AHIF or Low-Income Housing Tax Credit programs alone. Adoption of the Policy Framework will establish the intent of the HCD as well as the approach to develop more specific planning and financing tools and incentives through Phases II and III of HCD implementation. It should be noted that Phase II and III components may evolve through future analysis and community engagement. Other Policy Framework Recommendations RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

7 The Policy Framework recommends future study to further implement AHMP objectives, including: Study of MARKs in the major planning corridors (Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson-Davis, and Columbia Pike) that do not have access to special affordable housing incentives, other than those offered countywide through the Zoning Ordinance (Fort Myer Heights, Colonial Village, northern Ballston, Virginia Square, Bluemont, and Buckingham). These neighborhoods are in closer proximity to Metro and other services, and additional assessment is needed to ensure that development incentives proposed for the HCD will help retain affordability in these contexts. Study of MARKs in areas planned on the GLUP for Low Residential or Service Commercial development, or are zoned for single-family housing (R zones) or commercial development (C zones). Existing apartment uses are inconsistent with these planning expectations, and additional analysis is needed to consider how these MARKs may be preserved. Consideration of future requests for designation as an HCD, whereby properties could gain access to HCD incentives through a GLUP amendment. It is anticipated that analysis of these remaining MARK properties may be completed through Phases II and III of HCD implementation, as well as through a future Missing Middle study that would explore new opportunities to create middle-income ownership housing in Arlington County. MARKeting As the HCD is implemented, County staff should pursue new avenues to emphasize existing local, state, and federal tools to achieve affordability goals. These range from Arlington s Partial Property Tax Exemption for Rehabilitation program to federal historic preservation tax credits. This information could be better communicated through brochures, webpages, or direct outreach to MARK owners and local developers. Future Tax Incentive Program During Phases II and III, staff may consider development of a new tax program that could refund taxes for guaranteed affordable units, subject to necessary enabling authority. General Land Use Plan Amendment (Attachment B) The GLUP communicates the County s land use policy. As an intersection between GLUP Development and Growth Goal #4 (preserve and enhance existing single-family and apartment neighborhoods) and AHMP policy statement 1.1.3, the HCD will be mapped on the GLUP to communicate incentives available to preserve affordability in traditionally market-rate affordable areas. Goals The proposed amendment will add a description of the HCD to the GLUP booklet. This description will indicate that HCD tools and incentives will be designed to meet the following goals: Implement the Affordable Housing Master Plan via the General Land Use Plan; Encourage the retention and renovation of existing rental affordable housing units; RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

8 Provide opportunities for the creation of new affordable units (either rental or ownership) when redevelopment occurs; Maintain the character of established multiple-family areas, considering historic buildings, tree canopies, mix of affordability, and mix of rental vs. ownership housing; and Signal that a variety of tools are available to achieve the above, including removing zoning barriers to reinvestment. Objectives The GLUP amendment will also establish a set of objectives designed to translate HCD goals into actionable policies. These objectives would be implemented through future amendments to the Zoning Ordinance anticipated for Phases II and III. As described in further detail in Attachment A, recommended objectives are to: Preserve market-rate affordable housing up to 80% of AMI; Provide committed affordable (CAF) rental housing up to 60% of AMI and committed affordable ownership housing up to 80% of AMI; Provide ownership housing between 80% and 120% AMI; Preserve buildings listed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) or National Register; Incorporate sustainable building practices; Encourage renovation and infill development while accommodating redevelopment; Ensure projects are compatible to their surroundings; Ensure any new density can be supported by existing infrastructure, including the transit network; and Encourage creation of underrepresented housing forms. Mapped Boundaries While the HCD will be a single district, it will be implemented in 12 locations. These locations roughly correspond with the nine MARK areas identified in the MARKs report. HCD boundaries are proposed to correspond with areas that: Feature two or more MARKs report properties; Are planned on the GLUP for Low-Medium or Medium Residential development; and Are zoned RA14-26, RA8-18, or RA6-15. As discussed in Attachment A, these GLUP designations and zoning districts support the development of apartment buildings, and ensure that a mix of housing types remain in Arlington County, consistent with the County s vision statement to remain a diverse and inclusive urban community. Within the parameters described above, the proposed HCD boundaries were further refined to: Limit the inclusion of properties that were not inventoried in the MARKs report; Exclude site plan-regulated properties, as special conditions are already in place for those locations; Exclude existing townhouse developments along the edges of the proposed districts; and Follow roadways and natural barriers to create more legible edges. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

9 Although the proposed boundaries are designed to encapsulate existing MARKs, surrounding properties contribute to the character of these multiple-family apartment neighborhoods. Additionally, these surrounding properties typically feature similar GLUP and zoning designations meaning that, even if they are not built as multiple-family dwellings, they may be built as such by-right in the future. If these properties are included in the HCD boundary, they may be eligible to use future HCD development incentives, expanding the number of properties that may provide dedicated affordable housing. There are circumstances where property lines cross between GLUP designations. In these instances, the HCD is proposed to be mapped to follow the indicated GLUP and zoning district boundaries. These properties would be able to use HCD incentives for those portions of the site that lie within Low-Medium/Medium GLUP and RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts. The HCD is proposed in 12 locations: Westover; Penrose; Lyon Park North; Lyon Park South; Arlington Ridge-Long Branch Creek; Shirlington; Leeway Overlee (Central Lee Highway); John M. Langston-Glebewood (Central Lee Highway); Waverly Hills (Central Lee Highway); Spout Run-Lyon Village (East Lee Highway); North Highlands West (East Lee Highway); and North Highlands East (East Lee Highway). As the proposed HCD boundaries are more nuanced and property-specific than typical GLUP planning districts, staff is proposing to map these boundaries within the GLUP booklet where they may be distinguished at a more legible scale. Note 28 is proposed to be added to the GLUP Map, indicating that the HCD has been designated, and that readers may find the specific boundaries in the GLUP booklet. MARKs report buildings and complexes not initially captured within the HCD will be assessed for possible inclusion through Phases II and III of HCD implementation, or may be assessed separately through the future Missing Middle planning study. Affordable Housing Master Plan amendment (Attachment C) The HCD will link GLUP land use policies with the goals and objectives of the AHMP. The proposed AHMP amendment will emphasize that policy objective ( make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing ) is being implemented through the HCD. Interested readers will then be able to review the GLUP to understand how this policy recommendation has translated into specific policy action. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Attachment D) As indicated in the Policy Framework, by-right townhouse development may impact Arlington s neighborhoods of market-rate affordable rental housing. Areas proposed to be included within the HCD include large shares of garden-style apartment buildings and are planned to support RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

10 multiple-family housing. Townhouse development, however, provides single-family-style living arrangements that may not be consistent with the density expectations planned by the GLUP or local zoning district, and that may result in the loss of affordable housing units. Owing to the impacts identified in the Policy Framework, townhouse development necessitates additional community and County Board review within HCD areas. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use within those RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 Multiple-family dwelling districts that fall within HCD boundaries. These RA zoning districts implement the Low-Medium and Medium GLUP designation, and allow by-right development of multiple-family residential dwellings. It is a policy of the GLUP to preserve and enhance existing single-family and apartment neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would encourage the continued use of land planned for multiple-family apartment buildings, and would allow for townhouse development, subject to County Board approval. Townhouse development already requires site plan approval in the R10-T One-family and townhouse dwelling district, the R15-30T Townhouse dwelling district, and the RA7-16 Multiplefamily dwelling district. Additionally, townhouse development requires site plan approval within those RA8-18 and RA6-15 zoning districts that are within the boundaries of the Fort Myer Heights North Special District. In Fort Myer Heights North, townhouse development was reclassified as a special exception use owing to its potential impacts on historic resources, affordable housing, established tree canopies, and the form and character of development in the area generally. The proposed reclassification within the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 Multiple-family dwelling districts that fall within HCD boundaries would be consistent with these past policies and would allow potential impacts from townhouse development to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and conditioned, as appropriate. As the HCD is implemented through Phases II and III, staff will consider whether townhouse development may serve as an appropriate transitional building form and land use that could, via use permit review, be integrated within a broader Tier 2 or Tier 3 HCD development project. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would allow owners of existing townhouses to complete interior and exterior repairs, additions, and expansions that are consistent with zoning district standards for lot coverage, setbacks, parking, etc. without requiring site plan approval from the County Board. This would allow owners to modify their properties in the same manner currently possible. The proposed amendment would also allow townhouse development projects that have submitted building permit applications to the County (that have not yet finished construction or received a certificate of occupancy) to receive their certificate of occupancy without site plan approval. Given that by-right townhouse development results in impacts, as identified in Attachment A, staff is proposing to limit this flexibility to projects that have submitted building permit applications prior to the date of this request to advertise. This would limit the number of new applications that could be submitted within the HCD area, and would ensure that identified impacts could be addressed through the site plan review process in future townhouse development proposals. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

11 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: In the process of developing the proposed Housing Conservation District, staff has met with several advisory groups to solicit preliminary feedback on HCD goals, objectives, and policy recommendations. The first round of these discussions took place in June and July, with staff updating the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission (LRPC), Citizens Advisory Commission on Housing (Housing Commission), and Historical Affairs and Landmarks Review Board (HALRB) on the ongoing planning efforts and requesting feedback on a set of proposed goals and objectives. Based on LRPC feedback, an additional objective was added to encourage new homeownership opportunities within the HCD for middleincome households earning between 80% and 120% AMI. A second round of discussions occurred in October, with staff returning to HALRB and the Housing Commission, and to a joint LRPC and Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission (ZOCO) meeting to present the Policy Framework findings and the proposed policy direction for implementing the HCD. Staff presented the three-phase approach and the recommended spectrum of development incentives, ranging from minor additions to redevelopment. The advisory boards and committees were also informed of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use within certain RA zones in HCD boundaries. Feedback from these meetings was generally positive, and HALRB members voted unanimously to recommend approval of Phase I implementation actions. Specific discussion from these meetings tended to revolve around the townhouse reclassification and the need to return to the advisory groups to solicit more specific feedback on Phase II and III implementation once those efforts are underway. Common discussion topics from these meetings are listed below, accompanied by staff responses. Whether the Reclassification of Townhouse Development Would Represent a Taking Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment, townhouse development is still permitted; however, under staff s proposal, it would require special exception approval from the County Board to address potential impacts that may result from the townhouse use in the proposed location. Townhouse development has not been prohibited in the HCD, and this reclassification does not represent a taking of private property. Whether the Reclassification of Townhouse Development Should Be Effective at the Date of the Request to Advertise, the Date of Adoption, or at a To-Be-Determined Future Date Under the proposed ZOA, townhouse projects that have submitted building permits prior to the date of the RTA would not need site plan approval to receive a certificate of occupancy. Owing to the expedited timeline of Phase I HCD implementation, LRPC/ZOCO members were either in favor of using this proposed date to discourage new applications for by-right townhouse development, or were recommending a later date to allow owners and developers to adapt to the changes. Staff continues to propose that the reclassification be effective as of the date of the RTA as additional by-right townhouse development would continue to impact the HCD areas, and would not provide a forum for the community and County Board to identify and respond to those impacts via special exception review. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

12 Whether the Reclassification of Townhouse Development Within the HCD Would Result in New Townhouse Development in Other Areas As townhouse development is proposed to be reclassified as a special exception use within certain RA zoning districts within HCD boundaries, LRPC/ZOCO members were concerned that these changes may cause spillover demand and development in RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts that are outside HCD boundaries. Members recommended pursuing a more holistic approach whereby townhouse development would be reclassified as a special exception use in all RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 Multiplefamily dwelling districts countywide. However, as staff s analysis has focused on impacts in HCD areas, staff does not recommend expanding the scope of this amendment at this time. Whether Additional Community Outreach is Warranted Owing to the expedited timeline for Phase I implementation, staff proposes to utilize the December meetings of the Housing Commission, HALRB, Planning Commission, and County Board to solicit additional community input and feedback. Whether MARK Areas Within the Planning Corridors Should Be Mapped in the HCD While proposed Phase II and III HCD incentives may help retain market-rate affordability outside the planning corridors, it is less clear that these assumptions would hold within the planning corridors themselves, where HCD development incentives (i.e. infill buildings and additions) coupled with housing demand and proximity to Metro may spurn levels of reinvestment in these housing resources that could push them well beyond affordability at 80% AMI. Additional research and analysis is needed to determine whether HCD tools as currently outlined in the Policy Framework would retain affordability under these conditions. As such, staff continues to propose Phase I implementation in the indicated 12 geographies. Beyond the advisory commission meetings in June, July, and October, staff also presented preliminary HCD goals, objectives, and policy recommendations at the September 20, 2017 Alliance for Housing Solutions annual Leckey Forum which offers a venue for local affordable housing developers and advocates to collaborate on innovative housing solutions. The December 4, 2017 Planning Commission and December 7, 2017 Housing Commission meetings will provide additional opportunities for public comment on Phase I prior to the December County Board public hearing. Upon completion of Phase I, staff will continue its work on Phases II and III, and will reengage the HC, HALRB, PC, and others in At this time, staff is targeting completion of this work in CONCLUSION: The proposed Housing Conservation District would communicate the County s goals to retain affordability in those areas that: a) have retained a supply of market-rate affordable rental units, and b) are beyond the jurisdiction of adopted sector, area, and neighborhood plans. The proposed HCD Policy Framework outlines a spectrum of development incentives that would be designed to encourage the retention of affordability in these areas in a manner that is respectful to their established neighborhood character. Authorizing the advertisement of public hearings on these amendments does not imply that the County Board supports the proposed changes. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

13 Therefore, staff recommends that the County Board adopt the attached resolution to authorize advertisement of public hearings by the Planning Commission and County Board to consider establishing a Housing Conservation District, consistent with adopted affordable housing goals and objectives, through adoption of the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework and associated GLUP, AHMP, and Zoning Ordinance amendments, as outlined in this report and presented in Attachments A through D. RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

14 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 4, 2017 AND THE COUNTY BOARD ON DECEMBER 16, 2017, TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, THROUGH: 1. ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT POLICY FRAMEWORK, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A; 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN TO CREATE THE HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT (GLUP NOTE #28) ON THE GLUP MAP AND ESTABLISH ITS GOALS, OBJECTIVES, GENERAL POLICY FRAMEWORK AND DEFINED BOUNDARIES THROUGH NEW TEXT AND MAPS IN THE GLUP BOOKLET, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT B; 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AS PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED ON THE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT C; 4. AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 6, 12, AND 16 OF THE ARLINGTON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO RECLASSIFY TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY BOARD IN THOSE RA14-26, RA8-18, AND RA6-15 ZONING DISTRICTS (I.E. THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS) THAT ARE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AS PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED ON THE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN, TO ALLOW EXISTING TOWNHOUSES TO COMPLETE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REPAIRS, ADDITIONS OR EXPANSIONS THAT COMPLY WITH ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS WITHOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING PROVISION FOR CLARITY, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT D; AND IN ORDER TO REDUCE OR PREVENT CONGESTION IN THE STREETS; TO FACILITATE THE CREATION OF A CONVENIENT, ATTRACTIVE AND HARMONIOUS COMMUNITY; TO PROTECT AGAINST DESTRUCTION OF OR ENCROACHMENT UPON HISTORIC AREAS; TO PROMOTE THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUITABLE FOR MEETING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE LOCALITY AS WELL AS A REASONABLE PROPORTION OF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE PLANNING DISTRICT WITHIN WHICH THE LOCALITY IS SITUATED; AND FOR RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

15 OTHER REASONS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE, AND GOOD ZONING PRACTICE. The County Board of Arlington hereby resolves that the following items shall be advertised for public hearings by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2017 and the County Board on December 16, 2017 to consider establishing a Housing Conservation District, consistent with adopted affordable housing goals and objectives, through: 1. Adoption of the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework, as shown in Attachment A; 2. Amendments to the General Land Use Plan to create the Housing Conservation District (GLUP Note #28) on the GLUP Map and establish its goals, objectives, general policy framework and defined boundaries through new text and maps in the GLUP Booklet, as shown in Attachment B; 3. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Master Plan to include reference to the Housing Conservation District, as proposed to be designated on the General Land Use Plan, as shown in Attachment C; and 4. Amendments to Articles 6, 12, and 16 of the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use requiring site plan approval from the County Board in those RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts (i.e. the Multiple-family dwelling districts) that are within the boundaries of the Housing Conservation District, as proposed to be designated on the General Land Use Plan, to allow existing townhouses to complete interior and exterior repairs, additions or expansions that comply with zoning district standards without site plan approval, and to relocate an existing provision for clarity, as shown in Attachment D; and in order to reduce or prevent congestion in the streets; to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated; and for other reasons required by the public necessity, convenience and welfare, and good zoning practice. ** RTA Housing Conservation District PLA-7692

16 HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT Policy Framework A study to understand the feasibility of preserving affordability in traditionally market-rate affordable areas and to identify potential policies for implementation. Once adopted, this policy framework would serve as the foundation for a Housing Conservation District Plan that would include more detailed recommendations and implementation tools. RTA DRAFT November 8, 2017 Prepared by the Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development

17 INTRODUCTION Arlington s supply of market-rate affordable rental housing has steadily declined, owing to strong demand for housing countywide. Those units that remain market-rate affordable (i.e. units that are not income restricted and that, due to the forces of supply and demand, command rents that affordable to households earning up to 80% of the area median income) tend to be located outside the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis planning corridors, and to be provided within aging, garden-style apartment buildings and complexes, featuring outdated amenities, smaller living spaces, and more tenuous parking arrangements. In 2015, the County Board adopted the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) that established a set of affordable housing-related goals, objectives and policies to ensure that Arlington remains a diverse and inclusive urban community, consistent with the County s vision statement. AHMP goals and objectives are being implemented via a series of planning and program efforts, including an in-progress update to accessory dwelling unit regulations and a forthcoming study of new opportunities for middle-income ownership housing. This document focuses on implementation of AHMP objective 1.1.3, which is to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable rental housing. To implement this objective, the County completed a preliminary survey of apartment buildings and complexes that a) are largely outside the bounds of existing area plans or sector plans and b) offer marketrate affordable rental units. This survey included a handful of buildings and complexes located along the edges of the Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson-Davis, and Columbia Pike major planning corridors. Throughout this document, these types of properties are referred to as MARKs. Preliminary findings from the survey were compiled within a March 2017 report: Market-Rate Affordable Housing: An Approach for Preservation (MARKs report). In addition to identifying nine main areas where MARKs are located (including Westover, Penrose, Waverly Hills, and Shirlington), the MARKs report overviewed the County s existing affordable housing policies, programs, and tools for affordable housing production. While many of these tools have been effective, they are designed more to provide housing affordable below market value, rather than to preserve naturally-occurring market-rate affordability. In recognition of this distinction, the MARKs report included a recommendation to create a new General Land Use Plan (GLUP) district that could provide incentives to preserve affordability in those areas of the County that continue to provide residents with market-rate affordable rental options. It is important to note that, by definition, MARKs do not have any requirement or guarantee of affordability. Therefore, preserving affordability through any binding mechanism either through land use policy or through financing results in MARKs becoming committed affordable housing. The preservation of MARKs is a strategy to preserve affordability in the open housing market. This will be an important tool, as direct financial investments by the County are unable to fill the growing affordability gap. This policy framework document builds on the preliminary findings of the MARKs report and analyzes MARK properties in terms of setting and development potential. The intent is to understand the feasibility of preserving affordability in traditionally market-rate affordable areas. While additional density incentives can serve as a means to create affordable housing, the MARK properties are typically surrounded by lower- to medium-scale development, where the types of building heights and densities needed to preserve existing affordable housing stock on a one-for-one basis would not be feasible to achieve under existing zoning or land use planning and would likely generate community opposition. Instead, and in recognition of the fact that MARK properties are often historically-significant and feature mature tree canopies and purposefullydesigned open lawns and courtyards, a spectrum of development incentives is recommended, with particular concentration on addition and infill projects that can create additional space for housing, yet that retain existing buildings and site features. Based on deeper analysis of the MARKs report properties, the establishment of a new Housing Conservation District or HCD within the General Land Use Plan is envisioned. The implementation of this district is proposed over three distinct phases. Additionally, a recommended set of deliverables and actions that can implement the Housing Conservation District include the following: 2 DRAFT

18 1. Establish the Housing Conservation District, adopting goals, objectives, and mapped boundaries in the General Land Use Plan, and creating a new reference in the Affordable Housing Master Plan; 2. Establish consensus on a future spectrum of Housing Conservation District policies and incentives through adoption of a policy framework; and 3. Implement Housing Conservation District policies and incentives in phases. The goals, objectives, and general direction for future HCD implementation that are described in this document are intended to frame future actions by County staff and the County Board and to guide the incentives and programs developed to preserve affordability in MARK areas. As the HCD is proposed to be implemented in phases, this Policy Framework would ultimately take shape as a Housing Conservation District Plan. Though the details and analysis may evolve, the findings and recommendations provided in this document will continue to serve as the foundation for the Housing Conservation District moving forward. BACKGROUND Arlington County has resolved to remain a diverse and inclusive urban community. To foster diversity and inclusivity, communities aspire to provide housing for residents of various income levels, and to offer an array of housing choices for residents of various life stages and lifestyle preferences, ranging from studio apartments to single-family homes. Despite Arlington s commitment to these tenets, the strong local job market, combined with a limited supply of land and a desirable quality of life has heightened demand for housing countywide, impacting the cost of living. Owing to these forces, the supply of housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income residents has steadily declined. Housing is considered affordable when rent or mortgage, plus utilities, is no more than 30% of a household s gross income. To calculate rents that would be affordable to households at various income thresholds, Arlington utilizes area median income (AMI) data for the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan Area, as prepared annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Based on Arlington s demographics, units that are affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of AMI are considered middle-income or workforce housing. Units affordable to households earning up to 80% of AMI are considered market-rate affordable (MARKs). Relatively few MARKs remain that are affordable to households earning up to 60% of AMI. As a point of reference, in 2017, a single person earning 60% of AMI would have an income of $46,380 and a single person earning 80% of AMI would have an income of $61,840. Below, Tables 1 and 2 show how household incomes and rent levels correlate with affordability at 60% and 80% AMI. Table 1. Household Incomes at 60% and 80% of Area Median Income Household Size 60% AMI 80% AMI 1 person $46,380 $61,840 2 person $52,980 $70,640 3 person $59,580 $79,440 4 person $66,180 $88,240 5 person $71,520 $95,360 Table 2. Affordable Rent Limits at 60% and 80% of Area Median Income Unit Size 60% AMI 80% AMI Efficiency $1,159 $1,546 1 $1,242 $1,656 2 $1,489 $1,986 3 $1,721 $2,295 4 $1,920 $2,560 3 DRAFT

19 Recognizing that housing affordability plays a key role in achieving the County Vision, the County Board adopted the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) in 2015 and incorporated the AHMP as an element of the County s Comprehensive Plan. Among other objectives, the AHMP calls for the production and preservation of a supply of affordable rental housing sufficient to meet the County s current and future needs (objective 1.1). This objective is reinforced by supporting policy statements including guidance that the County should make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing (1.1.3). Arlington County is implementing the AHMP via several initiatives. At the time of this study, the County has been developing updated regulations for accessory dwelling units to create new housing options in singlefamily neighborhoods. A future effort, known as the Missing Middle, will explore new housing types that can provide homeownership opportunities for middle-income households. An additional component, and the subject of this Policy Framework, has been identifying and exploring options to preserve a supply of marketrate affordable rental units within those areas of the County that have traditionally provided such housing. Apartment buildings and complexes that contain market-rate affordable rental units are referenced throughout this document as MARKs. While MARKs exist throughout the County, staff set out to study those properties that lie beyond the jurisdiction of adopted special districts or sector and area plans, for which the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) provides the primary planning-level guidance. For example, MARKs are located along Columbia Pike; however, there are already specific policies and incentives in place (the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Area Plan and Neighborhoods Form-Based Code) designed to encourage the retention of affordable housing along Columbia Pike. Conversely, no special provisions exist to address the specific needs of affordable housing in areas like Westover or Penrose. Preliminary study of the MARKs culminated in a March 2017 report, Market Rate Affordable Housing: An Approach for Preservation (MARKs report). The MARKs report found that, since 2000, the County has experienced a net loss of over 14,400 MARKs with rents affordable up to 60% AMI. These losses are generally attributed either to rent increases or to redevelopment. Over this same time period, the supply of MARKs with rents affordable between 60% and 80% AMI has held relatively stable and has gradually increased by 4,000 units, likely owing to rent increases in units that were previously affordable below 60% AMI. Largely outside planned corridors and neighborhoods (i.e., Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson-Davis, and Columbia Pike planning corridors), there now remain approximately 163 apartment complexes offering rents affordable below 80% AMI. These 163 complexes contain approximately 6,800 rental units (as compared with approximately 7,400 such rental units remaining within the planned areas of the County). Ninety percent of the properties include garden-style apartment buildings, many of which have historic value as identified by the County s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Some of these may even be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR). The approximately 163 MARK properties were identified as being located within nine general geographic areas: Arlington County has an inventory of over 7,500 committed affordable housing units (CAFs) that are required to remain affordable to households at certain income thresholds for a fixed period. CAFs are typically produced through County involvement in financing through the Affordable Housing Investment Fund as well as through site plan- and form-based code-regulated buildings and/or projects. The affordability requirements for CAFs are most commonly set for households earning up to 60% AMI, although there have been several mixed-income projects that have required units to be affordable up to 80% AMI. 4 DRAFT

20 along the edges of the Ballston Metro Station area; along the edges of the Rosslyn Metro Station area; along central Lee Highway; Along eastern Lee Highway; Penrose; Westover; Lyon Park; Shirlington; and Nauck-Long Branch Creek-Aurora Highlands. Arlington County MARKS Areas In Areas without Area or Sector Plans Beyond identifying MARK properties, the MARKs report evaluated risks to remaining market-rate affordable housing units, assessed the performance and suitability of existing tools in achieving preservation of affordable dwelling units, and recommended potential planning and financing strategies that could help advance and implement AHMP goals and objectives. Planning and regulatory tools could include special GLUP designations, Zoning Ordinance amendments, adjustments to the site plan or form-based code development review processes, historic preservation tax incentives, and transfer of development rights. Finance tools could include tax incentives, acquisition loans, or preservation through the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF). While other tools such as bonus density through special exception site plan approval have successfully preserved affordable housing within the planned areas of the County, some of these planning tools may not be as effective at preserving affordability in the nine MARK areas, which typically include lower to mediumdensity residential development. When the MARKs report was presented to the County Board in April 2017, staff proposed establishing a new Housing Conservation District (HCD) on the GLUP to preserve affordability in these nine areas. As a planning tool, the HCD would offer greater flexibility for property owners to renovate and develop multiple-family apartment buildings in exchange for dedicated on-site affordable housing. Since April 2017, the HCD concept has been further studied and refined and is recommended to be implemented over three phases through GLUP, AHMP, and Zoning Ordinance amendments, as well as through the development of new financing tools. Subsequent findings and points of analysis regarding development of the HCD concept are provided in the pages below. DEVELOPING A HOUSING CONSERVATION DISTRICT While the MARKs report identified those apartment buildings and complexes that a) are outside planned neighborhoods and b) retain rents at market-rate affordable levels, it neither analyzed properties in terms of development potential (i.e. general conformance with height, density, or parking requirements) nor setting (i.e. adjacent land uses, neighborhood character, etc.). More complete analysis of these development opportunities and constraints has been necessary to inform policy development for the proposed HCD. Findings and Challenges Rents in market-rate affordable buildings/complexes are affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI owing to their age, location, or other features. Property owners may raise or lower rents at any time to respond to changing demand or upkeep costs, and are also free to redevelop their holdings, or to sell them 5 DRAFT

21 to new investors. As such, there is no guarantee that these units will remain market-rate affordable in the future. There appear to be certain qualities common to the MARKs report properties that may indicate why they have maintained market-rate affordable rents. For example, over 90% of the properties listed in the MARKs report include garden-style apartment buildings. The median construction year for these buildings/complexes is These aging buildings are located further away from Metro stations, and may feature outdated amenities and smaller living spaces than may be offered in other multiple-family buildings in the County. As buildings age, they tend to lose some of their appeal on the market, particularly when their features are also perceived as out-of-date. On one hand, aging buildings tend to offer lower rents, providing muchneeded affordable housing options for area residents. On the other hand, aging buildings may become more expensive to maintain, and as they command lower rents and require greater upkeep, may increasingly be seen as favorable for redevelopment. When existing market-rate affordable housing stock is demolished and replaced with more expensive housing alternatives, established neighborhood character is impacted, and affordability is lost. This has been experienced recently in Westover where two-story garden-style apartment buildings offering market-rate affordable rents have been demolished and replaced with by-right, three-story townhouse dwellings, with initial selling prices upward of $800,000 per unit. While these aging buildings maintain market-rate affordable rents, they also represent the historicallysignificant garden-style architectural form, which reached the peak of its popularity in the postwar era. In implementing the Historic Preservation Master Plan (an element of the Comprehensive Plan), the County has analyzed its stock of garden-style apartment buildings and has assessed those buildings for historic value. The most intact and representative buildings are deemed to be Essential and Important to the history of Arlington County, and are listed in the local Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The HRI also identifies those properties that, although not as intact or as representative as Essential and Important properties, are nevertheless of notable value to local history. Half of the properties surveyed in the MARKs report are also listed in the HRI. An additional subset of MARK properties is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, meaning these buildings/complexes may represent architectural resources of national historic value. Most of the garden-style apartment buildings in Westover, for example, have been assessed for eligibility on the National Register, and have been listed as contributing properties to the Westover National Register District. Thus, while the MARKs report properties benefit the community by providing more affordable housing options and contributing to neighborhood character and local and national history, they face unique pressures for redevelopment, owing to their age and condition. For individual property owners, rising upkeep costs, combined with limited zoning-based flexibility to reinvest in existing housing stock (as discussed below) may make sale or redevelopment appear more desirable. Sale may particularly be desirable to new property owners or heirs that do not wish to manage the consistent upkeep and operation required to maintain rental income properties. Zoning Nonconformities The Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for multiple-family dwellings, requiring that they meet certain setbacks, height limits, lot coverage thresholds, and parking standards. However, when these garden-style apartment buildings and complexes were originally constructed, many of these requirements were different, or were not yet in place. Building codes were also different, and did not require accessibility for persons with disabilities. While it is not feasible to assess each property s compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, it is important to note that building construction standards have also evolved over the past decades, and there are likely discrepancies between built conditions and current requirements. What follows, however, is a general overview of the MARKs report properties compliance with current Zoning Ordinance standards. With an understanding of this compliance, it becomes more feasible to understand existing opportunities and constraints for housing development. 6 DRAFT

22 Density Density expectations are established by the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) and are implemented via the local zoning district. The GLUP provides higher-level policy direction, and the land use designations mapped therein do not always correspond with property lines. The GLUP plans for six categories of residential development, with the following expectations for density, as indicated in Table 3 below: Table 3. General Land Use Plan Expectations for Density GLUP Designation Density Low Residential 1-10 dwelling units per acre Low Residential dwelling units per acre Low-Medium Residential dwelling units per acre Medium Residential dwelling units per acre High-Medium Residential Up to 3.24 floor area ratio High Residential Up to 4.8 floor area ratio Low Residential land uses typically include single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes. Low-Medium and Medium Residential areas plan for the development of apartment buildings and complexes that provide a transition in terms of height, form, and density between Low Residential one- and two-family dwelling neighborhoods and High-Medium and High Residential urban villages planned for the Metro corridors. Approximately 46% of Arlington s land area 1 is planned for Low Residential development (including both the 1-10 and dwelling unit per acre categories). This compares with approximately 9% of land area planned for Low-Medium Residential development and 2.5% of land area planned for Medium Residential development. 58% of the land planned for Low-Medium Residential development is located beyond the jurisdiction of adopted sector, area, and neighborhood plans, and outside the planning corridors. This implies that the majority of Low-Medium land is regulated solely by zoning district development standards. Conversely, only 11% of the land planned for Medium Residential development is beyond the jurisdiction of an adopted planning document or is outside the planning corridors. Most of the land planned for Medium Residential development is encouraged to achieve its maximum development potential using zoning incentives enabled in sector plan areas. Approximately 80% of MARKs report properties are in areas planned for Low-Medium and Medium Residential development (see Figure 1). The densities expected in these areas (between 16 and 72 dwelling units per acre) are consistent with the densities occurring in multiple-family apartment buildings. However, similar to how many MARK properties predate the 1950 adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, many also predate the 1961 adoption of the GLUP. Nineteen MARKs report properties (or 12% of the total) are located in areas planned for Low Residential development, or for Service Commercial land uses. These apartment buildings and complexes typically stand alone among single-family houses or lower-scale commercial development, and the GLUP expectation for these areas is that they remain lower-density in character. An additional nine properties cross between several GLUP designations, including various iterations of Low- Medium/Low, Low Residential/Service Commercial, and Low-Medium and Public. To evaluate consistency between built densities and the densities planned by the GLUP, lot size information for the MARKs report properties may be converted into an acreage calculation. Based on these standards, 60 MARKs report properties (roughly 37% of the total) exceed their GLUP expectations for density. Of this 37%, more than half include properties in the Low-Medium designation whose densities are actually within the Medium range of the spectrum. An additional 30% of GLUP-nonconforming properties are located in 1 For the purposes of these calculations, federally-owned and managed properties are included as part of the overall land area of Arlington County. 7 DRAFT

23 areas planned for Low Residential development, where densities possible in apartment buildings and complexes do not match plans for single-family dwellings. Figure 1. MARKs Report Properties by General Land Use Plan Designation Low Residential (1-10 du/acre) 2 Low Residential (11-15 du/acre) Low-Medium Residential 14 Medium Residential 4 High-Medium Residential 10 Overlapping Designations 1 Service Commercial While the GLUP establishes high-level land use and density policy guidance, these uses and densities are implemented via the local zoning district. Approximately 87% of the MARKs report properties are within the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts, which are known as the Multiple-family dwelling districts. As shown in Table 5 below, some MARK properties lie within the one-family dwelling districts (R-5 and R- 6), the two-family and townhouse dwelling district (R2-7), the service commercial-community business district (C-2), and the hotel district (RA-H). Just as some MARKs report properties cross between several GLUP designations, several properties cross between the boundaries of multiple zoning districts. In such cases, the provisions of each zone apply to the portion of the property that lies within that zone. Table 4. Zoning Classifications of the 163 MARKs Report Properties Zoning District(s) Number of Properties S-3A/RA R-6 1 R-6/RA R-6/RA R-5 1 R2-7 3 R2-7/C-2 1 RA RA14-26/RA RA RA8-18/C-2 1 RA RA4.8 4 RA-H 2 C-2 4 Given that most MARKs properties are in the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts as well as the fact that these zones are consistent with GLUP plans for Low-Medium and Medium Residential development, this Policy Framework lends particular emphasis to the zoning regulations that apply in those three districts. 8 DRAFT

24 Within the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts, density is calculated based on the square footage of the lot. An additional dwelling unit may be added for between every 900 and 1,800 square feet of lot area, per the following: Table 5. Density Expectations in the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 Zones Zone Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (square feet) Implied Density (dwelling units per acre) RA , RA8-18 1, RA While these Zoning Ordinance standards are in effect today, many MARK properties were built between 1940 and Prior to 1950, density was calculated based on the number of bedrooms provided in each dwelling unit. In converting between these standards of measurement, many properties became nonconforming to the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This means that some existing buildings could not be built in the same manner today. Legally nonconforming properties are those that were built consistent with the standards in place when they were constructed. These properties may continue to remain in place; however, should structural changes (i.e. those that require the movement of beams and structural supports) be proposed, the property would need to come into compliance with current zoning requirements. Seventy-seven of the MARKs report properties (or 43% of the total) include more units today than would be permitted by current zoning. An additional 21 properties are currently built to their maximum density. This means that approximately 60% of the MARKs report properties have no potential to add units on-site, per current Zoning Ordinance requirements. Should properties that exceed their zoning density pursue structural changes or additions to these existing buildings, they would need to address the nonconformity. This would mean removing existing dwelling units, which would not be a desirable outcome based on Arlington s already dwindling supply of market-rate affordable rental units. While zoning-based limitations to new density exist, at least 59 properties (or approximately 36% of the total number of buildings/complexes surveyed in the MARKs report) hold the potential to add new units. If built to the maximum permitted density (which is not always feasible owing to parking, setback, lot coverage, and height requirements), these properties could add approximately 579 dwelling units to the market, consistent with GLUP density expectations. It should be noted that in the remaining four percent of MARKs report properties, density is determined by floor area ratio (FAR), or is incompatible with underlying commercial zoning, meaning that density projections are infeasible to project. Height and Setbacks As many MARKs report buildings and complexes were constructed between the 1940s and 1960s, access to original building plans can be limited. Without conducting field surveys, it is not possible to verify the existing heights of these structures and compare them with current zoning requirements. However, based on window-screen surveys of the sites, most garden-style apartment buildings appear to be consistent with the heights allowed under current zoning. Maximum heights for the RA zoning districts range from 35 feet to 60 feet, and most garden-style apartment buildings are between two and four stories in height. One outlier is the Barbee House in Fort Myer Heights, which stands eight stories tall, while current zoning permits a maximum height of six stories. As side and rear setbacks are based on building height, it is similarly infeasible to estimate compliance with existing provisions. Additional study may be warranted to identify nonconformities for setbacks. 9 DRAFT

25 Lot Coverage Similar to building height and setbacks, lot coverage is difficult to estimate without detailed building plans. Lot coverage is based not only on building footprint, but also on the amount of land that is dedicated to driveways, parking lots, and accessory buildings (i.e. sheds and garages). The maximum lot coverage in the RA districts is 56%. Via additional study, it may be possible to estimate lot coverage using aerial footage; however, more precise estimates are not feasible owing to the lack of building permit data. Parking Many garden-style apartment buildings predate County requirements for on-site parking. Such buildings and complexes may offer no parking spaces, meaning that residents utilize street parking for their vehicles. However, some property owners and developers have retroactively added limited supplies of parking, although these spaces may be provided in informal gravel lots or driveways as opposed to concrete lots with striped and dimensioned spaces. Those properties that lack on-site parking feature more landscaped lawns, courtyards, and open spaces, reflecting the more suburban and pastoral inspirations behind the garden-style architectural form. When buildings are legally nonconforming for parking, they must remedy the nonconformity to complete structural renovations or additions. For example, if an eight-unit legally-nonconforming building with no onsite parking spaces proposed to add new square footage or units, the owner/developer would need to provide nine on-site parking spaces for the existing eight units (1.125 parking spaces per unit), plus additional spaces for any new units added in the renovation. To provide these spaces, existing landscaped open spaces would need to be paved over. For properties pursuing historic preservation tax credits, replacement of landscaped open spaces with parking could hamper efforts to earn those credits. Additionally, it is possible that the lack of convenient on-site parking spaces may contribute to the lower rents afforded by these buildings. Context of Market-Rate Affordable Buildings and Complexes MARKs report properties are primarily found in nine areas, including Westover, Penrose, Waverly Hills, and Shirlington. As indicated above, most properties are in areas planned on the GLUP for Low-Medium and Medium Residential development, and are within the RA Multiple-family dwelling zones. The MARKs report identified several MARKs properties within the broader boundaries of the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson- Davis planning corridors. These include Fort Myer Heights, Northern Ballston, Virginia Square, Northern Colonial Village, Bluemont, and Buckingham. Compared with other parts of the County, the planning corridors are closer to Metro stations, where additional density may be accommodated. MARKs in areas outside the planning corridors, sector plans, and area plans, however, rely on the GLUP and their local zoning district for primary guidance on planning matters. These groupings or clusters of MARKs represent smaller nodes of low-medium and medium-density development that are scattered throughout the County, and that tend to be circled by low-density residential and/or commercial development. While the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson-Davis corridors tend to provide mid- to high-rise apartment dwelling options for area residents, the MARKs areas typically include low-rise apartments built at a scale more compatible with nearby single-family homes and commercial districts. Garden-style apartment buildings in these areas tend to be between 2 and 4 stories in height, and are often surrounded by landscaped open spaces and courtyards that provide much of the greenery and privacy usually associated with single-family development. The nine MARK areas feature common attributes, yet they are not uniform. For example, MARKs may be located immediately adjacent to one another, or they may stand on their own amid single-family homes or retail buildings. Westover and Penrose feature contiguous agglomerations of garden-style apartment buildings and complexes where adjacent landscaping and open spaces create a campus-like neighborhood setting. Larger complexes like Park Shirlington and the Park at Arlington Ridge feature similar campus-like 10 DRAFT

26 arrangements. In the case of standalone MARK properties, the majority of the surrounding properties are located within the same Low-Medium or Medium GLUP designation and are similarly zoned to permit multiple-family dwellings. Despite these variations, the building patterns and characteristics in the different MARK areas are not so unique that each would require its own small area plan. As over 93% of the properties in the MARKs report are classified as garden-style apartment buildings, the horizontal form, open landscaping, and low- to mid-rise heights of these walk-up buildings serve as a unifying and identifying feature across the MARK areas. Compared with high-rise apartment buildings, garden-style apartment buildings spread their density out horizontally across the landscape, providing units with the privacy and green space more typically associated with single-family dwellings. Larger properties typically feature numerous garden-style apartment buildings set in park-like open spaces. In some areas like Westover and Penrose, apartment buildings occupy individual yet contiguous parcels, mimicking the parklike settings provided in larger complexes, yet in a more tenuous environment where changes to one property may impact the overall tree canopy or character of another. Townhouse Development In addition to surveying MARK buildings and complexes, the MARKs report indicated that rising rents and development pressures continue to impact the supply of market-rate affordable housing countywide. As mentioned previously, the fact that many MARK properties are aging makes them more vulnerable to redevelopment. Since the MARKs report was finalized, Cherry Hill Apartments in Cherrydale has been demolished, and is being replaced with a new by-right multiple-family building. In Westover, additional MARKs have been demolished and are being replaced with by-right townhouse development. Although the redevelopment of Cherry Hill Apartments represents a loss of existing MARK resources, it still provides multiple-family dwelling options for area residents, and provides housing consistent with land use expectations. On the other hand, by-right townhouse development in such areas as Westover and Bluemont replaces multiple-family dwelling units with larger and more expensive single-family homes. As a building form, townhouses are inherently different from multiple-family dwellings, and are particularly incongruent with historic garden-style apartment buildings and complexes. Garden-style apartment buildings are low-rise in character, utilizing a horizontal layout in which individual units are accessed via common corridors and stairwells, and in which individual units usually occupy only a portion of a single floor. In these buildings, open space and parking are also shared, and may not be immediately accessible from each individual unit. In fact, parking may be provided at some distance from the unit, or in the case of the oldest apartment buildings, may even be provided on the street. Roofs are also typically flat, maintaining the lowto mid-rise horizontality of the building type. Arlington s historic garden-style apartment buildings were constructed to house the rapidly-expanding postwar federal workforce, and to provide pleasant yet affordable By-right townhouse development in a neighborhood of historic garden apartments. 11 DRAFT

27 housing options for middle-class workers and their families. In fact, to this day, Arlington s historic gardenstyle apartment buildings continue to offer much of the quiet and privacy of typical suburban housing at a relatively affordable price point. In combining middle-class sensibilities with pressing postwar housing needs, these garden-style apartment buildings and complexes were built to resemble small manor houses that, instead of housing one family, provided space for numerous families. Accordingly, these garden-style apartment buildings typically feature a consistent façade with uniform window treatments and building materials (especially red brick), as well as a single front door. Conversely, townhouses are constructed to compete with single-family homes, meaning units are designed to look and function like single-family homes, and to feature many of the same amenities. In terms of appearance, townhouse units are vertical in nature, with a single unit occupying a relatively small footprint, yet expanding upward using private hallways and staircases to encompass several stories. Desires to maximize living space for individual units usually result in townhouses built at or near the permitted building height. The verticality of the townhouse unit is often further emphasized by pitched rooflines. Façade treatments may emphasize the individuality of the townhouse unit, using downspouts, distinctive finishes, and contrasting window and door arrangements to indicate that each unit is housing a different family. This contrasts with the horizontal layouts and more uniform facades that define traditional gardenstyle apartment buildings. Townhouse units also typically feature private garages. The need to provide direct vehicle access between each garage and the street influences site layout and building orientation. On smaller sites, desires to maximize the number of townhouse units may result in front-loaded designs where garages front immediately onto the public street. These designs result in numerous curb cuts that create additional opportunities for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, and that can reduce the supply of on-street parking spaces. On larger lots, new private drives and driveways may be needed to provide vehicle access for new townhouse units. These layouts can impact the quality of life on the site as well as on surrounding properties, reducing tree canopies, minimizing available open space, and creating more impervious surfaces. Additionally, as townhouses typically provide more living space than apartments and condominiums, they may rent To facilitate access to private garages, townhouse development may result in the development of new private drives. and sell at higher price points. Through this type of by-right development, market-rate affordable rental housing options are lost, and are replaced with more expensive single-family homes. To facilitate by-right townhouse development in these areas, large lots that are zoned to permit by-right apartment buildings are subdivided into a series of smaller lots, or fall under the purview of a new homeowners association. In the future, these changes may make it difficult for individual property owners to construct multiple-family dwellings, especially where large numbers of parcels would need to be acquired to permit that type of development. Owing to these changes, townhouse development precludes the use of land zoned for multiple-family dwellings, extending a more single-family-oriented use of this land into the future. 12 DRAFT

28 Townhouse Development Regulations Townhouse development is permitted by-right in the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts. RA14-26 and RA8-18 zoning districts implement the Low-Medium Residential GLUP designation, which plans for densities between 16 and 36 dwelling units per acre. The RA6-15 zoning district implements the Medium Residential GLUP designation, which plans for densities between 37 and 72 dwelling units per acre. Townhouse development is permitted by special exception site plan review in the RA7-16 zoning district (which implements Medium Residential GLUP) and in the R15-30T zoning district (which implements both the Low Residential (11-15 dwelling units per acre) and the Low-Medium Residential GLUP designations. Owing to its impacts on affordable housing, tree canopies, and historic buildings, townhouse development has been reclassified as a special exception use within those RA8-18 and RA6-15 zoning districts that are within the boundaries of the Fort Myer Heights North Special District. These current regulations for townhouse development are summarized in Table 6 below, where P indicates that a use is permitted administratively (by-right) and S indicates that a use requires special exception site plan approval from the County Board. Table 6. Existing Regulations for Townhouse Development *Townhouse development has been reclassified as a special exception use requiring site plan approval in those RA8-18 and RA6-15 zoning districts within the boundaries of the Fort Myer Heights North Special District. Where permitted by-right, townhouse development must conform with zoning standards for height, setbacks, and lot coverage. By-right townhouse developments must provide 2 parking spaces per unit plus an additional 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit (for 2.2 parking spaces per unit total). By-right multiple-family dwellings of less than 200 units, on the other hand, must provide parking spaces per unit. By-right multiple-family buildings with more than 200 units must provide spaces per unit. PAST PRECEDENTS Despite the challenges and limitations indicated above, the County has resolved to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing. As summarized in the MARKs report, Arlington County has implemented a variety of planning districts, zoning tools, and financing programs to support affordable housing. Several of these tools may serve as a model when it comes to responding to the MARKs report recommendation that the County develop a General Land Use Plan district that would incentivize the retention of affordability in areas of existing market-rate affordable housing. Affordable Housing Investment Fund The County maintains an Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) that has facilitated the acquisition of over 4,500 market rate affordable housing units since the 1970s. These units are now guaranteed to remain 13 DRAFT

29 affordable for a fixed period (or in perpetuity) as committed affordable housing subject to tenant income restrictions. Voluntary Coordinated Housing Preservation and Development District Perhaps the most relevant existing land use tool is the Voluntary Coordinated Housing Preservation and Development District (VCHPDD), which Arlington has implemented in accordance with the Code of Virginia. In Arlington, properties in the RA14-26, RA8-18, RA7-16, RA6-15, RA4.8, R-C, RA-H, and RA-H-3.2 zoning districts can request to be designated a VCHPDD via use permit. Through that same process, property owners and developers may request that the County Board modify Zoning Ordinance standards for setbacks, lot coverage, density, and parking, within certain limits, to complete minor construction projects. These projects may range in scale from bumping-out the walls of an existing unit to create more living space to creating a new residential wing or addition where properties are not yet built to their maximum permitted density. In exchange for these benefits, property owners and developers agree to provide moderate or lowincome housing on-site. Per state requirements, a minimum of 20% of the units in a project using this tool are required to remain affordable for at least ten years. Arlington s nonprofit development partners have typically provided greater percentages of affordable units for longer terms, typically leveraging other tools such as AHIF or Low-Income Tax Credits. Nonprofit partners in Arlington have also utilized this tool to bump-out existing units to transform smaller living spaces into family-sized dwelling units of two or more bedrooms, consistent with AHMP goals and objectives. The VCHPDD provides a model for development incentives that maintain established zoning requirements for height and density, yet that allow for reinvestment in existing housing. Provisions of the VCHPDD ensure that, when changes are made to nonconforming sites, height and density will either remain consistent with current conditions, or else will occur within the limits established for by-right development. Yet while the VCHPDD provides more flexibility for development, the use permit review process may detract some owners or investors from utilizing the tool. The VCHPDD also sets affordability requirements up to 60% of AMI, which might not be economically feasible without additional subsidy. To date, the only projects that have utilized the provisions of the VCHPDD have been those advanced by affordable housing developers. These projects have also employed County financing via the Affordable Housing Investment Fund. Should the type of flexibility provided by the VCHPDD be expanded to a more administrative review process, preservation and This bump-out addition at Buckingham Village III was completed using flexibility provided by the VCHPDD. reinvestment in existing housing resources may appear more desirable and financially beneficial. At the same time, clear standards would need to be developed to provide consistency and predictability for developers, staff, and the community. 14 DRAFT

30 Special Affordable Housing Protection District The Special Affordable Housing Protection District was established to promote retention of affordable housing within the two Metro Corridors, where the General Land Use Plan usually allows development at higher densities than allowed by-right under current zoning. The overall goal of the SAHPD is to provide opportunities for housing affordable to persons with low-and moderate-incomes in areas where such housing has traditionally been available. The intent of this district, as shown on the General Land Use Plan (GLUP), is to ensure that existing low- and moderate-income apartment units remain or are replaced where development density shown on the GLUP is 3.24 F.A.R. or more, and is higher than allowed by-right under zoning applicable to properties considered for the SAHPD designation at the time of request for rezoning or site plan. The SAHPD shows how greater density may be used to achieve the preservation of housing affordability, however the levels of density implied by the SAHD are much greater than would be appropriate in the context of the MARKs areas. Fort Myer Heights North Special District Similar to the MARKs report areas, Fort Myer Heights North (FMHN) features a neighborhood character influenced by the presence of many historic garden-style apartment buildings and mature tree canopies. Within FMHN, a series of zoning tools and land use policies have been implemented to support the community s goals of preserving affordable housing, historic buildings, open space, and mature trees. Consistent with these goals, townhouse development was reclassified from a by-right use to a special exception use within those RA8-18 and RA6-15 zoning districts within the boundaries of the FMHN Special District, ensuring that potential impacts to neighborhood character and affordable housing could be identified and addressed through the site plan review process. Recognizing that density often serves as a tool to subsidize the retention of affordable housing, the FMHN Special District created a process whereby development potential may be transferred from a Conservation Area (where historic buildings, open spaces, tree canopies and affordable housing stock may be preserved) to a Redevelopment Area where the transferred development potential may be accumulated to achieve greater building heights and densities. The FMHN Special District shows that community benefits may be achieved through coordinated preservation and development. These same interests must be balanced via the proposed Housing Conservation District, although given that FMHN is within the Rosslyn-Ballston planning corridor and is relatively proximate to Metro, levels (and transfers) of development possible in that area may not be feasible in the areas proposed for the Housing Conservation District. Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Special Revitalization District Form Based Code To help achieve the development and affordable housing goals of the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Area Plan, the County adopted the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Special Revitalization District Form Based Code in The primary focus of the Neighborhoods FBC is on the residential areas along Columbia Pike where apartments and multiple-family complexes are concentrated. Under the Neighborhoods FBC, all development projects are required to set aside between 20% and 35% of the net new units for affordable housing. The affordable housing units must remain affordable for at least 30 years for households earning 60% of AMI. The Neighborhoods Form Based Code, which provides an optional permitting review path for developers, has created new opportunities to add density. Affordable housing developers have used this flexibility, combined with other financing incentives, to provide more affordable units than they would otherwise have been allowed to build under existing zoning. This has allowed for infill on underdeveloped sites that, in conjunction with other tools, has created an additional 606 CAF units since While the commercial centers FBC (adopted in 2003) does not have an affordable housing requirement, several developers have voluntarily provided committed affordable housing units within those projects, leveraging assistance from AHIF. 15 DRAFT

31 In implementing new affordability requirements via the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form-Based Code, a staff and consultant team generated pro forma models to understand the interplay between affordability requirements and developer returns on investment. The economic modeling indicated that, on average, it takes three to four unregulated (i.e. market-rate) units to subsidize the creation of one affordable unit up to 60% AMI. Additional density, therefore, may often serve as a tool to facilitate the creation of affordable housing. However, as MARKs report properties are typically set amid lower- to medium-scale development, they are not capable of supporting the densities required to guarantee one-for-one replacement of existing marketrate affordable housing units. As an example, many MARK properties are within the RA14-26 zoning district. The RA14-26 zone permits a maximum density of twenty-four dwelling units per acre. Should a one-acre property be built to its maximum density, Table 7 portrays the densities that would be implied under different scenarios. For example, using current Zoning Ordinance provisions for bonus density via site plan application, the property would be able to increase its density by 25% or 6 units, for a total of 30 dwelling units on the site. Using the economic modeling from Columbia Pike as a preliminary guide, if the goal were to preserve all 24 existing units on-site as affordable housing using no other tool beside density, a new development project would need to provide between three and four times as many units on the site, yielding 72 to 96 dwelling units on the same one-acre site that previously housed 24 units. Extrapolating those estimates to apply to all MARKs report properties, and assuming sole reliance on density as the preservation tool, between 20,400 and 27,200 additional units would be needed to retain the existing 6,800 MARKs report units. Table 7. Density Implications Under Different Development Scenarios Base Zoning Density Site Plan Bonus Density (+25%) 3 x Density 4 x Density 24 du/acre maximum 30 du/acre maximum 72 du/acre 96 du/acre Based on these implications, it is not possible to replace the full stock of existing MARK units on a one-forone basis. In the MARK areas, existing land use plans and zoning do not support these densities or the building heights they would require. It is also likely that this level of change would generate community concern and opposition. Instead, development projects that can guarantee the preservation of some existing affordable units and that can do so in a manner appropriate to the lower- and medium-scale character of the study areas are preferable. RECOMMENDATIONS The MARKs report recommended creation of a new General Land Use Plan district designed to incentivize the retention of affordability in areas with market-rate affordable rental housing. This planning district would be known as the Housing Conservation District, and would generally be implemented within the nine MARK areas identified in the MARKs report. From that initial policy direction, this Policy Framework has described the MARKs report properties in further detail, has identified land use and building form patterns common to MARK areas, and has analyzed components of existing planning tools that may inspire HCD efforts. Based on these considerations, the following three actions are recommended to implement the HCD in Arlington County: 1. Establish the Housing Conservation District, adopting goals, objectives, and mapped boundaries in the General Land Use Plan, and creating a new reference in the Affordable Housing Master Plan; 16 DRAFT

32 2. Establish consensus on a future spectrum of Housing Conservation District policies and incentives through adoption of a policy framework; and 3. Implement Housing Conservation District policies and incentives in phases. Additionally, future assessment may be required to build on the findings presented in this Policy Framework document. While the HCD is proposed to respond to AHMP objective (make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing), some MARKs are in areas planned or zoned for different types of development, or are located in the Major Planning Corridors where development expectations and market pressures may pose unique challenges and opportunities. These outstanding questions are either recommended to be addressed through future phases of HCD implementation or through the future Missing Middle planning study as described in further detail below under Recommendations for Future Study. Recommendation 1: Establish the Housing Conservation District, adopting goals, objectives, and mapped boundaries in the General Land Use Plan, and creating a new reference in the Affordable Housing Master Plan. As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the GLUP and AHMP communicate Arlington County s policies on land use and affordable housing. The Housing Conservation District is proposed to unite these two Comprehensive Plan elements, representing a special planning district that, combined with future financing incentives, would implement affordable housing policies through new land use tools. Amendments are needed to each plan to establish the district and create this linkage. The General Land Use Plan (GLUP) The GLUP guides the future development of Arlington County and communicates plans and expectations for the density, use, and character of County neighborhoods. As such, the GLUP should serve as the primary means of highlighting the County s commitment to preserving affordability in areas with existing market-rate affordable rental housing. In recognition of the opportunities and constraints identified in this Policy Framework, a series of goals and more detailed objectives should be adopted to communicate the intent of the HCD, inform the development of future HCD incentives, and guide County staff, the County Board, and the community in evaluating future HCD development projects. Goals As the HCD will implement Affordable Housing Master Plan policies, it should be understood as a link between the AHMP and the GLUP. HCD goals should reflect that market-rate affordable areas tend to be surrounded by lower- to medium-scale development, and that, given these adjacencies, certain types of development projects may be more appropriate than others. Additionally, HCD goals should acknowledge that the areas proposed to be included within the district boundaries feature a unique sense of place and character, influenced by the presence of historically-significant garden-style apartment buildings. Many MARK properties are nonconforming for density or parking (or both). HCD goals should address this challenge, and should create new opportunities for property owners to invest in existing housing resources rather than redeveloping them. Consistent with these general considerations, the following goals are recommended for the Housing Conservation District: Implement the Affordable Housing Master Plan via the General Land Use Plan; Encourage the retention and renovation of existing rental affordable housing units; Provide opportunities for the creation of new affordable units (either rental or ownership) when redevelopment occurs; Maintain the character of established multiple-family areas, considering historic buildings, tree canopies, mix of affordability, and mix of rental vs. ownership housing; and 17 DRAFT

33 Signal that a variety of tools are available to achieve the above, including removal of zoning barriers to reinvestment. Objectives Specific objectives are needed to translate these broader goals into actionable policies, and are recommended to include the following, as described in further detail below: Preserve market-rate affordable housing up to 80% AMI. Areas proposed for the HCD include some of the last vestiges of market-rate affordable rental housing in Arlington County. While the County retains a sufficient supply of housing for households earning more than 80% AMI, HCD areas have traditionally remained affordable for households earning less than that threshold. To implement this objective, future development projects utilizing HCD incentives should be required to provide a percentage of units affordable to households earning less than 80% AMI. As units in these areas are currently renting at these levels, these requirements would not be anticipated to place a significant economic burden on property owners or developers. Instead, income certification for a portion of rental units would help guarantee market-rate affordability for some units, while allowing rents for the remaining units to fluctuate with the market. Based on building locations and features, however, it is likely those unregulated units would continue to command rents at or near existing market-rate affordable levels. Provide committed affordable (CAF) rental housing up to 60% AMI and ownership housing up to 80% AMI. The supply of rental units naturally affordable to households earning less than 60% AMI has steadily declined, while the supply of rental housing affordable to households earning between 60% and 80% AMI has held relatively stable. The HCD is conceived as a mechanism for providing incentives to owners to maintain their properties as part of the overall rental inventory. Development projects using HCD incentives should provide units at market-rate affordable levels, consistent with the rents commanded in these areas. However, while the County typically requires that affordable housing units be dedicated for households earning up to 60% AMI, the HCD should require units to be affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI. The foregone rent implied by affordability below 60% AMI may discourage independent property owners from participating in the HCD. However, the provision of CAF units affordable below 60% AMI is recommended in situations where development project sites may support greater density and when contributions from the County s Affordable Housing Investment Fund are requested. Given that MARK buildings and complexes are already renting in the market-rate affordable range, requirements to maintain affordability up to 80% AMI will likely result in less displacement of households earning between 60% and 80% AMI, which is consistent with another AHMP policy (Policy Avoid displacement of low-income residents out of the community during construction and redevelopment of CAF projects). Provide ownership housing between 80% and 120% AMI. The AHMP acknowledged that homeownership in Arlington County has increasingly moved beyond the means of middle-income households. There may be situations where development projects incentivized under the HCD may propose ownership (as opposed to rental) products. In such cases, it should be an objective to tailor those ownership opportunities to middle-income households, consistent with adopted County policies. Preserve buildings listed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. HCD policies and incentives should acknowledge that historically-significant garden-style apartment buildings and complexes provide a significant share of market-rate affordable rental units. These buildings provide the community with the dual benefits of affordable housing and local (or even national) historic value. HCD incentives should encourage the retention of these significant buildings 18 DRAFT

34 and purposefully-designed open spaces, and should accommodate those types of development projects that can balance the needs of affordable housing against the needs of historic preservation. Design principles (inspired by the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Historic Preservation) may need to be developed to guide contextually-appropriate addition, infill, and partial conservation/partial redevelopment projects proposed for historically-significant MARKs buildings and complexes. Incorporate sustainable building practices. Where future development projects physically impact existing housing stock, new building materials and appliances should be environmentally-sensitive and energy-efficient. Hardscapes and softscapes should respect natural site features and ecological functions, including existing tree canopies and stormwater drainage patterns. Encourage renovation and infill development while accommodating redevelopment. Areas proposed for the HCD include an existing stock of market-rate affordable rental units. Preservation of these units should be prioritized over redevelopment, particularly given that redevelopment will likely incur losses to the existing supply of affordable units. Additionally, HCD areas include mature trees and historically-significant building types, and are typically surrounded by lower- to medium-scale development. Based on these considerations, HCD incentives should encourage site- and neighborhood-appropriate development projects that minimize disruptions, including renovation, minor addition, and infill. Ensure projects are compatible to their surroundings. Most MARKs report properties are located outside planned neighborhoods and corridors, and are surrounded by lower- to medium-scale development. Development projects in these areas are recommended to occur at a height, scale, bulk, and massing that is compatible with their surroundings. Ensure any new density can be supported by existing infrastructure, including the transit network. Additional density may help subsidize the creation of affordable housing. The more density that is proposed to be added to a site, the greater the need for alternative transit options that can reduce vehicle trips. Redevelopment projects that add new density should be encouraged in areas with greater access to pedestrian, bike, bus, or other mass transit networks. Additional density can also impact other public facilities and infrastructure, and should be assessed for feasibility in future implementation efforts. Encourage creation of underrepresented housing forms. Via the AHMP, the County has recognized the need for affordable, family-sized dwelling units (i.e. those with two or more bedrooms). HCD policies and incentives should encourage the creation of new family-sized units. HCDs should also encourage the retention and re-creation of garden-style apartment buildings in Arlington s traditional multiple-family neighborhoods. Boundaries While the MARKs report identified nine general MARK areas, this Policy Framework has clarified how some MARK buildings and complexes are located in close proximity to one another, while others are scattered among areas of lower-density development. More nuanced and discrete boundaries are needed to focus affordable housing incentives where they are both most needed and most appropriate. As the purpose of the HCD is to retain affordability in areas with market-rate affordable rental housing, HCD boundaries should encapsulate those areas where market-rate affordable rents currently prevail. District boundaries should also acknowledge that market-rate affordability has tended to remain in areas with certain land use expectations and with specific building patterns. In particular, MARKs are found in areas planned on 19 DRAFT

35 the GLUP for Low-Medium and Medium Residential development, and within the RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts. Additionally, MARKs are provided in multiple-family dwelling arrangements, most typically those associated with the garden-style apartment building form. Accordingly, boundaries for the HCD are recommended to coincide with these indicated GLUP designations and zoning districts, where multiple-family building types and densities are encouraged. Boundaries are recommended to be drawn at a broader scale to encompass properties with similar GLUP and zoning designations, where multiple-family housing defines or strongly influences neighborhood character, even where that multiple-family housing takes the form of market-rate apartment or condominium products. In this manner, properties that are built with single-family detached or attached homes, yet that are planned to support multiple-family housing may be encouraged to utilize HCD development incentives. For legibility and consistency, boundaries are recommended to follow zoning district edges, roadways, and natural features. Properties governed by existing site plan approvals are excluded from the proposed HCD, as existing development agreements and/or conditions are already in place. Given the intricacy of these boundaries, it is recommended that HCD boundaries be mapped within the GLUP Booklet, where boundaries may be distinguished at a more legible and consistent scale. Twelve geographic areas are recommended to be included within the HCD. These areas, and their proposed boundaries, are described in further detail below. Westover MARKs Report Area: Westover Westover represents perhaps the most cohesive grouping of MARK properties, with garden-style apartment buildings serving as the prevailing building form along North Kennebec, Kensington, and Kenilworth Streets, 10 th and 11 th Roads North, North 11 th Street, and Washington Boulevard between North Lancaster and North Kensington. Nonprofit housing partners have purchased several buildings and complexes in this area, providing committed affordable rental units for households earning up to 60% AMI. The large accumulation of contiguous and historically- 20 DRAFT

36 significant garden-style apartment buildings creates a unique character and sense of place in this part of Westover, marked by established tree canopies, open lawn areas, consistent setbacks, complementary architectural styles, and a horizontal building pattern. As many properties lack on-site parking, residents tend to utilize surface spaces to park their vehicles. Despite the cohesive form and character in this part of Westover, several garden-style apartment buildings have been demolished in recent years, and have been replaced with by-right townhouse development. More recent townhouse development in the block bounded by 11 th Road North, 11 th Street North, North Kensington Street, and North Kennebec Street has inserted the verticality of three-story townhomes into the prevailing pattern of two-story garden-style apartment buildings.

37 In Westover, the HCD boundary is proposed to run westward along Washington Boulevard from North Lancaster Street, capturing an existing CAF property at the northwest intersection of Washington Boulevard and Patrick Henry Drive. The boundary would include MARK properties along the northern and southern sides of Washington Boulevard east of Patrick Henry Drive, running nearly to North Kensington Street. The boundary would then extend southward, being roughly bounded by North Kentucky Street to the west, North Jefferson Street to the east, and Fairfax Drive to the south. Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Leeway Overlee MARKs Report Area: Central Lee Highway 22 DRAFT

38 There are two MARK properties along central Lee Highway in the vicinity of Leeway Overlee and Yorktown. Bifurcated by a more recent condominium development, the Tuckahoe Apartments feature market-rate affordable dwelling units within garden-style apartment buildings. The buildings are surrounded by C-1 Commercial and R-6 One-Family Dwelling zoning districts. The rear portions of two of the three properties within the proposed boundary cross into the Low Residential GLUP designation. The GLUP appears to plan the half of this block that is closest to Lee Highway for Low- Medium Residential development and the remaining half closest to 24 th Street North for Low Residential development. Although property lines do not fully align with the GLUP designations, the proposed boundary would coincide with those portions of their properties that lie within the Low-Medium GLUP designation. Further study of the portions that fall within the Low Residential designation could occur as part of Phase III to determine applicability of the HCD. 23 DRAFT

39 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP John M. Langston-Glebewood MARKs Report Area: Central Lee Highway Several MARKs remain near Heidelberg Bakery and Langston-Brown Community Center, located south of Lee Highway and roughly between North Dinwiddie and Culpeper Streets. This area includes a mix of garden-style apartment buildings and single-family dwellings, interspersed with townhouse development. Cameron Commons, located on North Cameron Street, provides committed affordable rental housing, and serves as a southern anchor to the cluster. This area is surrounded by land zoned C-2, R2-7, and R-5. While the majority of the cluster is within the Low-Medium GLUP designation, a portion of Cameron Commons stretches into the Low Residential GLUP designation. 24 DRAFT

40 The HCD boundary is proposed to exclude that portion of Cameron Commons that is within the Low Residential category. The boundary will also exclude Heidelberg Bakery, which is zoned C-2 and is within the Service Commercial GLUP designation. 25 DRAFT

41 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Waverly Hills MARKs Report Area: Central Lee Highway This area features a wide mix of affordability, with market-rate affordable and market-rate units evenly interspersed. Apartment blocks serve as the prevailing building form, taking shape in garden-style arrangements or in mid- to high-rise offerings. Some garden-style buildings and complexes have been converted into condominiums, while a few townhouse development projects have been completed nearby. The area is surrounded by R-5 and R-6 One-family residential dwelling districts to the south and east, with C-O and C-2 commercial zoning leading north and northwest up to Old Dominion Drive. 26 DRAFT

42 The HCD boundary is proposed to encapsulate the area roughly bordered by Old Dominion Drive to the north, North Albemarle Street to the west, 20 th Road North to the south, and North Tazewell and Utah Streets to the east. The boundary excludes an area of R-5 zoning along North Thomas Street, as well as R-5 and R15-30T zoning districts between Lee Highway and Old Dominion Drive. 27 DRAFT

43 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Spout Run-Lyon Village MARKs Report Area: East Lee Highway Several MARK properties may be found in the area between Interstate 66 and Lee Highway. This neighborhood features large apartment buildings and complexes, interspersed with townhouse development. Garden-style apartment buildings may be found along North Daniel and Calvert Streets, and include Fort Strong Apartments and Fort Strong Villa. The area is also home to Calvert Manor, which is a historically-significant garden-style apartment building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and that provides CAF units. 28 DRAFT

44 Although most of the crescent formed by Lee Highway and I-66 meets the recommended land use criteria for the HCD, fragments of R-6 zoning exist, and are proposed to be excluded from the boundary. Several MARK properties south of Lee Highway are planned for Low Residential development on the GLUP, and are also proposed to be excluded from the boundary. See North Highlands West on Page DRAFT

45 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP See North Highlands West below North Highlands West MARKs Report Area: East Lee Highway Mid- to high-rise apartment blocks serve as the dominant building form along North Adams Street, with townhouse development clustered between North Adams and Vance Streets. 30 DRAFT

46 The crescent formed by Lee Highway and I-66 is planned for Low-Medium Residential development, although the area includes a mix of RA8-18, RA6-15, R-5, R-6, C-2, and R15-30T zoning districts. An area of R-6 zoning is excluded along North Cleveland Street, creating an indent in the boundary line. Several MARK properties south of Lee Highway are planned for Low Residential development, and are therefore proposed to be excluded from the HCD boundary. See Spout Run- Lyon Village on Page DRAFT

47 See Spout Run- Lyon Village on Page 28 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP North Highlands East MARKs Report Area: East Lee Highway Garden-style apartment buildings may be found along 21 st Street North and 20 th and 21 st Roads North. Park Georgetown Apartments represents one large complex in the area. 32 DRAFT

48 Large portions of the crescent formed by George Washington Memorial Parkway and Lee Highway are planned for Low-Medium Residential development. 33 DRAFT

49 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Lyon Park North MARKs Report Area: Lyon Park 34 DRAFT

50 Lyon Park North includes two MARK properties: a garden-style apartment building at the southeast corner of 10 th Street North and North Barton Street and Sheffield Court Apartments. Sheffield Court is a large complex of garden-style apartment buildings that features purposefully-designed courtyards and open spaces. The boundary for the HCD would encapsulate these two properties, tracing the Medium GLUP designation south of 10 th Street North. 35 DRAFT

51 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Lyon Park South MARKs Report Area: Lyon Park MARK properties in Lyon Park South are typically located closer to Arlington Boulevard. The large Washington and Lee complex is located north of Washington Boulevard, while south of Washington Boulevard, garden-style apartment buildings are interspersed with duplex residential dwellings (particularly along the southern edge of 36 DRAFT

52 Washington Boulevard and along North Bedford Street). A large townhouse development exists immediately south of North Bedford Street. The HCD would encapsulate Washington and Lee, drawing in the garden-style apartment buildings south of Arlington Boulevard and along North Bedford Street. The boundary would also capture several duplex residences, yet would exclude townhouse development south of North Bedford Street. 37 DRAFT

53 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Penrose MARKs Report Area: Penrose Market-rate affordable rental housing in Penrose is relatively concentrated around South Courthouse Road. Contiguous areas of garden-style apartment buildings remain along 4 th and 5 th Streets South, as well as near the intersection of South Courthouse Road and 2 nd Street South. Duplex residential dwellings predominate along South Wayne and Veitch Streets, and along upper South Courthouse Road. Nevertheless, MARKs are dotted amongst these duplex dwellings, particularly along South Veitch Street. 38 DRAFT

54 Townhouse development has occurred in the area, primarily along 6 th Street South and the lower portions of South Wayne and Veitch Streets. In the Penrose area, the boundary of the HCD is proposed to run south of Washington Boulevard, west of Route 27, north of 6 th Street South, and east of South Wayne Street. A site plan-regulated property at the eastern terminus of 5 th Street South is recommended to be excluded. Several MARKs on the western side of South Wayne Street are also excluded from the HCD, as they are on a block designated on the GLUP for Low Residential density. A standalone MARK property along Wise Street is 39 DRAFT

55 also excluded from the proposed boundary, as it is set amid townhouse development. A property on 6 th Street South is also excluded as it is in the Columbia Pike Major Planning Corridor. Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Arlington Ridge-Long Branch Creek MARKs Report Area: Nauck/Long Branch Creek/Aurora Highlands The Park at Arlington Ridge features a large campus of garden-style apartment buildings. Most of the complex lies within the Low-Medium Residential GLUP designation, with a small portion in Low Residential. Future study 40 DRAFT

56 may be warranted to determine why a portion is within the Low Residential GLUP designation and whether it should be re-designated to Low Medium given the existing built form or if the intended vision is to retain a transition to the Low Residential designation as part of this property if redevelopment was ever proposed. The proposed boundary for the district follows the property lines of the Park at Arlington Ridge complex, roughly bordered by Army Navy Drive to the west, South Troy street to the south, South Meade Street to the east, and Oakridge Elementary and Gunston Middle Schools to the north within the Low Medium designation only, for now, until further study of Low Residential portion can occur, likely as part of Phase III of this study. 41 DRAFT

57 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Shirlington MARKs Report Area: Shirlington The MARKs report identified two neighboring MARK properties in Shirlington: Park Shirlington and Shirlington House. Park Shirlington falls within the RA14-26 zoning district, and features a campus of garden-style apartment buildings. Shirlington House, on the other hand, is in the RA6-15 zoning district, and provides a high- 42 DRAFT

58 rise rental option for area residents. The proposed HCD boundary would follow the property lines of these complexes. 43 DRAFT

59 Proposed HCD boundary to be displayed in the GLUP Affordable Housing Master Plan As indicated previously, the Housing Conservation District supports the policies of the Affordable Housing Master Plan. Amending the AHMP will provide a link for the reader between the AHMP policies and the HCD implementation incentives. To create this connection, the following text is proposed to be inserted to page 19 of the AHMP, following the description of policy statement 1.1.3: In furtherance of this policy the County has established a Housing Conservation District in the General Land Use Plan to encourage the retention and renovation of existing rental affordable housing units, and to provide opportunities for the creation of new affordable units when redevelopment occurs. Recommendation 2: Establish consensus on a future spectrum of Housing Conservation District policies and incentives through adoption of a policy framework. Prior to developing specific tools and incentives, it is important to establish consensus on HCD goals, objectives, boundaries, and general policy directions. Policy directions will chart the path for future implementation of the HCD, providing a preview of the types of incentives that could be developed as well as the types of affordable housing benefits that could result. Recognizing that MARKs report properties represent an existing stock of affordable housing that would best serve the County s goals if existing rent levels remained unchanged, development incentives made possible by the HCD are recommended to occur along a spectrum, ranging from more minor renovation and addition projects to full-scale redevelopment. Images below show a sample site redesigned to accommodate various types of projects along this spectrum. Particular emphasis and incentives should be placed on pursuing those types of renovation, addition, and infill projects that create new space for housing on existing properties, yet that do so in a manner that is sensitive to historic buildings, surrounding land uses, and established neighborhood character, including tree canopies. 44 DRAFT

60 SAMPLE EXISTING BUILDING BUMP-OUT ADDITION ADDITION INFILL PARTIAL CONSERVATION / PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT To access HCD incentives, property owners and developers would need to provide certain guarantees of affordability. Whether calculated as a percentage of the total units or using a more nuanced formula, these requirements should provide a reasonable guarantee of affordability without being so stringent that they would serve as a disincentive. As development types evolve across the spectrum, the affordability requirements and review processes would become more stringent, with projects that add more density and result in more physical changes requiring additional review. It is recommended that these incentives be structured into three tiers, ranging from those causing the least degree of change to those causing the most. While Tier 1 would only allow for any increased density within the limits of existing zoning requirements, Tiers 2 and 3 would allow additional density beyond what may currently be possible through local zoning. Tier 1 would be designed to encourage investment in, and retention of, existing multiple-family buildings while maintaining affordability and minimizing physical impacts to sites and neighborhoods. It would allow for rehabilitation and preservation of existing units despite nonconformities with current zoning within defined parameters via an administrative review process. Tier 1 would also allow for small additions that expand the size of existing units or add amenities benefiting the property. An additional benefit could include requiring on-site parking spaces only for new units added through addition 45 DRAFT

61 projects, rather than requiring new spaces for both existing and new units. In exchange for these benefits, the property owner or developer would need to dedicate a percentage of units as affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI for a fixed period. Rents for the remaining units would continue to be set by supply and demand forces in the market. Tier 2 would be designed to allow additional investment in existing multiple-family buildings while maintaining affordability. It would permit additional density to be added on-site (beyond what is currently possible by zoning) through new construction (larger additions and infill) while retaining the existing buildings. Tier 2 options would be structured through either an administrative review or use permit depending on the scale of development. These projects would similarly require a percentage of units to remain affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI for a fixed period. Tier 3 would be designed to allow redevelopment or partial redevelopment scenarios. Where larger changes to existing conditions occur, greater affordability requirements and use permit review would apply to ensure that development is at a scale appropriate to the setting. As these types of projects would result in more physical change to existing buildings and neighborhoods, affordable units provided through Tier 3 could potentially be structured to meet the needs of households earning 60% AMI and below. Recommendation 3: Implement Housing Conservation District policies and incentives in phases. Further refinement of these Tier 1 through 3 policy directions should evolve incrementally and should be supported by a combination of form- and economic-based modeling. Form-based modeling will help identify the types of building forms and layouts that could result from new incentive-based zoning standards. For example, what would an addition to an existing building look like if setbacks were reduced by a certain amount, or if the addition could be no larger than 30%, 50%, or 100% of the existing building footprint? Form modeling would work hand-in-hand with economic modeling where development costs and potential profits from various types of development projects could help determine how many affordable units could feasibly be provided. Key HCD implementation actions, including district establishment, should be pursued swiftly, while more specific development incentives should be assessed via additional analysis and community engagement. Accordingly, the Housing Conservation District is recommended to be implemented in three phases. Phase I implementation actions would establish the policy framework, goals, objectives, and boundaries for the HCD, and would address the impacts that may result from by-right townhouse development in MARK areas. Accordingly, Phase I is recommended to include: adoption of this HCD Policy Framework. amendments to the GLUP to establish HCD goals, objectives, and boundaries; amendments to the Affordable Housing Master Plan to reference the HCD in relation to policy statement 1.1.3; and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use within RA zones in HCD boundaries. Phase II would consist of a Zoning Ordinance amendment designed to enable rehabilitation and minor additions to HCD properties in exchange for a share of dedicated affordable units. Phase III would allow for certain, yet to be defined, increases in density to enable larger additions, infill, and possible redevelopment as well as a proposal for a pilot property tax reimbursement program. Phase III would also involve completion/adoption of a HCD Plan that would build on the initial findings and recommendations of this Policy Framework. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Townhouse Development While many recommended Phase I actions have been described elsewhere, Phase I is also recommended to include an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use in RA zoning districts within Housing Conservation District boundaries. 46 DRAFT

62 As indicated earlier in this document, townhouse development impacts Arlington s neighborhoods of market-rate affordable rental housing. Areas proposed to be included within the HCD include large shares of garden-style apartment buildings. By-right townhouse development replaces affordable multiple-family rental housing with more expensive single-family style living arrangements. The vertically-oriented designs and private vehicle access typically provided with townhouse development conflict with the low-rise and more horizontally-oriented designs and shared parking and open space arrangements areas provided in garden-style apartment buildings. In townhouses, private garage access implies that each dwelling unit must have direct vehicle access to and from the street. On smaller lots, the market demand to maximize the amount of land that is converted into dwelling units often results in designs that include front-loaded garages (where garages face the public right-ofway). In these types of arrangements, numerous curb cuts are required along the street frontage so that vehicles have direct access and egress from the private garage. Townhouses are typically taller and more narrow than a detached single-family dwelling, meaning that numerous curb cuts for contiguous garages can reduce the supply of on-street parking spaces, and can create more opportunities for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. For larger properties, private garage access often requires the creation of private drives and access roads. The orientation and layout of internal site circulation can impact surrounding properties, including glare from vehicle headlights and closer proximity of drive aisles to adjacent uses. The addition of new impervious surfaces can reduce the tree canopy and impact stormwater runoff. For these reasons, townhouse development necessitates additional community and County Board review within HCD areas. The Zoning Ordinance should be amended to reclassify townhouse development as a special exception use within those RA14-26, RA8-18, and RA6-15 zoning districts that fall within HCD boundaries. These RA zoning districts implement the Low-Medium and Medium GLUP designations, and allow by-right development of multiple-family residential dwellings. It is a policy of the GLUP to preserve and enhance existing single-family and apartment neighborhoods (Development and Growth Goal 4). The proposed amendment would encourage the continued use of land planned for multiple-family apartment buildings, and would allow townhouse development, subject to County Board approval. As by-right townhouse development continues to impact the supply of MARK properties and the availability of land planned for multiple-family housing within the areas proposed for the Housing Conservation District, it is recommended that this Zoning Ordinance amendment be pursued early in the implementation process for the HCD. However, it is also recommended that the Zoning Ordinance provide flexibility for any completed townhouse development projects within the boundaries of the HCD so that, should property owners wish to make interior or exterior structural repairs and alterations, additions, or expansions that are consistent with the development standards of their subject zoning district (i.e. parking, height, lot coverage), they would be able to do so without site plan approval. Recommendations for Future Study MARKs in the Major Planning Corridors The MARKs report identified several buildings and complexes that are located within the Major Planning Corridors established on the General Land Use Plan (i.e. Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson Davis, and Columbia Pike) and that may be part of the original Metro station areas and associated sector plans. However, the areas where these complexes are located do not appear to have been described in the same level of detail as areas closer to the Metro stations, as demonstrated by specific GLUP district notes or sector plan recommendations. To more fully research these areas and ensure that any HCD recommendations would not conflict with established policy guidance, initial study of the proposed HCD has been concentrated on areas that are not immediately accessible to significant transit investments (and that, therefore, are outside these planning corridors). Market expectations in those unplanned areas further from the Metro stations and corridors assume that increased investment in the existing housing stock (i.e. renovations, additions, and infill projects) will not result in large rent increases, as properties will still, for the most part, lack modern amenities, and will continue to be less easily accessible from the mass transit network. 47 DRAFT

63 These assumptions do not readily appear to apply to the planning corridors, where the types of development incentives offered by the HCD may combine with high housing demand to push MARK properties beyond target affordability thresholds. Several MARK properties in the vicinity of Rosslyn are eligible for the Special Affordable Housing Protection District, which offers density incentives that may help preserve more affordable units than may be possible through the HCD. Additionally, as the HCD is proposed to include parking incentives, and as the County Board is poised to consider a new residential parking policy designed for areas in close proximity to Metro, staff recommends future exploration and consideration to determine whether MARKs in the planning corridors should be included in the HCD. Within these corridors, future study should assess MARKs in the general areas of: Northern Colonial Village MARKs Report Area: Rosslyn Edges Two garden-style MARKs are located east of North Veitch Street, along 19 th Street North. These properties are in the vicinity of the broader Colonial Village complex. Garden-style apartment buildings prevail in the area, surrounded by more recently-constructed multiple-family dwellings and townhomes. The cluster is located at the northern edge of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, although it is within a relatively short walking distance of Court House Metro Station. Colonial Village itself has been designated a Coordinated Preservation and Development District since DRAFT

64 Fort Myer Heights MARKs Report Area: Rosslyn Edges Located south of Route 50 and north of Fort Myer, Fort Myer Heights includes a mix of garden-style apartment buildings and mid- to high-rise apartment blocks and towers. Unique from other MARK clusters, Fort Myer Heights is planned for Medium Residential development. MARK properties remain affordable between 60% and 80% of AMI, although there are also standard market-rate and CAF properties in the vicinity. Given the area s proximity to central Rosslyn and the greater densities planned on the GLUP, Fort Myer Heights should be considered for future inclusion in the HCD. 49 DRAFT

65 50 DRAFT

66 Northern Ballston MARKs Report Area: Ballston Edges Several garden-style and mid-rise apartment buildings are located in the block immediately south of Washington and Lee High School, bounded by 11 th Street North, Washington Boulevard, North Randolph Street, and North Quincy Street. These properties are also in close proximity to Quincy Park and Central Library. 51 DRAFT

67 Virginia Square MARKs Report Area: Ballston Edges 52 DRAFT

68 MARKs in Virginia Square are located south of Wilson Boulevard, and include the garden-style ERDO complex along North Nelson and Oakland Streets. The GLUP plans for a mixture of Low-Medium and Low Residential development in this area, permeated by plans for an open space buffer that would connect Maury Park with North Jackson Street. Many MARK properties are located within a mixture of these GLUP designations, and prioritization between preservation of affordability and implementation of GLUP planning visions may warrant additional analysis. Additionally, several MARKs along North Monroe and south of 7 th Street North are planned for Low Residential development, and are zoned R2-7. Based on these land use designations, these areas would not be recommended for inclusion in the HCD. 53 DRAFT

69 Bluemont MARKs Report Area: Ballston Edges Located west of Ballston, several MARK properties remain in the area bordered by George Mason Drive to the east, Fairfax Drive to the north, North Buchanan Street to the east, and 9 th Street North to the south. Gardenstyle apartment buildings serve as the prevailing building typology, although townhouse development has recently replaced several garden-style apartment buildings at the eastern edge of the neighborhood. 54 DRAFT

70 Duplex residential dwellings serve as the prevailing building form along the northern end of 9 th Street North. Although the area is planned for Low-Medium Residential development, only properties along Fairfax Drive and North Buchanan Street are zoned RA8-18. Duplex housing along 9 th Street North and North Burlington Street falls within the R2-7 zoning district, and would not be recommended for inclusion in a potential HCD boundary. Buckingham MARKs Report Area: Ballston Edges Buckingham includes large garden-style apartment complexes set in campus-like settings of planned open space. MARK properties are particularly clustered along North Thomas Street, North Park Drive, and North Henderson Street, although the garden-style apartment form pervades further east toward North Pershing Drive. Many of these buildings provided committed affordable housing units. While garden-style apartment buildings serve as the dominant building typology, townhouse development has occurred along North George Mason Drive. 55 DRAFT

71 Commercial zoning districts occur along North Glebe Road, closer to central Ballston. The area is in relatively close proximity to Metro as well as the retail and entertainment venues of Ballston. Given these adjacencies, additional research and analysis may be warranted to determine whether HCD development incentives would help retain affordability in the area. 56 DRAFT

72 MARKs in Different General Land Use Plan Designations and Zoning Districts As mentioned previously, MARKs report properties predate the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, some MARK properties were constructed in areas that are neither planned nor zoned to support multiple-family housing. These include the Low Residential, Service Commercial, and Public GLUP districts, as well as the R and C zoning districts. Despite these GLUP and zoning inconsistencies, the County has adopted a policy to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing. Consistent with this policy, it is recommended that those MARKs report properties planned for Low Residential development and/or zoned for lower-density residential development (i.e. R2-7, R-5, R-6) be studied as part of the future Missing Middle planning effort. The Missing Middle effort will help implement goals and objectives from the Affordable Housing Master Plan related to middle-income housing. The concept of the missing middle refers both to housing that is affordable to middle-income households (or those earning between 80% and 120% AMI) and that is a transitional (or middle ) building form, somewhere between a single-family home and a highrise apartment building. Given that MARKs in Low Residential GLUP and one-family residential zoning districts are typically standalone properties surrounded by single-family homes, proposed HCD incentives for additional density via addition, infill, and redevelopment do not readily appear appropriate. These properties lend themselves to further analysis as part of the future Missing Middle study effort, which will focus on transitional housing forms and opportunities to introduce context-appropriate dwelling units into single-family neighborhoods. For these reasons, it is recommended that these properties be studied during that forthcoming planning effort. Future Designations of the Housing Conservation District Market-rate affordable rents are influenced by the forces of supply and demand. These forces are fluid and dynamic, meaning new apartment buildings, complexes, or broader neighborhoods not originally studied in the MARKs report may become market-rate affordable in the future. In such situations, proposed HCD development incentives may serve as a useful tool to preserve affordability. Accordingly, it is recommended that additional apartment buildings, complexes, or multiple-family dwelling neighborhoods have the flexibility to request 57 DRAFT

73 designation as an HCD in the future. When proposed, new HCD boundaries would be considered and/or adopted by General Land Use Plan amendment. In this way, the HCD may serve as a dynamic tool to preserve market-rate affordability, consistent with affordable housing goals and objectives. MARKeting The County already possesses a robust network of planning tools and programs designed to preserve affordable housing. As the Housing Conservation District is implemented, County staff should pursue new avenues to emphasize the existence and applicability of these local, state, and federal tools which can range from Arlington s Partial Property Tax Exemption for Rehabilitation program to federal historic preservation tax credits. This information could be better communicated through brochures, webpages, or direct outreach to MARK owners and local developers. NEXT STEPS This Policy Framework summarizes challenges and opportunities to preserving affordability in areas of marketrate affordable housing. It is intended to provide higher-level planning guidance on future implementation of the Housing Conservation District, as would progress over three discrete phases. As further study and form- and economic-based modeling are completed, it is anticipated that this Policy Framework will be updated to incorporate new findings, analysis, and recommendations. Development incentives envisioned for future HCD implementation may also evolve in response to this analysis and to additional community engagement. Ultimately, this information would be repurposed as a Housing Conservation District Plan that will describe the final vision and incentives possible in these traditionally marketrate affordable areas. 58 DRAFT

74 ATTACHMENT B GENERAL LAND USE PLAN BOOKLET TEXT Page 25 Other Planning Areas Outside of the Major Planning Corridors previously discussed, the County has five six additional areas where the County Board has adopted specific land use policies and plans or other mechanisms to help guide future development. Page 28 Housing Conservation District On December 16, 2017, the County Board adopted the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework, and established a Housing Conservation District (HCD) designed to preserve affordability in those multiple-family residential neighborhoods that have managed to retain a supply of market-rate affordable rental units, even as those resources have become scarce countywide. Development of the HCD was prompted by a specific policy statement in the 2015 Affordable Housing Master Plan, which indicates that the County should make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of market-rate affordable housing (policy 1.1.3). Additionally, Development and Growth Goal 4 of this General Land Use Plan resolves to preserve and enhance existing apartment neighborhoods. The County has assessed the supply of market-rate affordable rental housing (or MARKs), focusing on units in apartment buildings and complexes located beyond the jurisdiction of adopted sector, area, and neighborhood plans. As these areas rely solely on this GLUP for higher-level planning guidance, they could benefit the most from new affordable housing incentives. Findings from County staff s assessments were first summarized in a 2017 report: Market-Rate Affordable Housing: An Approach for Preservation (known as the MARKs report) and were subsequently refined in the Housing Conservation District Policy Framework. Although located throughout the County, remaining MARKs share common land use and building form patterns. These multiple-family neighborhoods are planned for Low-Medium and Medium Residential development, are within the RA14-26, RA8-18, or RA6-15 zoning districts, and are located further from Metro stations. Market-rate affordability coincides with aging yet often historically-significant gardenstyle apartment buildings and complexes that may feature distinctive architectural facades and elements. Although these buildings house numerous families, they are typically low-rise in character (between 1 and 3 stories) and are surrounded by suburban-style gardens, courtyards and open spaces. MARKs also tend to be located in close proximity to lower- and medium-scale residential and commercial development, where buildings are planned to be from between one and six stories in height. Recognizing the importance of retaining affordability in these areas while respecting established neighborhood character and surrounding land uses, the following goals have been established for the HCD: Page 1 of 2 October 31, 2017

75 ATTACHMENT B Implement the Affordable Housing Master Plan via the General Land Use Plan; Encourage the retention and renovation of existing rental affordable housing units; Provide opportunities for the creation of new affordable units (either rental or ownership) when redevelopment occurs; Maintain the character of established multiple-family areas, considering historic buildings, tree canopies, mix of affordability, and mix of rental vs. ownership housing; Signal to property owners and community members that a variety of tools is available to achieve the above, including removing zoning barriers to reinvestment. To preserve affordability in these traditionally market-rate affordable areas, a variety of zoning and financing tools will be made available to property owners that agree to provide units guaranteed to remain affordable to residents earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). These tools will be designed to allow for a context-appropriate spectrum of development projects, ranging from interior renovations and minor additions, to infill and redevelopment. For some zoning-nonconforming properties, these incentives will allow for new investment in existing housing resources that was not previously feasible. For projects using HCD incentives, the scale of development and the degree of proposed change from existing conditions will establish the extent to which a development proposal may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator or by use permit by the County Board. The following HCD objectives provide more detail that will guide the Zoning Administrator s or County Board s review of development applications within the HCD. HCD proposals should strive to: Preserve market-rate affordable housing up to 80% AMI; Provide committed affordable (CAF) rental housing up to 60% AMI and up to 80% AMI; Provide ownership housing between 80% and 120% AMI; Preserve buildings listed on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; Incorporate sustainable building practices; Encourage renovation and infill development while accommodating redevelopment; Ensure projects are compatible to their surroundings; Ensure any new density can be supported by existing transportation infrastructure and the transit network; Encourage creation of underrepresented housing forms. [Insert Area Maps] Page 2 of 2 October 31, 2017

76 ST.. N. N. N. RD. N. N. KENILWORTH ST. HWY. (U.S. 29) Lee enter N. JEFFERSON ST. 28 N. LEXINGTON ST N. KENTUCKY ST. 27TH ST N. KENSINGTON ST. N. HARRISON ST. 24TH ST. N. 23RD ST. N. N. KE BRIER ST. N. GREEN- N. JEFFER N. N. ILLINO 25T N. GREENBRIER CT. N. HARRISON ST. 22ND RD. N. N. HUNTINGTON N. INGLEWOOD ST. GEO N. GREENBRIER ST. MASON DR. 22ND ST. N. 22ND ST. N. ST. N. ST. HOLLISTER RGE 2 1 S T ST. N. SON ST. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." N. GRA- 25TH RD. N. NA D A ST. N. FLORIDA ST. 24TH 2 N. GREENBRIER ST. S 23RD RD. T. N. EVERGREEN N. EMERSON ST. N. ST. N. 20TH N. EDISON ST. Big Walnut S ON ST. N. DICKERSON ST. N. EMER- SON ST. 21ST ST. N. ST. N. N. DINWIDDIE ST. N. COLUMBUS ST. 19TH RD. N. N. CULPEPER 22ND RD. N. 20TH ST. N. N. EDISON ST. N. BURLING- TON ST. N. DINWIDDIE ST. 23RD ST. N. Langston Brown Center 28 22ND ST. N. TH ST. N. ST. 22ND RD. N. 21ST ST. N. N. CAMERON ST. N. BUCHANAN ST. High View Park 19TH ST. N.. LEE H N. BRANDYWIN N. BUCHANAN CT N. COLUMBU ST. N. BUCHANAN ST. Map Scale 1" = 700' ) ST. N. AL BEMARLE WY. (U.S. 29) T RD. N. 21ST ST. N. TH (VA. N. 120) 23RD ST. N. 22ND ST. N. W OODLEY T. FIELD ST. N. ALBE- MARLE ST. 20TH RD. N. N. ABING- DON ST. 20TH PL. N. DROW ST. WOODSTOCK ST. O NT ST. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." 21ST ST. N. Woodstock Park 20TH PL. N. N. VER- NON ST. ON ST. LORCOM LANE N. VERMONT ST TH RD. N. UPLAND ST. ON ST. OLD DOMINION DR. N. THOMAS ST. LEE HWY. RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Central Lee Highway area shown) CT. N. TAZEWELL H B Woodlawn Secondary School 22N N. TAYLOR ST. N. STAFFORD ST. (U.S. 29) 21ST RD. N. (VA. 309) ATTACHMENT B-1 N. 21ST ST. N. Map Scale 1" = 500' I N. R Legend Low Residential 1-10 units per acre Low Residential units per acre Low-Medium Residential Service Commercial Public Semi-Public Government and Community Facilities Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017

77 N. N ON MEMORIAL PARKWAY 27T HS T.N.. 26T HS T.N. oodm on t Cen ter D. N. OD RD. 21S T S T.N. N.FIL L MORES T. N. 23RDRD. 20T HS N. HAN COCK ART FORDS T. 18 BL VD. N.HART FORD (VA.124) S POU T RU N PKWY. (U.S.29) IN T ERS T AT E 66 20T HRD.N. S POU L EEHWY. WIL S ON AREN DON BL VD. T RT AGen era ll a n d U se Pla n Am en dm en t Housin g Con serva tion District(Ea stern L ee Highwa y a rea shown ) Legend EDGEWOOD T.N. S T. N. 19T HS T. N. S T. T H 17T HS S T. N.HAR- VARD T. S T. N. N.DAN IEL S T. N.HAN COCKS T. L yon Vila ge Pa rk N. N.HIGHL AN DS L AN DS T. 25 N.HIGH- T HS N.DAN VIL L ES T. T. N. 28 N.FIL L - FRAN KL IN N.DAN IEL S T. 19T HS T.N. N.GARFIEL DS T. T HS 18 MORES T. N. N.CA L VER T S T. 23RDRD.N. N.C N. L EVEL AN DS T. CL EVEL AN D N.DAN VIL L ES T. N.EDGEWOODS T. RD. L ow Residen tia l1-10un itspera cre L ow Medium Residen tia l Medium Residen tia l High-Medium Residen tia l High Residen tia l S ervice Com m ercia l Gen era lcom m ercia l Pub lic Govern m en ta n d Com m un ity Fa cilities L ow Office-Apa rtm en t-hotel Medium Office-Apa rtm en t-hotel High Office-Apa rtm en t-hotel Govern m en town ed Pla n n in g Districts Add N ote 28,"Asdepicted within the GL U P b ooklet,these FortC.F.S am rea ith swere design a ted a sa 'Housin g Con serva tion District'on 12/16/17." N.CAL VERT S T. 24T H S T.N. S T. N S T. N.BRY A 12 3 N.BRY AN N otes 28 S T. N.BART ON N.ADAMS S T. N.CU S T IS RD. 16T HS T.N. FRAN K RD. N. ADAMS S T. S T. L IN RU N 20T HS T.N. N. N.WAY N ES T. N.ADAMS S T. BL VD. S T. C N.VAN CES T. 18T HS T.N. N.ADAMS N.A N.WAY N ES T. N. 21 S T U H N. VEIT CH S T. L ES T. CT. McCoy Pa rk 19T HCT.N. N.WAY N ES T. Key Elem en ta ry S chool N. N.U H L ES T. N.VEIT CHS T. PKWY. 21 S T RD. 21S T S T.N. N.VEIT N. 19T HS T.N. N.COU RT HOU S ERD. N.U HL ES T. N.U HL E S T. N. T ROY KEY 14T HS T.N. S T. Da wson T e ra ce Cen ter N.T AFT S T. GEORGEWA 15T H S T.N. N.COU 21 BL VD. CL AREN DON BL VD. N.T ROY S T 21S T S T.N. (U.S.29) 20T HRD. N. S MY T HE S T. N. N.T ROY S T. N. S CO 5 N.T AFT S T. RD.N. T N. ROL FES T. T N.RHODES S 13 T. S T. 13 N.S COT T S T T HS T.N. N.QU N. S HIN G N.QU EEN S T. IN N. N S T. T H S COT N.ROL FES T. T ON Pa lisa des Pa rk 22N DCT.N. 21S T RD.N. 21S T S T QU EEN S L AN E WIL S ON N. 22N DS T.N. 28 S S T. T. MEMORIAL PKW L EEHWY. CL AREN DON 16T H RHODES S T. N. T.N. N.QU IN N S T. FAIRFAX DR. ATTACHMENT B-2 2.T hisa rea wa sdesign a ted the Western Rosslyn Coordin a ted Redevelopm en tdistricton 2/20/16. 3.T hisa rea sha lb e pa rtofa "S pecia lcoordin a ted Mixed-U se District"(Ea stcla ren don,7/13/82), (George Ma son U n iversity/virgin ia S qua re S hoppin g Cen ter,8/7/82),(ea sten d of Virgin ia S qua re 6/14/03).T he "S pecia lcoordin a ted Mixed-U se District"design a tion wa sesta b lished forla rgersites where redevelopm en tm a y resultin sign ifica n tcha n geswithin a MetroS ta tion Area. Developm en tofthe Ea stcla ren don districtb ordered b y Wilson Bouleva rd,n orth Da n vile S treet,11th S treetn orth,a n d N orth Film ore S treetsha lb e con sisten twith the con ceptpla n a n d design guidelin esin cluded in the Ea stcla ren don :S pecia lcoordin a ted Mixed U se DistrictPla n a dopted b y the Coun ty Boa rd on 9/20/94. 5.T hisa rea wa sdesign a ted a "Coordin a ted Preserva tion a n d Developm en tdistrict"on 4/23/ T hisa rea wa sdesign a ted the "Cla ren don Revita liza tion District"on 7/7/90.T he b oun da ry forthis districtwa sa m en ded on 2/25/06a n d 12/9/06.T he goa lsa n d ob jectivesforthisa rea a re setforth in the "Cla ren don Revita liza tion District loca ted in the GL U PBooklet. 13.T hese a rea swere design a ted a "S pecia lafforda b le Housin g Protection District":Pola rd Ga rden s/ Cla ren don Courtson 11/17/90;T win Oa kson 5/24/00;T he Odyssey on 11/20/01;Ba llston Cen teron 1/26/02;WRIT Rosslyn Cen teron 7/20/02;N orth Mon roe S treetresiden tia lon 10/18/03;N orth T roy S treetresiden tia lon 2/7/04;Rosslyn Ridge on 7/10/04;a n d Rosslyn Com m on son 6/17/ T hisa rea wa sdesign a ted the FortMyerHeightsN orth S pecia ldistricton 4/16/05. N. QU IN N S T. N. PIERCE S T. N.COL O S T.N. N.QU EEN S T. N.QU E 21S T CT.N N.PIERCEC Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 BL V N. PIERCES T. N.PIERCE N.O N IALT ERRA 19T HS T.N KEY N. ODE S T. 18T HS T. 2 I S T. N.PIERCE Map Scale 1" = 800' 1 H

78 S ASHINGTON H ST. N. ER ST. N. E RUN DR. T. 19TH MCKINLEY RD. 14TH RD. N. N. LANCASTER 14TH ST. N. 10TH RD. N. Westover Playground & Library Walter Reed Center 18TH ST. N. ST. 15TH RD. N. N. LONGFELLOW ST. BLVD. 15TH RD. N. 15TH ST. N. N. LO N G FELLOW ST. N. LIVING- 11T H STON ST. N. N. KEN- TUCKY ST. LEXING TON 16TH (VA. 237) Swanson Middle School N. LEXING- TON ST. S T. N. N. LEXING- TON ST. ST. ST. N. N. KENNESHAW PATRICK HENRY DR. PA 28 KENILWORTH ST. ST. N. KENTUCKY ST. N. N. KENTUCKY ST. JEFFERSON ST. 15TH RD. N. 17TH ST. N. N. KENILWORTH N. KENILWORTH S T. N. KENNEBEC ST. 16TH ST. N. ST. N. IVANHOE ST. N. KENSINGTON ST. 11TH ST. N. 10TH RD. N. FAIRFAX ING LEWOO D Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." 15TH ST. N. 11TH N. RD. ST. 15TH ST. N. 1 4T H N. JEFFERSON ST. RD. N. N. INGLEWOOD ST. 15TH ST. N. N. ILLINOIS ST 16 DRIV N. MADISON ST. OW ST. 10TH ST. N. NRY DR. 10T H RD. N. Bon Air Park RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Westover area shown) 9T H N. R D. 9TH S T. N. N. KENSINGT ATTACHMENT B-3 N. JACKS I 9T Legend Low-residential 1-10 units per acre Low-Medium Residential Service Commercial Public Semi-Public Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 Map Scale 1" = 500'

79 ST. OOD ST. WASHINGTON BLVD. N. EDGEWOOD ST. N 4TH L ST. 1ST RD. N. 3RD ST. N. N. F 10TH N. DANVILLE ST. ST. N. N. EDGEWO O D N. FILLMO (VA. 237) ST. N. N. CLEVELAND ST. 2ND RD. N. ST. 1ST RD. N. Long Branch Elementary School N. CLEVELAND ST. 9TH ST. N. N. BARTON ST. N. WAYNE ST. ARLINGTON BLVD. N. PERSHING DR. 4TH ST. N. 3RD N. BRYAN ST. BROOKSIDE DR. Fillmore Park 28 ROAD ST. N. N. BARTON ST. N. WAYNE ST. N. BEDFORD ST. (U.S. 50) 2ND 28 ST. N. REBA PL. HENRY RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Lyon Park area shown) PL. KENDALL PL. FORREST CIR. MACOMB WAINWRIGHT RD. PL. X O N PITCHER PL. ABRAMS LN. SHERIDAN AVE. ST. HOSPITAL LN. GORGAS RD. MORGAN LN. CUSTER RD. LEE AVE. MCNAIR RD. NG DR. ON L JACKSON AVE. MOORE LN. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." ATTACHMENT B-4 BIDDLE LN. Joint Base Mye Henderson Ha I Legend Low-residential 1-10 units per acre Low-Medium Residential Medium Residential Service Commercial Public Semi-Public Government and Community Facilities Low Office-Apartment-Hotel Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 Map Scale 1" = 500'

80 E ROAD GTON BLVD.. S. S CLEVE- LAND ST. 1ST ST. S. Butler Holmes Park 1ST RD. S. SERVICE ROAD S. WISE ST. S. UHLE ST. S. WALTER REED DR. PERSHING DR. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." CARP T. S. S. CLEVELAND ST. ST. S. ALTER REED DR. 3RD ST. S. 4TH ST. S. 24* 6TH S. BARTON ST. ST. S. S. ADAMS ST. S. WAYNE ST. 28 S. VEITCH ST. 5TH ST. S. 6TH ST. S. Arlington Heights Park S 4TH ST. S. 5TH ST. S. S. COURTHOUSE RD. 6TH ST. S. RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Penrose area shown) 8TH ST. S. WASHINGTON BLVD ATTACHMENT B-5 S. S (VA. Towers Park 27) 9TH ST. S I Legend Low-residential 1-10 units per acre Low-Medium Residential Medium Residential Service Commercial Public Government and Community Facilities Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 Map Scale 1" = 400' Notes 24. These areas were designated a "Special Revitalization District on 11/16/13 and include Conservation Areas (#24*).

81 4TH RD. S. I N T E R S T A T E 3 9 ARMY NAVY DR. H E N R Y G. S H I R L E Y M E M O R 25TH ST. S. 26TH ST. S. 28TH ST. S. S. TROY ST. 24TH ST. S. 28TH ST. S. 24TH ST. S. S. MEADE ST. S. ADAMSST. S. BARTON CT. 26TH CT. S. 26TH RD. S. 27TH CT. S. 26TH S. WAYNE CT. CT. S. S. VANCE CT. S. VEITCH ST. S. ROLFE ST. ST. S. QUEEN S. PIERCE ST. 23RD ST. S. 23RD. RD. S. S. ODE ST. S. NASH ST. OAKCREST RD. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." 28 Oakridge Elementary School Haley Park Gunston Middle School Community Center & Park S. AR LINGTON S. LANG ST. 25TH ST. 2 FORT SCO 26TH ST. S 2 RI S. CLEVE- LAND ST. MILE RUN DR. W. GLEBE RD TH ST. S. SERVICE ROAD S. UHLE ST. S. TROY ST. S. GLEBE RD. S. MEADE ST. (VA. 120) 28T RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Arlington Ridge area shown) ATTACHMENT B-6 I Legend Low-Residential 1-10 units per acre Low-Residential units per acre Low-Medium Residential Medium Residential Service Commercial Public Semi-Public Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 Map Scale 1" = 500' Notes 16. This area has been designated a "Coordinated Multiple-Family Conservation and Development District" on 1/2/99. In order to achieve affordable housing goals without unduly impacting adjacent areas designated "Low" Residential (11-15 units per acre) and "Low-Medium" Residential (16-36 units per acre), development on this site shall not exceed 48 units per acre.

82 S. WAKEFIELD ST. 29TH S. WOODROW ST. BUCHANAN ST. S. ABINGDON ST. 31ST ST. S. ST. S. S. WOODSTOCK ST. S. WOODLEY ST. 30TH RD. S. ROW ST. S. WOOD- 31ST RD. S. Animal Shelter S. TAYLOR ST. Add Note 28, "As depicted within the GLUP booklet, these areas were designated as a 'Housing Conservation District' on 12/16/17." Abingdon Elementary School Arlington County Trades Center 28TH ST. S. 29TH ST. S. 34TH ST. S. 28 S INTERSTATE 395 S. WAKEFIELD ST. S. S. RANDOLPH ST. 31ST ST. S. Jennie Dean Park S. UTAH ST. CAMPBELL AVE. 32N D RD. S. HENRY G. SHIRLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY S. QUINCY ST. 32N D ST. S. Fairlington Center Utah Park 32ND RD. S. 33RD ST. S. S. STAF FORD ST. S. Q 36TH ST RTA General Land Use Plan Amendment Housing Conservation District (Shirlington area shown) FILED ST. TAH ST. S TA FFORD ATTACHMENT B-7 I Legend Low-Medium Residential Service Commercial Service Industry Public Government and Community Facilities Low Office-Apartment-Hotel Government Owned Planning Districts Map prepared by Arlington County, Va. GIS Mapping Center October 2017 Map Scale 1" = 500'