[cover page] October 2017

Transcription

1 [cover page] October 2017

2 (This page is intentionally left blank.)

3

4

5 Henrico County has initiated a project to comprehensively update its current zoning and subdivision ordinances (called the development regulations in this document). The development regulations are regulatory tools adopted by the county s Board of Supervisors to direct how development and redevelopment occur in the county. The county s current zoning and subdivision ordinances are found in Chapters 24 and 19, respectively, of the County Code of Ordinances. The zoning ordinance sets out the zoning districts, range of allowed uses, procedural requirements for application review, and various development standards like parking, landscaping, signs, and similar features. The subdivision ordinance controls the division of land and establishes the requirements applicable to the provision of public infrastructure to development sites. While the development regulations have served the county well for many decades, they are increasingly outdated and not well-equipped to implement the county s goals for land development in the 21st century, most recently articulated in the Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan ( Vision 2026 Plan ). 1 Generally, the Vision 2026 Plan: Seeks to coordinate land use, transportation, and natural resource planning; 1 Adopted August 11, 2009

6 Establishes Keystone Policies that identify desired development character for various land use designations and target areas; and Promotes balanced growth and development that reduces dependence on automobiles and supports existing infrastructure investment. As an important initial step in the comprehensive update project, this assessment identifies the changes to the current regulations necessary to implement the Vision 2026 Plan and achieve other goals identified by citizens, stakeholders, review board members, and elected officials as important to address in the update. It also includes recommendations for changes to the development regulations to make them more user-friendly and easier to understand, and to modernize the regulations to bring them into closer alignment with best practices. The project to update the development regulations is a significant undertaking, especially considering that the county s current ordinances are over 50 years old. The project is expected to take approximately two years to complete. It is divided into six primary tasks, as follows. A. Task 1: Project Initiation and Orientation The initial project task consisted of a series of kick-off meetings, interviews, and focus group discussions extending from February to June of The team also toured the county with staff members, looking at examples of a variety of development issues first-hand. Also as part of the project kick-off, Clarion Associates reviewed relevant background documents including: Chapter 24 of the County Code of Ordinances (the zoning ordinance); Chapter 19 of the County Code of Ordinances (the subdivision ordinance); The Vision 2026 Plan; Previous and ongoing ordinance amendments; The Draft Henrico County Design Guidelines Manual; A draft of the Route 5 Corridor/Marion Hill Study; The 1994 commercial lighting guidelines; The multi-family design guidelines;

7 The Landscape Manual; A series of written interpretations from 1960 to 2005; A list describing common development proffers; and A list of the most frequent variance requests. All of the information gathered during meetings, analysis, site visits, and interviews has influenced the discussion and recommendations in this assessment. B. Task 2: Refresh Code Assessment This task includes preparation of this Code Assessment. The Code Assessment serves as a basis to crystallize the major themes for revision of the development regulations in light of Vision 2026 Plan goals and policies, stakeholder input, and current best practices in development regulation. It sets out the primary reasons why the county should consider revising its development regulations, as well the key changes necessary to make the development regulations more user-friendly, implement the Vision 2026 Plan, and bring the development regulations into closer alignment with best practices. It concludes with a detailed Annotated Outline that proposes a framework for the updated development regulations if the recommendations in the Code Assessment are followed. It will serve as a road map or outline for the draft of the updated regulations. Public meetings will be held to present and receive comments and input on the Code Assessment. C. Task 3: Draft Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Task 3 includes the draft of the updated regulations. Because the zoning and subdivision ordinances are lengthy documents, drafting is divided into three installments, or modules. The updates will be consistent with recommendations in the Code Assessment and follow the detailed Annotated Outline. Public meetings will be held on the draft to receive public input. This task also includes the preparation of a revised zoning map. D. Task 4: Test Draft Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances In this task, the updated zoning and subdivision ordinances will be tested to verify whether they are achieving the goals for the project. The testing stage includes a side-by-side comparison of six examples of recently-

8 approved development with development that could occur on the same site under the updated zoning and subdivision ordinances. The testing will include at least one redevelopment site. E. Task 5: Prepare Public Hearing Draft of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and Zoning Map After the results from testing in Task 4 and input on the draft zoning and subdivision ordinances in Task 3, updates will be made and a public hearing draft of the zoning and subdivision ordinances will be prepared. These materials will be reviewed during the public hearing process. The public hearing draft of the zoning and subdivision ordinances and zoning map is the comprehensive draft that will be considered for adoption. F. Task 6: Procedures Manual and Application Forms After completing the public hearing draft in Task 5, a procedures manual to assist in the day-to-day implementation of the new zoning and subdivision ordinances will be prepared. The manual will serve as a users guide supplement to the new zoning and subdivision ordinances and will include details about application review procedures and schedules, and application submittal requirements. It will also include new application forms that are consistent with the requirements of the revised ordinances. This Code Assessment is organized into three main sections: 1) this introduction, 2) the Diagnosis, and 3) the Annotated Outline. There are also appendices that include supporting information. Following is a brief description of sections 2 and 3, which constitute the body of the Code Assessment, and the appendices. A. Diagnosis The Diagnosis serves as a basis to frame community discussion about what changes need to be made to the county s current development regulations to achieve the policy goals expressed in the Vision 2026 Plan and the issues identified by elected officials, review board members, stakeholders, and members of the community. It also describes how the revised development regulations could better incorporate best practices in land

9 development regulation to foster redevelopment, encourage the mixing of residential and commercial uses, promote pedestrian orientation, protect the character of rural lands, and promote environmentally friendly development, all policy goals directed in the Vision 2026 Plan. The Diagnosis also discusses the potential benefits to the county from undertaking these changes. The Diagnosis discussion is organized into seven key themes. They are: Implement the Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan; Provide flexibility and incentives for economic development; Make the regulations easier to read and understand; Make the development processes easier to understand and navigate; Update the districts and uses; Update and clarify development standards; and Promote environmentally friendly development. B. Annotated Outline The Annotated Outline section follows the Diagnosis. The Annotated Outline provides county officials, staff, and citizens with a general understanding of the proposed structure of the zoning and subdivision ordinances if the issues identified in the Diagnosis are addressed. The Annotated Outline also provides commentary explaining the purpose and scope of each article and section. C. Appendices The Appendices include supporting information related to the Diagnosis and Annotated Outline. Appendix A describes the future land use categories set out in the Vision 2026 Plan along with a summary of the keystone policies pertaining to new development. Appendix B includes a section-by-section analysis of the current development regulations identifying specific changes and revisions that need to be made to achieve project goals. Appendix C sets out a proposed summary use list that compares the range of current use types with a set of updated use types that could be used in the zoning ordinance. Appendix D includes a table prepared by county staff that sets out a series of detailed recommendations for change to the current

10 subdivision ordinance. These recommendations can be used during the update of the subdivision ordinance.

11 This Diagnosis identifies seven key themes for improvement of the zoning and subdivision ordinances to implement the Vision 2026 Plan, make the regulations more user-friendly, address other important goals identified for the update by community members and county officials, and incorporate best practices that are being used in other communities development codes. They are: Implement the Vision 2026 Plan; Provide flexibility for economic development; Make the regulations easier to read and understand; Make the development processes easier to understand and navigate; Update the districts and uses; Update and clarify development standards; and Promote environmentally friendly development. Each key theme identifies relevant plan goals and polices that are to be implemented by the county s development regulations, discusses best practices (if relevant), summarizes how the current regulations address the issue (or do not address the issue), and concludes with suggestions for regulatory changes. Each of the key themes is discussed in the subsequent sections of this Diagnosis.

12 The Vision 2026 Plan is an overarching guide for future development of the county through In addition to providing policy direction on land use, it consolidates and establishes goals for the county s transportation and open space planning documents, addresses natural resources, recreation (open space), and public facilities, and sets out a series of focus areas for planning and economic development efforts. The final chapter of the plan is an implementation chapter that describes how the county will ensure plan goals are achieved. Chief among the actions identified is to review and consider revisions to the current zoning and subdivision ordinances (the development regulations ) to implement the plan. Some of the key information in the plan relevant to this Code Assessment includes the following. Chapter 4, The Vision, Goals and Objectives, sets out the vision statement for future growth and development along with a series of goals related to: the economy; infrastructure/service provision and growth coordination; land use and community character; natural, cultural, and historic resources; and transportation. The sidebar to the left describes some of the key phrases used in the vision statement that are relevant to the zoning and subdivision ordinances. Chapter 5, Land Use, includes the land use portion of the plan. It is comprised of a series of 12 general development policies and six groups of land use categories or classifications. Some of the key general development policies relate to: Encouraging new development that is compatible with existing development, including historic and natural resources; Encouraging interconnected development; Encouraging compatible infill and redevelopment to limit leapfrog development; Discouraging strip development along thoroughfares; Incorporating environmental protection measures in the development review process;

13 Encouraging the inclusion of stormwater management BMPs into development; and Encouraging the preservation of private open space. In addition to these general development policies, Chapter 5 also sets out a series of six land use categories (rural, residential, mixed-use, office/service/industrial, retail/commercial, and civic) and associated keystone policies that provide more specific guidance for new development located within a land use category. The provisions also set out target residential densities and describe the desired configuration of new development, which serves to guide the review and consideration of rezoning, subdivision, and plan of development applications. Appendix 1 summarizes the six land use categories, the applicable maximum densities, and other relevant guidance found in the plan related to development in each land use category. Chapter 6, Community Character, assists in ensuring development that is consistent with the county s policy goals and existing development template. The guidance in Chapter 6 is provided to applicants and county officials as an articulation of the county s goals and aspirations for new development. Because the policy goal and implementation action matrices in the comprehensive plan are so comprehensive, it was necessary for the consultant team, working with county staff, to identify the key priority action items that should be addressed in the updated development regulations to implement the plan. One priority goal is to ensure new growth and development contributes to the quality of life for county residents, and to ensure it is planned for in a fiscally-prudent manner. One of the most fiscally-sound methods of accommodating continued growth and development is to foster reinvestment and redevelopment in developed areas of the county that are already served by infrastructure. A complementary strategy is one that manages infrastructure and service delivery costs efficiently by fostering large vacant or under-developed lands to be developed as unified masterplanned communities (instead of incremental piecemeal developments that increase the costs of providing infrastructure). To implement these strategies, the development regulations could be revised to promote reinvestment and redevelopment in established areas of the county, and provide regulatory tools to encourage the development of

14 master planned communities on large tracts of land in undeveloped parts of the county. Expanding the range of available housing types also supports redevelopment and master planning efforts. Because of demographic and economic changes underway across the country, housing preferences are changing. Retirees and empty-nesters are demanding smaller homes and maintenance-free living. Young working families are showing a strong preference for smaller residences in more compact, pedestrian-friendly communities where they are close to work, shopping, and recreational opportunities. Communities that recognize these trends and allow a wider variety of housing types will be better positioned for new growth and development in future years. Another key priority action is the establishment of a transportation system that supports redevelopment of established areas and efficient, compact, pedestrian oriented master planned development on large tracts of land. Requirements for more sidewalks, trails, pedestrian circulation, bike parking facilities, and transit features are some of the primary techniques to accomplish this along with improvements in site configuration, street interconnection, and access management, which help mitigate traffic congestion and increase pedestrian safety. The county s zoning and subdivision ordinances should promote developments and development techniques that provide a safe environment for pedestrians. A final priority goal is to revise the county s wireless communications system regulations, consistent with the Code of Virginia, to protect the character of single-family neighborhoods while at the same time ensuring there are good opportunities for the provision of the needed wireless communication infrastructure in the county to support this increasingly important technology. Key Theme 1, Implement the Vision 2026 Plan, describes the key comprehensive plan goals that should be implemented through modifications to the current zoning and subdivision ordinances. Specific recommendations are discussed under each key goal below.

15 A. Promote Reinvestment in Older Neighborhoods The Vision 2026 Plan includes a number of policies and goals that emphasize the importance of supporting infill, redevelopment, and reinvestment in older neighborhoods and other built areas of the county to: Encourage economic development; and Support the efficient and fiscally-sound policies related to the provision of infrastructure. Policy 6 in the Land Use policy portion of the Policy Matrix in Chapter 12, Implementation, of the Vision 2026 Plan, states the need to encourage compatible infill, redevelopment, and development in proximity to existing development and services when appropriate to avoid leap frog growth patterns which may result in higher service costs. Goal 9 from the matrix seeks to encourage developments to be designed to minimize adverse environmental and fiscal impacts. Economic Objective 5 calls for reinvestment in older neighborhoods to meet the needs for retail services and employment in these areas. Economic Objective 8 seeks to develop tools and incentives to promote small businesses and reinvestment. Experience teaches that it is important that the development regulations allow a wide range of flexibility in the application of dimensional standards and code compliance provisions in order to promote reinvestment in older neighborhoods. In addition, the regulations must also accommodate a wider array of uses, subject to standards that ensure redevelopment is compatible with its context. Some of the key changes the county could make in its development regulations to achieve these objectives are to: Revise zoning district and dimensional standards to reduce nonconforming situations (in terms of lots or structures). Allow the Planning Director (as the designated Zoning Administrator) to review and approve, where appropriate, modifications of zoning dimensional standards, when a strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship not shared by other properties in the same zoning district and vicinity, it would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the zoning district would not be changed.

16 Revise the requirements that trigger the need for full code compliance with all site-related requirements (like landscaping or parking) upon redevelopment. Key Theme 2, Provide Flexibility Incentives for Economic Development, goes into greater detail about some of these suggested changes. B. Encourage Development of a Wider Variety of Housing Types As noted earlier, demographic and economic shifts are taking place across the nation. The population is aging; there are fewer young children. Family size is shrinking. People are living longer. Ethnic minorities are growing as a relative share of the total population. Real income is declining for most Americans while prices are rising or remaining constant. There is increased awareness of the need for living in a healthy environment and physical activity. More people are seeking urban amenities and less dependence on private automobiles for transportation. These and other trends are having dramatic impacts on 21st century development patterns and housing needs. These changes have resulted in a stronger demand for a variety of housing options, including smaller residences that provide for maintenance-free lifestyles and multigenerational housing arrangements. The Vision 2026 Plan recognizes these changing demographics and economic shifts. To address them, the plan recommends that the development regulations provide for a greater variety of housing types in established neighborhoods and in master planned largescale developments that function as neighborhoods (Land Use and Community Character Objective 24). The plan also recommends that the development regulations ensure a minimum standard of quality for residential development while avoiding requirements that needlessly increase development costs (Land Use and Community Character Objective 20). In recent times, an increasing number of communities across the nation have taken a more broad-based approach to addressing these changing housing needs in their development regulations by allowing: Accessory dwelling units, by right, in some residential districts;

17 A broader variety of residential housing types (including pocket neighborhood developments, mansion apartments (small multifamily structures designed to appear as single-family homes), and live/work units, in certain residential districts; More small-lot single-family development (single-family homes on lots of 7,000 to 9,000 square feet in area, as is allowed in the R- 3A, R-4, and R-4A districts); Additional options for senior housing within higher density residential neighborhoods); Features necessary for the accommodation of persons with disabilities (like ramps) to encroach into required setbacks; Incentives (in the form of density bonuses) for developers who incorporate universal design in homes (allowing seniors to age in place ); and ECHO (elder cottage housing opportunity) or similar modular room additions that allow families to care for elderly parents over a short period of time (one or two years). The current development regulations limit the range of residential uses to one-family homes and guesthouses (for temporary accommodation of guests only) in the R-0, R-0A, R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4, and R-4A districts. The R-5, R-5A, and R-6 districts allow other housing options, including duplex and townhouse units. Most of the nonresidential districts allow for some form of residential use, whether as upper-story accessory units in the office districts, or as accessory uses in the business districts. We suggest the county consider broadening the range of allowable residential uses in the lower-density residential districts (subject to compatibility standards) to include accessory dwelling units, mansion apartments, other small-scale multi-family, pocket neighborhoods, ECHO housing, and other innovative forms of attached housing to implement the 2026 Vision Plan. We also suggest the updated regulations address barriers to small lot single-family residential development in appropriate locations. A common complaint in kick-off meetings and interviews was that the minimum lot size and setback requirements in the most intense residential districts do not allow the kind of single-family small-lot development that the market demands. As a result, developers have used a condominium arrangement in the RTH district or zero lot line development in the R-5A zoning district to satisfy market demand. As referenced above, we suggest that the county allow rezonings to the R4A zoning district, which are currently

18 prohibited. We also suggest that setback requirements in the more intense residential zones be re-examined to determine if any reductions are appropriate. C. Promote Developments that Provide a Safe Pedestrian Environment Chapter 10, Transportation, of the Vision 2026 Plan, sets out plans and policies for the provision of a variety of transportation modes in the county, including pedestrian travel, bicycles, transit, and automobile travel. Implementation of a transportation system that supports redevelopment of established areas and efficient, compact, pedestrian oriented master planned development on large tracts of land is important to the county s efforts to realize its long range planning goals. As such, the county has a strong interest in ensuring the long-term viability of its circulation system for vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many communities are modifying their transportation and development policies to support and require an approach that calls for complete streets or street networks and rights-of-way to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities, regardless of whether their mode of transportation is by walking, bicycling, driving automobiles, or riding public transportation. This approach also addresses streets as destinations (e.g., for sidewalk dining and social gathering) and not just links, and it addresses streets in the context of surrounding development and areas. One way communities across the country are using development regulations to support systems for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel is through mobility and circulation regulations that: Encourage compact, mixed-use development that reduces the need for traditional automobile-related transportation; Allow for the accommodation of alternative transportation modes such as sidewalks, pedestrian ways, bicycle parking and bike lanes/paths; and Encourage the increased efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure through incremental improvement and better access management.

19 More specifically, these provisions establish standards for street connections, block lengths (when they are included in a development), access between developments, sidewalks, and provisions to support pedestrian circulation. An increasing number of communities across the country have included additional provisions in their development codes to support these multi-modal systems of mobility. The table that follows provides some examples of these requirements. Require private streets to be built to public street design and construction standards Street Design Standards Street Connectivity Standards Minimum Number of Entry Points Traffic Calming Techniques Bicycles Sidewalks All local streets be designed for specified maximum speeds Roundabout intersections, raised crosswalks, a grid pattern, or a modified grid pattern be encouraged Development be designed and located to front onto a street and feature appropriate streetscape elements and dimensions to allow access for vehicles and pedestrians Application of a street connectivity index or block perimeter requirement, to ensure a minimum level of street connections Where allowed, cul-de-sacs not exceed a a specified maximum length, and provide pedestrian access to any adjacent pedestrian system or other local streets The average block length in a development (when blocks are used) not exceed a specified distance, except in cases where environmental constraints (e.g. wetlands, streams, and severe slopes) make it impossible or impracticable to design such block lengths Minimum external street connectivity, by requiring a roadway connection be provided for new development at a minimum specified distance for each direction (north, south, east, west) in which the development abuts a similar or compatible use Require at least two ingress/egress points from all subdivisions with a specified minimum number of units, except in cases where environmental constraints (e.g. wetlands, streams, and severe slopes) make it impossible or impracticable to require this) Require one additional entry for each additional specified number of dwellings Limitations on placement of driveways within a specified distance of an entrance/exit to the subdivision Interrupt long straight street segments over a specified length using street jogs, off-sets, and mini-roundabouts at intersections of local streets Use chicanes, neck-downs, and medians along wide streets Require bicycle accommodations (shared lane markings, bike lanes or protected bikeways) be considered on all new streets unless a nearby trail or other public way can accommodate bicycle transportation, or the development lies on a major arterial roadway Allow alternatives to sidewalks when an alternative (such as a greenway or multi-purpose trail) is available and would offer increased pedestrian connections

20 Sidewalks be provided on both sides of every street, except in cases where environmental or topographic features make such provision impractical, when a nearby trail or other public pedestrian way can serve the same function as a sidewalk, or the development lies on an arterial or major collector road, and there are no connecting sidewalks within a specified distance Connections be made to existing or planned sidewalks at the property boundaries Sidewalks be provided along both sides of every street designated as a transit route Ensure flag and cul-de-sac lots are configured to maintain adequate minimum access to accommodate driveways and public infrastructure (where necessary) Recognize the ability of a corner lot to reorient driveways to one side or another in an effort to preserve safety or traffic carrying capacity Lot Access Standards Cross Access Standards Driveways not have direct access to arterial streets unless no alternative means of access (e.g. alleys or parallel access streets) exists, and it is unreasonable or impractical to require a parallel access street from an adjacent arterial Driveway access to collector streets be limited Driveway access in residential zones be prohibited from areas with lot widths that are a minimum specified width for pedestrian safety and aesthetic purposes (access to be provided by alleys) All non-residential and multi-family development be designed to allow for cross access (across or through vehicular use areas) to adjacent sites with compatible uses (to encourage shared parking and shared access to streets) -- except where adjacent uses are incompatible or in situations where environmental, topographic, or safety hazard issues make it impossible or impracticable There are a number of provisions in the current development regulations that pertain to the design of streets, alleys, blocks, and walkways. The subdivision regulations set out general standards for lot and block design, street offsets, alleys, and easements. The zoning ordinance sets out the requirements for developments requiring approval of a plan of development, including providing walkways between stores (although not in parking lots) and screening, fencing, and curb and gutter. However, the standards in the current regulations do not comprehensively address street connectivity, pedestrian circulation, cross-access, and many of the issues outlined in the table above. Generally, they do not correspond to the specialized needs of more urban or mixed-use development contexts. In order to implement policies in the Vision 2026 Plan discussed above, in appropriate locations, the county should consider adding circulation and mobility standards to the updated regulations. These standards should be

21 coordinated with the Public Works Department Design Manual, particularly standards addressing: Points of access by unit count or type of development; Sidewalks on one or both sides of the street based on road classification; Accessibility design requirements for sidewalks, trails, and bikeways; Acceptable locations for public utilities infrastructure; and Crosswalks and pedestrian signals. D. Promote Mixed-Use, Planned, Large Tract Developments Land Use and Community Character, Objective 29 in the Vision 2026 Plan, encourages support of mixed use, planned, large-tract development in the county to achieve economies of scale and provide retail services and employment opportunities near residences. This, in part, is because encouraging mixed-use developments is one of the ways the county can foster compact development forms that allow residents to meet their daily needs with reduced dependence on automobiles. To further this plan goal, the county has adopted Article VIII of the zoning ordinance, the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) District, which replaced the Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) district. It promotes largescale, master planned, mixed-use development like that found in West Broad Village. To date, the UMU district has been one of the county s primary means of accommodating mixed-use development requests. However, the district is not intended for application throughout the county, and should only be used in areas appropriately designated on the county s future land use map in areas proximate to significant transportation infrastructure. The Planned Industrial District (PMD) is intended to accommodate planned industrial parks. Like the UMU district, the use of the PMD district is limited to areas proximate to major transportation resources. It does not permit a wide range of uses beyond manufacturing or commercial uses closely associated with manufacturing processes. While these districts provide some opportunities for master planned development, they do not offer a broad-base of options. They have locational limitations, and the PMD district is quite limited in the uses it allows. Collectively, they do not provide sufficient regulatory options for master planned development consistent with the 2026 Vision Plan goals.

22 To implement the plan goals pertaining to master planned development, the county should consider establishing a new general planned development district and procedure to accommodate a wide variety of master planned development contexts. The new planned development district would allow additional flexibility, along with an expectation of higher overall development quality in return. The district would be designed to improve development quality, encourage more mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development, and provide flexible options to encourage the development of livable neighborhoods. It would allow a broader array of uses than most base districts, and would allow the development to specify its own dimensional requirements as part of the master plan submitted with the development. The planned development district is discussed in more detail in Key Theme 5: Update the Districts and Uses, and the zoning districts chapter in Part 3, Annotated Outline. E. Develop Comprehensive Standards for Wireless Communications Uses Goal 10 of the Infrastructure/Service Provision & Growth Coordination section in Chapter 4, Vision, Goals, and Objectives, of the Vision 2026 Plan calls for the development of a comprehensive set of standards for wireless communication towers and related facilities. This was included as a plan goal due to a spike in provisional use permits for wireless telecommunication facilities in the county between , particularly in residential neighborhoods. County residents expressed concern about the impacts such facilities have on residential areas. Section 24-95(a) of the current zoning ordinance addresses communication towers. It requires a provisional use permit for any tower exceeding 50 feet in height in most districts and 100 feet in height in the industrial (M) districts. Towers are generally required to be setback from residential lot lines by a distance equivalent to 110 percent of the tower s height and 50 feet from all other lot lines. Building-mounted antennas may be installed on a building as of right, provided the building is three stories in height or taller and provided the antennas do not exceed the roof height by more than 20 feet or 25 percent of the building height, whichever is greater. The standards also require a variety of different engineering certifications related to tower structural capacity and operation.

23 Many development codes prohibit or dramatically restrict traditional telecommunication towers (e.g., guy, monopole, self-supporting) in residential zoning districts, but include fairly liberal standards for collocation on these towers, including the ability to replace and increase the height of existing towers, provided new opportunities for collocation are made available. At the same time, the standards typically incentivize the placement of concealed or stealth towers and building-mounted antennas that take alternative forms or are difficult to see. To implement the plan goal related to the regulation of wireless communication uses, we suggest the county consider building on the current regulations, but: Limit new towers in residential districts; Encourage greater collocation of towers (require that it be the first option considered), consistent with recent changes in the Code of Virginia pertaining to small cell facilities; and Incorporate more incentives for stealth facilities, consistent with changes in federal law and national best practices. More specifically, we suggest towers be limited in residential areas by: Prohibiting new towers that exceed a certain height (possibly 60 feet); Requiring towers between feet in height in residential districts to receive approval of a provisional use permit; and Allowing stealth facilities and collocations to take place with only site plan review (regardless of height). In commercial, mixed-use, and industrial districts, the revised provision would allow stealth facilities and colocations by right (subject to use specific standards), but require towers over 100 feet in height to gain provisional use permit approval. A related goal of the Vision 2026 Plan calls for wireless communications facilities to promote public safety. Since 2002, the County has had a policy for protecting the microwave paths of the County s emergency communication system and to ensure coverage within large buildings. We suggest the County consider codifying elements of that policy as appropriate.

24 Land Use Policy #6 in the Vision 2026 Plan seeks to encourage compatible infill, redevelopment, and new development in areas proximate to existing development and services as a means of avoiding higher service delivery costs. An increasing number of communities are including flexibility provisions in their development codes, in part to remove obstacles and encourage infill and redevelopment in these types of areas. The reason: redevelopment and infill occurs in built areas where there is vacant or underutilized sites that have not developed (or are underdeveloped) because of difficult topographic, environmental, or access conditions, or because the site is nonconforming with respect to some aspect of the zoning regulations. Many times, flexibility provisions help remove zoning obstacles to redevelopment, which can make the difference in whether the site is developed/redeveloped or not. While the current development regulations do include some flexibility provisions, such as the alternative buffer screen provisions in Section (e)(3)(c), there are few procedural mechanisms for flexibility. For example, the current regulations do not include a minor subdivision process that permits administrative review of family subdivisions or boundary recombinations. There is no administrative modification process that authorizes the Planning Director (as the designated Zoning Administrator) to allow minor adjustments in setbacks or other dimensional standards to allow new development to remain compatible with its context in situations where strict application of the ordinance woudl produce undue hardship. Very few uses are permitted without approval of a plan of development review by the Planning Commission (though there is an administrative site plan procedure). We suggest including new provisions to bring greater flexibility to the development review process. This section identifies four types of flexibility provisions the county might consider including in its development regulations to remove obstacles and encourage infill or redevelopment in targeted areas. They are: Alternative forms of compliance;

25 Administrative modifications (instead of requiring a property owner or developer to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance); Contextual development standards; and Sliding scale rules for redevelopment of sites with nonconforming site features. A. Add Alternative Forms of Compliance One trend in modern development codes is to include provisions that allow an applicant to propose an alternative form of compliance for one or more different types of development standards. For example, many modern codes include provisions in the off-street parking standards (through an alternative parking plan) that allow applicants to propose a reduction in the total number of spaces, or an alternative parking configuration that differs from code standards (with regard to placement, paving materials, or similar features). It is reviewed by staff, subject to specific criteria, and if the alternative approach to comply with the parking requirements conforms with the review criteria, it may be approved by staff. Another example would be provisions that allow an applicant to propose an alternative form of compliance for landscaping through an alternative landscape plan. The plan, for example, may propose a reduction in the amount of landscaping required if a site s elevation is significantly below the crown of the adjacent roadway (for example 12 feet or more), showing the landscaping would have no screening benefit as seen from the street. Many modern development codes allow plans for alternative compliance for almost any development standard (e.g., landscaping, screening, lighting, fencing, signage, and off-street parking). Others limit the option to specific standards (e.g., off-street parking and landscaping). When a form of alternative compliance is used, the process involves the submittal of an alternative plan or other document that describes the alternative form of compliance proposed by an applicant and how it meets or exceeds the minimum standards in the development regulations. The applicant must also demonstrate the alternative proposal does not create any negative impacts that would be more substantial than could be expected from the development if no alternative compliance plan was submitted. If an alternative compliance procedure is used, it is

26 important to establish specific criteria that establish parameters for the type of alternative compliance that is acceptable. The county development regulations already allow some alternative forms of compliance such as the joint and substitute (off-site) parking standards, the alternative screening options for transitional buffers, and the various provisional use regulations that authorize modifications to maximum or minimum bulk characteristic thresholds (for example, the ability to add building stories beyond that typically allowed through approval of a provisional use permit). We suggest the county consider using alternative compliance provisions for all or some of its development standards. 2 In addition, we suggest allowing the county s professional-level staff to review and decide some, if not most forms of alternative compliance (based on specific criteria that establish allowable parameters), particularly when alternative compliance procedures are necessary to facilitate preferred development forms such as infill or redevelopment. B. Add Authority for the Planning Director to Approve Zoning Modifications One of the recurring themes during the stakeholder interviews was the need for more flexibility in the application of some of the development standards as a means of encouraging development or redevelopment. One tool some communities in Virginia use to streamline development review and allow greater flexibility is an administrative variance, or modification. This is a method of allowing a minor modification of a dimensional standard (like a setback) in cases where the strict application of the standard would produce undue hardship. The administrative modification process provides a safety valve to address unintended consequences resulting from application of the dimensional standards, and is accomplished outside of the Board of Zoning Appeals variance process. Administrative modifications are authorized in Section A4 of the Code of Virginia, which allows the Zoning Administrator (the Planning Director is the designated Zoning Administrator in Henrico County) to consider applications for modifications to provisions in a zoning ordinance regarding the physical requirements on a lot (such as 2 One situation identified by county staff where flexibility is needed is when a single-family detached dwelling is converted to an office or business use. Alternative compliance provisions are one way flexibility can be added to the development standards to address this situation.

27 size, height, location of features, or building setbacks). Written notice to all adjoining property owners is required, and specific criteria for the approval of an administrative modification are set forth in the Code. We suggest the county consider allowing administrative modifications to dimensional and numeric standards in the regulations (e.g., 10 percent or less), which would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 3 C. Allow Contextual Dimensional Requirements in Some Areas Another flexibility provision that could be incorporated in the development regulations would be contextual dimensional requirements (e.g., lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc.). They could be applied in targeted areas of the county where the current zoning district standards are inconsistent with established building patterns and result in a number of nonconformities, impeding redevelopment. There are numerous examples in the current development regulations where new zoning districts have been drafted to address these kinds of situations. Contextual standards are used by many communities in mature, built areas where the established development context differs from the minimum dimensional or development standards that apply to lots in the area. They remove obstacles to redevelopment while ensuring that development is compatible with its context. Contextual standards are typically flexible and rely on conformity with adjacent existing development instead of fixed numbers or requirements. For example, contextual standards might include a maximum front setback provision for a district that requires development to be within 125 percent of the established front setback for existing buildings along the same block face instead of a rigid fixed dimensional standard. Similar kinds of provisions may be established for other setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, lot area, lot width, and other dimensional provisions. 3 Additional discussion is needed about allowing a greater degree of modification in targeted areas.

28 We suggest the county consider the use of contextual standards in targeted areas to foster redevelopment and infill. D. Adopt New Rules for Redevelopment of Sites with Nonconforming Site Features Section 24-8 of the development regulations sets out the rules governing nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and signs. It lacks any provisions for addressing nonconforming site features (like landscaping, parking, stormwater management facilities, outdoor storage, or similar development standards). With respect to nonconforming site features, the current development regulations require full compliance with all code requirements upon redevelopment or replacement of a nonconforming use. Generally, these types of provisions create obstacles to redevelopment and site expansion (even on sites with conforming uses) since they require full code compliance something that many times is difficult to achieve on redevelopment sites due to parcel size or other constraints. To address this problem, an increasing number of modern development codes establish a sliding scale approach to redevelopment of sites with nonconforming site features. The requirements apply to remodeling or renovation of existing development or additions and expansions of existing development. As an example, the regulation might require that in cases where existing development is proposed for an addition that adds less than 15 percent to the building s gross floor area, no additional modifications to address site compliance with site features are necessary. On the other hand, if a site is proposed for an addition that adds 50 percent or more to the building s gross floor area, then the redevelopment would require full compliance with site features. A similar sliding scale rule would apply to remodeling or renovation. These standards also typically include an important safety valve provision that allows for a waiver of requirements in cases where

29 there are physical constraints on the site that prevent upgrading certain nonconforming site features (e.g., where there is insufficient room to accommodate all required parking spaces). We suggest the county consider incorporating a sliding scale approach to address nonconforming site features during redevelopment.

30 One of the most frequently cited concerns raised by stakeholders and county staff during the interviews is that the current zoning and subdivision ordinances are difficult to use and are not very easy to understand. Generally, all agree that the structure and format of the current regulations frustrate users and county officials alike even longtime users. Even a cursory review of the current regulations shows that, although they are carefully conceived and thorough, their structure and organization makes them difficult to understand. One of the most significant structural problems with the current regulations is how they mix district standards, use standards, development standards, and procedures. For example, Section (j) (a section on the zoning map amendment procedure) sets out a series of exceptions to numerous district and dimensional standards provisions that more logically should be included with the district and dimensional standards. Other examples include the UMU district provisions in Article VIII and the Plan of Development provisions in Section Both appear to have been drafted as stand-alone ordinances with provisions on procedures, development standards, and submittal requirements. The Plan of Development procedure also incorporates performance guarantee provisions, provisions for violations, and even requirements for the occupancy certificate procedure. Other examples are found in some of the zoning district sections (i.e., R-5, UMU, RTH, O/S, O/S-2, B- 1, B-2) that include separate development standards that mix use-related standards (such as provisions controlling how temporary Christmas tree sales or outdoor storage can take place) with development standards that address aspects such as exterior lighting, access, or drainage. This mixing of procedures, standards, and use regulations tends to disorient a code user and makes it difficult to understand how the regulations work together, as well as what regulations apply to the development of a specific parcel of land. The names used for some articles and sections compound this structural problem. For example, Section 24-95, Additional Requirements,

31 Exceptions, and Modifications, includes the zoning district dimensional standards, the use standards for communications towers, and the development standards for fences and walls. Article XXII, Supplementary Regulations, includes a number of important provisions such as the parking and landscaping standards, the Plan of Development procedure, and numerous sets of use-specific standards (like those for shopping centers, group housing, and trailer parks). Another structural problem involves the scattering of regulations for a specific type of development throughout the zoning ordinance. A good example is the townhouse regulations. Section 24-28(e) sets out some standards for townhouses as principal uses. Section (d) incorporates additional standards related to the number of townhouse units that may be continuously connected. Section includes standards for all multi-family uses. Section includes standards labeled Development Standards-Townhouses for Sale. Section sets out standards for condominiums. The standards pertaining to dimensional requirements for townhouse lots are found in Section 24-41, but there are exceptions to these standards in Sections , 24-93, 24-95(b), 24-95(q)(5), and (j). In addition to structural issues, there is also substantial repetition in the current zoning ordinance, particularly in the zoning district sections. The best example is the rote listing of individual use types by district, which are pyramid-based. This is the practice of allowing in a more intense district, all the uses in the lower intensity district, plus a few additional new uses. Another example is the repetitive listing of use standards, such as is done for recycling facilities, refuse collection screening, or exceptions for lots platted before November 10, While thorough, it can lead to inconsistencies over time as the standards in one district are modified, but the standards in other districts are not. In addition to these issues, the formatting in the current regulations also makes them difficult to navigate. For example, the zoning ordinance lacks a cohesive heading scheme and there are no page numbers in the document (at least in the version available on-line). The result is a reader who is often lost in the text. Article XXI provides a good example. It includes no headers or footers to help the reader understand where they are in the document. There is a very limited use of summary tables, and the codification process has rendered many important tables, such as the dimensional requirements and transitional buffer matrix, almost unreadable. In addition, there are several instances of important dimensional standards that are buried as table notes in the summary dimensional standards table.

32 Finally, the current regulations include almost no graphics (an exception is a graphic that relates to parking standards for shopping centers in Section (which is also unreadable due to the codification process)). Graphics and illustrations help make regulations and regulatory intent easier to understand. Based on current best practices there are a number of ways the current regulations can be made easier to understand. They are described in detail below. A. Incorporate a New Page Layout and Numbering System Over the years, experience has taught that the way development regulations look, or are formatted, affects their user-friendliness. A number of formatting and related suggestions can be applied to development regulations that will improve their user-friendliness. The current regulations (or at least the on-line version available to most code users) incorporates some font characteristic changes, such as bold headings and italics text for some sub-section headings, but in general, the page layout does little to help orient a reader to their location in the text, or how the text in one section relates to the text in a different section. Revising the development regulations to incorporate a more intuitive text layout and number scheme that uses more headings, a nested paragraph system that

33 shows how paragraphs relate to one another and headings, and a more robust numbering system that includes more distinctions between different levels would improve the user-friendliness of the current regulations. This numbering system should be structured to allow new text to be inserted without resulting in significant renumbering. Today s codes also include automatic numbering and cross referencing functions that automatically update themselves. B. Reorganize Structure The zoning ordinance is codified as Chapter 24 of the County Code of Ordinances. It is organized into 26 articles, each comprised of groups of sections. Generally, introductory information and definitions are organized in the early articles, the zoning district provisions are found in articles in the middle of the document, development standards follow, and then the decision-making bodies and procedures. This structure is often considered to be a districtbased organization since key information is primarily organized by zoning district. However, as mentioned previously, the current regulations frequently mix development standards, use standards, district standards, and procedures within a single article or section. To address these structural problems and make the regulations easier to understand, the development regulations would benefit from a reorganization that creates a logical hierarchy, based on procedural and substantive relationships. All procedures should be consolidated into one article. Provisions common to all procedures should be included in a common procedures section in the article. Zoning districts and use regulations should be updated and consolidated into separate, but coordinated, articles. Development standards should be consolidated and their applicability to different types of development clarified. We also suggest relocating the definitions into one article located at the end of the regulations, since they typically serve as a supplementary reference tool rather than as a primary source of regulatory information. The sidebar titled Proposed Zoning Ordinance Structure shows the proposed reorganization. C. Use More Tables and Illustrations Another way to make a code easier to understand is through illustrations and graphics. The old adage a picture is worth 1,000 words is certainly true when talking about communicating zoning concepts. Illustrations,

34 graphics, and diagrams are very helpful in development regulations because they convey information concisely and in many instances more clearly, eliminating the need for lengthy, repetitive text. As noted earlier, the current regulations include a single graphic in Section that appears to relate to off-street parking requirements for shopping centers. The image, however, appears to be cut off as a result of the codification process. There is an opportunity to include many more graphics and illustrations throughout the regulations to convey concepts and standards in the articles as they are established. We also recommend increasing the number and type of graphics to help illustrate preferred development concepts, such as parking space dimensions, parking lot landscaping, and other landscaping and screening requirements. Revised development regulations could also be supplemented with photographs demonstrating both preferred and discouraged development. Side-by-side comparisons of preferred and discouraged examples of developments help illustrate the intent of the regulations and make the regulations easier to understand. Based on our experience in other communities, we have found summary tables are also helpful in presenting information succinctly and eliminating repetition and inconsistent terminology. For example, a summary use table not only reduces the number of pages required to convey the same information, it allows a user to quickly compare how a certain use is treated in different districts. While the current regulations include several summary tables including dimensional standards, parking requirements, and transitional buffer standards, there are many other standards that would benefit from inclusion in a summary table (including the use standards.) It is also important not to bury important development standards as notes in tables, as is done in the current dimensional standards table. Another graphic tool that is becoming more common is flow charts, to demonstrate review procedures quickly and easily. Adding flow charts to a user s guide or administrative manual for the updated ordinances to

35 explain review procedures would help code users better understand the various development review procedures. D. Incorporate New Referencing Devices As discussed earlier, the referencing system in the current regulations could also be improved. The absence of page headers or footers makes it difficult for the reader to navigate through the document. In addition, cross references are not widely used. The on-line table of contents provides some assistance, but printed copies do not include a table of contents. There is also no index of the provisions. Improvements in the table of contents, headers and footers, and the additions of cross-references enhance the usability of regulations. A detailed master table of contents at the beginning of the chapter and a table of contents at the beginning of each article would effectively guide users through the regulations. An index of topics at the end of the chapter, with headings and cross-references is also very useful. This index could also contain a listing of the code sections subject to amendment and the date of the amendment. Modern codes also include a glossary of abbreviations. Detailed headers and footers highlight the section number and topic on each page (e.g., Section 1.1, Title ) and allow a reader to quickly thumb through the development regulations to find a section. We suggest all these techniques, if incorporated into the regulations, would make the development regulations easier to navigate. E. Clarify Terms, Language, and Definitions Based on our experience, regulations are easier to understand when the language is certain and clearly written. Standards that are unclear invite different interpretation or application and create uncertainty for development applicants as well as staff, review boards, and the public. Some communities apply standards based on practice or policy that is not codified (i.e. written in a document outside the development code). Development standards should be plainly stated and clearly incorporate the community s development goals. If absent, unclear, or uncertain, unnecessary debate and conflict may occur over the standards applied to an individual project. There are a number of places in the existing regulations where review and other development standards could be revised, clarified, or cross-referenced to make the regulations clearer and more understandable.

36 In addition, a number of stakeholders and staff members indicated that some of the definitions used in the regulations are in need of revision (e.g., nursing home, assisted living, life care facility, hospital, rehabilitation center, contractor storage yard, tattoo parlor, guest house, assembly use, landscaping business, etc.). There are also some inconsistencies in the definitions used in the zoning ordinance versus those used in the subdivision ordinance. All definitions should be clear, precise, consistent, and written in plain English. Definitions in the zoning ordinance should be consistent with the definitions used in the subdivision ordinance and vice-versa (as well as the Code of Virginia). Each ordinance should also specify when the Planning Director needs to complete research to define a term from outside sources like the International Building Code, NAICS, Black s Law Dictionary, American Planning Association or Urban Land Use Institute-sanctioned documents, or other sources. The county s development regulations would also benefit from the inclusion of new definitions and the updating of existing definitions, as appropriate. For example, terms such as transient, guest, guesthouse, and flexspace all need definition. All use types identified in the regulations should be defined (something that is not done in the current regulations). Outside manuals, documents, and technical specifications should be defined. Several definitions also include standards within the definition (e.g., banner sign, boat trailer, restaurant dance floor, sign area, attached sign, directional sign, monument sign, etc.) which should be removed and placed in the appropriate standards section(s). Finally, and as is discussed earlier, we suggest consolidating and relocating the definitions to the last article in the development regulations since definitions typically serve as a reference tool rather than a primary source of regulatory information. F. Remove Obsolete Provisions Based on discussions with county staff and interviews with stakeholders, there are numerous provisions in the current regulations that have become obsolete and should be removed because they are no longer relevant to the review of development applications. One example is the Planned Industrial (PMD) District in Article XVIII, which has rarely been used, and differs from the structure of other ordinance provisions. Another

37 example is the lengthy and detailed use lists of light and heavy industrial uses which reference antiquated use types (such as whale oil processing). Removing these obsolete provisions would make the current regulations less cumbersome and the process easier to navigate. G. Add a Rules of Measurement Section Provisions that address how to determine measurements are an important, but sometimes overlooked part of development regulations. For example, how height is measured, how lot width is measured, how setbacks are determined on irregularly-shaped lots, what constitutes impervious cover, how maximum sign face area is derived, or what constitutes floor area are topics that are very important in the function of the development regulations. The current regulations do not address measurements in a comprehensive way, making them difficult for the user to understand and the staff to administer. Dimensional provisions and exceptions are sprinkled throughout the regulations. There are also some concerns with how some measurements are derived. Incorporating a consolidated and clear set of rules of measurement section in the definitions article is important. It would set out how measurements are determined as well as how exceptions or encroachments are addressed. The section should be illustrated with graphics to help ensure the intent and meaning of the standards are clear. H. Codify Interpretation Procedure It is important that development regulations include a clear procedure that sets out how the regulations are interpreted. The need for interpretation of provisions in regulations is typical in most codes, and has certainly been the case in Henrico County. The county has clearly established a procedure for rendering written interpretations, even though it has not been codified. Additionally, there is a detailed record of over 100 written interpretations (in various formats), stretching back to Generally, these written interpretations are detailed in nature, providing clear direction on a number of important but mundane code issues, measurement, definitions, and use characteristics (particularly accessory uses).

38 The current regulations would be easier to administer if: A clear and specific procedure for written interpretations was included in the regulations; and The written interpretations were codified in the appropriate places. The procedure should identify one county staff official (the Planning Director) as responsible for making interpretations on zoning and subdivision-related questions, after consultation with the county attorney. It should also require the interpretation to be made in writing and that it be compiled in a book of interpretations as a permanent record of the interpretation (something the county has been doing for the last 40 years, even though the process is not codified).

39 Recent economic trends highlight the need for communities to make their development review process as easy to understand and as efficient as reasonably possible. One comment frequently made by stakeholders was that the processes established in the current development regulations are not clear and understandable, making them difficult to use. According to county staff, in some cases, applicants simply submit a development application and wait for staff to inform them of the review procedure that is required under the development regulations a situation that sometimes requires applicants to revise application submittals, slowing the review process, and requiring additional staff time for review and evaluation of applications. Another comment made during the kickoff interviews is that clarification is needed regarding what body reviews and makes a decision on each type development application. There are several ways to make development review procedures easier to understand and navigate, and more efficient. They include: Clarifying and standardizing the development review procedures; Streamlining the review process for some applications through delegation of decision-making responsibilities to county staff; and Developing an administrative manual to clarify the development review process. The recommendations are discussed in more detail below. A. Clarify and Standardize the Development Review Procedures Modern development regulations consolidate development responsibilities and procedures into one location in a code. This makes it easier for users of the regulations to find the information regarding the development

40 review process, and it makes the regulations more efficient, since common elements can be stated just one time. We recommend that the new regulations include an Administration article (Article 24-2, Administration). The article would identify development review responsibilities for the various officials and bodies, include standard procedures common to all development applications, and establish review standards and any special rules for individual development applications (where relevant). i. Add a Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities In order to clarify development review responsibilities for the various types of applications, we recommend that the new Administration article include a table to summarize, for each type of development application, what officials and bodies are responsible for reviewing, making recommendations, and making decisions on the application, and to whom appeals on the final decision can be made. This table will allow a user of the regulations to get a quick overview of the review required. Subsequent sections in the Administration article provide details regarding the authority of each official or body, and the specific procedures required for the various types of development applications. ii. Add Common Review Procedures As discussed in the previous section, procedures for the review of development applications are scattered throughout the current regulations. Each individual procedure establishes its own review process, even though most have common elements. To make procedural review simpler and more uniform, we suggest the county consider establishing a set of common review procedures that apply to all development applications. Where there are exceptions to the general rule established in the common procedures for an individual development application, they would be identified. The common review procedures would be included in the new Administration article (Article 24-2, Administration) identified above. They would address review requirements relevant to all development applications. The section would establish a single set of rules that take the development applicant from the beginning of the development review process to the end. The types

41 of procedural provisions typically found in a common procedures section include provisions that address: Who has authority to submit applications; Pre-application conference requirements (already required for some rezonings); Rules governing application contents, fees, and schedule; Rules governing preparation of the staff report; Public notification and public hearing requirements; Deferral and withdrawal of applications; Basic procedures to follow during public hearings; Rules governing the review and approval of applications (including the imposition of conditions of approval); Notification of the applicant regarding the decision; Amendment or extension of an approval; Procedures for transfer of prior application approvals or permits to a new owner or applicant; and Lapse of approval. The current regulations address many of these issues, but not in a consolidated and uniform way. Consequently, consolidation of these procedures into one section should make the processes more consistent and efficient and easier to understand. We also suggest there are several provisions that should be added or further modified to help clarify and standardize the review procedures. They are discussed below. a) Broaden the Pre-Application Conference Procedure According to some stakeholders, one key reason the current development review process is inefficient is that applicants do not understand procedural or substantive review requirements, or are unaware of other related issues about application submission. Experience indicates that a pre-application meeting between a potential applicant and staff, especially for more complex development proposals, is an effective way to improve efficiency in the development review process and address this type of problem. The current regulations do not include pre-application provisions (except Section , of the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district). We suggest the county consider adding a pre-application conference provision in the common

42 procedures that establishes requirements for a pre-application conference between the applicant and staff. This provision would clarify what types of development applications are subject to the pre-application conference, the type of background materials that need to be submitted to staff before the pre-application conference, the purpose of such meetings, and the effect of such meetings (i.e., discussions are not binding on the county and processing times do not start until a formal application is submitted and accepted). In addition to any zoning district map amendments seeking to increase land use density/intensity, we suggest the county consider requiring a preapplication conference for provisional use permits, conservation subdivisions, and the establishment of a planned development district. Pre-application conferences would be voluntary for all other forms of applications, but would be available to any potential applicant. b) Include a Completeness Determination Procedure Many communities have improved the efficiency of their development review processes by including a provision authorizing the staff (Planning Director) to review submitted applications to determine whether they are complete before beginning the review of the application. Under this approach, only complete applications are formally accepted for review and action. While a completeness determination is currently a part of Planning Department review procedures for some development applications, the requirement has not yet been codified. Based on interviews with county staff, we understand that. in some cases, an applicant may submit a minimal amount of information with an application and wait for staff to sift through and provide guidance on what else is required before the application can be reviewed and evaluated. This adds time to the review process and requires additional staff work. To address this problem, we suggest the county consider adding provisions in the common review procedures that require staff determination of application completeness before the review process for any application begins. This would codify and expand the current internal procedures. Applications are complete when they contain all the relevant and appropriate application submittal requirements and the required fee. If included, the provision would apply to all development applications and state that the processing of an application by the county does not begin until after a formal determination that the application is complete.

43 c) Consolidate Public Notification Requirements Public notification requirements occur in multiple places within the current regulations because they are included in the individual procedures set down for the different types of development applications. All public notification requirements should be consolidated into one subsection in the standard procedures section, and shown in a table, to the extent possible. An example of how this was done in another community s code and how it is proposed to be done in the new regulations is shown on this page. In addition, notification requirements should take advantage of new technology. Where published or mailed notice is not required by the Code of Virginia, the county should consider providing notification to the public using online technology. As computers, tablets, and smartphones become more common, the need (except when required by the Code of Virginia) to send mass mailings or print publications diminishes. Finally, required notification should include adequate information regarding the nature of the proposed development and review. This will allow interested parties to make a better decision about whether to get involved in the process. iii. Revise the Plan of Development and Site Plan Procedure Section of the current zoning ordinance sets out three different types of site plan review procedures: (1) a plan of development (decided by the Planning Commission); (2) an administrative site plan; and (3) a schematic site plan. Unfortunately, the current regulations are somewhat confusing with respect to when a particular type of site plan is required. For example, Section (b) (1-6) indicates that plans of development are required for the following development: Uses that reference Section ; Multi-family development;

44 Development with shared parking spaces; Development adjacent to or accessing a four-lane street; Townhouses for sale, hotels/motels, hospitals and medical facilities, banks, service stations, drive-in restaurants, airports, fairgrounds, amusement parks, and offices with more than 5,000 square feet of floor area; and Development exceeding 2,500 square feet of land disturbance. Section (b)(6), however, identifies the following exemptions to plan of development review for development exceeding 2,500 square feet of land disturbance: Development subject to conditional use permit or variance review; Preliminary and final subdivision plats; Development subject to provisional use permit review; and Development subject to administrative or schematic site plan review. The first exemption is particularly confusing when considered in light of Section 24-2 of the zoning ordinance, which states, whenever this chapter requires both a special exception (use permit) and a plan of development, the plan of development shall take precedence, and approval of the plan of development shall be deemed sufficient to meet the intent of this chapter. In other words, conditional uses that also require plan of development approval simply require approval of a plan of development by the Planning Commission. However, conditional uses that do not require plan of development approval, such as development exceeding 2,500 square feet of land disturbance, are reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as special exceptions. This inconsistency has resulted in confusion on the part of staff and applicants regarding the division of development review responsibilities between the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Section (q) sets out the type of development that is subject to an administrative site plan. It includes: Revisions, modifications, and additions to a previously approved plan of development that are substantially in accordance with the previously approved plan; Future building additions indicated on plans of development already approved by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors; and Landscaping, signage, lighting, and similar plans not requiring Planning Commission approval (in other words, site changes that do not rise to the level of a plan of development).

45 Schematic site plans are required for development that includes 2,500 square feet or more of land disturbance when a plan of development or administrative site plan is not required, except for single-family development. The current plan of development procedure requires a public hearing and Planning Commission review and approval. During the project kick-off interviews, concerns were raised regarding the range of development requiring approval of a plan of development. In situations where plan approval might be essentially ministerial in nature, the procedural requirements often result in a lengthier approval process, creating a disincentive for economic development. We suggest development review would be simplified and made more understandable and efficient if the county clarified how it treats the different site plan procedures and when a specific type of site plan review is or is not required. To that end, we offer the following recommendations. First, the updated regulations should consolidate the three types of site plan review in the current regulations into two: a plan of development and an administrative site plan. Second, the updated regulations should establish a requirement that all new development must obtain approval of an administrative site plan or plan of development, unless exempted. A list of exemptions in the updated regulations would identify specific development, such as alterations to the interior of a building that do not increase the gross floor area or construction or alteration of a single-family dwelling that is not part of a larger development project. 4 Third, the current thresholds for plan of development review versus administrative site plan review should be replaced by thresholds based on the scale of the proposed development. For example, the updated regulations might require approval of a plan of development for residential development of 40 or more units and nonresidential development of 65,000 square feet or more. All development below the thresholds would require approval of an administrative site plan, unless exempt. The new thresholds would be discussed and refined throughout the drafting process to ensure they reflect the input of stakeholders, staff, and review boards and elected officials. 4 Based on input received from county staff, we recommend the current exemption for development that includes less than 2,500 square feet of land disturbance be evaluated and revised as appropriate.

46 Fourth, criteria for approval of a plan of development, and for an administrative site plan, should be revised as needed to ensure that they are clear and objective. Where use-specific standards apply, they should be objective and ministerial in nature. Uses requiring discretion in their review and approval should require review by the Board of Zoning Appeals through the conditional use permit procedure. The provision in Section 24-2 of the zoning ordinance that states that plan of development approval is all that is required when both plan of development and special exception approval would otherwise be required, should not be carried forward, in order to ensure that appropriate criteria are applied in the conditional use permit process. Finally, the range of uses requiring approval of a conditional use permit should be examined to see if it can be narrowed. Where objective criteria can appropriately address impacts, uses that require a conditional use permit under the current regulations should be converted to permitted uses, with the addition of objective, use-specific standards. Streamlined review (including administrative site plan approval, subject to clear use-specific and development standards) is becoming more and more common in jurisdictions seeking to promote preferred development forms like mixed-use or redevelopment. We recommend this approach for the county. iv. Establish a Temporary Use Permit Procedure Section (c) of the current regulations allows the Planning Commission to approve a temporary plan of development for development that has a duration of 12 months or less that would otherwise require approval of a plan of development. A temporary plan of development may include the modification of drainage, erosion and sedimentation control, parking, screening, fencing, services, and utilities requirements, but only if approved by the appropriate county departments. During kick-off interviews, the need for a better mechanism for regulating temporary uses was discussed. One recommendation under Key Theme 5 below is to establish clearer standards for temporary uses. In conjunction with the new standards, we suggest the updated regulations include a new temporary use permit procedure that would authorize the Planning Director to approve temporary use permits. The procedure would include provisions addressing permit expiration and extensions.

47 v. Incorporate Common Proffers and Conditions of Approval Recent changes in state law governing proffers in the conditional zoning process have prompted local governments throughout the state to reexamine their use of proffers. During the project kick-off interviews, it was requested that the new regulations incorporate some of the most common types of proffers into the development standards. It was further requested that common conditions of plan of development and subdivision approval be incorporated where appropriate. As the new regulations are drafted, types of proffers that have been frequently used in the conditional zoning process, as well as common conditions of plan of development and subdivision approval, will be reviewed and incorporated into the development standards (and use-specific standards) where determined appropriate, in accordance with the Code of Virginia. For example, frequently-use proffers that will be evaluated for inclusion in the standards include: Screening requirements for HVAC equipment and loading areas; Standards for sidewalks and pedestrian areas; Standards governing outdoor display areas (most likely located in use-specific standards); and Certain operational standards (e.g. hours of operation or maintenance requirements). vi. Clarify Procedure Required for Special Exception In the regulations for the various zoning districts, uses allowed include conditional uses that are permitted only by approval of a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The exact language used in the regulations is conditional uses permitted by special exception. The term used by county staff, and in Section (c) of the current regulations, for this procedure is conditional use permit. In addition to these identified uses, the development regulations identify a variety of situations where more intense standards for buildings or specific uses than would otherwise be permitted may be authorized by special exception (e.g., a larger maximum building height or a larger maximum sign area). Section (c) identifies the procedure the Board of Zoning Appeals must use in approving a conditional use permit. However, where approval of a special exception is required outside of those uses listed as conditional uses permitted by special exception, the current regulations are not clear regarding the procedure required. We suggest that the updated ordinance use one term to refer to the procedure to improve consistency and clarity. If the procedure is called the conditional use

48 permit procedure, then references to development requiring the procedure should clearly state that a conditional use permit is required. This would simplify the terminology and make it clearer to users of the regulations what procedure is required. B. Streamline Development Review through Delegation to the Staff As suggested earlier, one of the ways to make the development review process more efficient is to delegate additional review authority to the staff since this approach can reduce the number of procedural steps in development review. One procedure where the county might consider doing this is in subdivision review. Chapter 19 of the County Code of Ordinances establishes a two-step subdivision review process. It involves a preliminary subdivision that is reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission, and then a final plat that is reviewed and decided by the Planning Director. While the current regulations make approval of a preliminary plan optional for family subdivisions and subdivisions resulting in 50 or fewer lots, the provisions do not include an expedited review procedure for minor modifications to approved subdivisions, like lot line adjustments and boundary recombinations (something county staff has identified as needed). We suggest the county consider adding an expedited review procedure for boundary line adjustments and lot recombinations. C. Prepare an Administrative Manual Another tool used by an increasing number of communities to make their development codes more user-friendly is an administrative manual. County staff currently rely on a set of internal procedures to guide the processing and review of applications. Another document available on the county s website provides information regarding the plan of development review process, including background information, application submission requirements, responsibilities of various agencies during the review process, and timelines. Additionally, application packets developed by the county provide overview and submission requirements for specific types of applications. The project to update the development regulations includes the preparation of an administrative manual, which will update these existing materials and consolidate them into a single, user-friendly document.

49 An administrative manual is typically a support document to the development regulations that the Planning Director is authorized to prepare. It is used to help applicants better understand which procedure applies to their application and the necessary submittals. In most cases, an administrative manual includes revised application forms and checklists, and sections explaining how to use the regulations. The manual can also include resources for applicants, such as process descriptions, completeness determination elements, contact numbers, fee schedules, review schedules and deadlines, example submittals, and other materials that are relevant to the development review process but that should not be included in the adopted development regulations. Some manuals also include some information that would be of benefit to general citizens such as which activities require a building permit, which actions require the work to be completed by a general contractor, or how to report code violations.

50 The heart of development regulations is their zoning districts and allowable uses. Our review of the county s current zoning regulations suggests they are in need of revision, simplification, and updating for several reasons. First, some of the current districts, such as the Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMP) and the Institutional (I) district, are no longer used and could be deleted. Second, the structure of the current zoning district regulations is not consistent and in many instances, complex and disorganized. For example, many districts incorporate repetitive, pyramid-based lists of allowable, provisional, and conditional uses. This can lead to inconsistency in terminology and use-related requirements over time as one district is revised and others are not. Many of the use lists also mix principal, accessory, and temporary use types. Some zoning districts incorporate conditions that amount to use-specific standards while other districts refer to these or similar use-specific standards as development standards. In many cases, the conditions or development standards for a single use differ from district to district. Many of the districts (particularly the industrial districts) refer to obsolete or outdated use types (e.g., whale oil manufacturing), and many uses lack definitions. Third, the current zoning district regulations do not include tools commonly found in modern development codes, like summary use tables that reduce redundancy, graphically-driven zoning district information, and appropriate distinctions between districts so as to remove overlap. Clarification between principal and accessory uses is also needed. Fourth, the Vision 2026 Plan recommends some specific additions to the current zoning district line-up. Based on plan recommendations, the county recently adopted the Urban Mixed Use district to accommodate master-planned, higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development in key areas of the county. Many refinements to this district were discussed during project kick-off meetings and interviews. For example, the UMU district should be revised to address coordination of street connections and infrastructure improvements and to increase predictability of development outcomes. These coordination challenge are particularly problematic within the recently-established Innsbrook

51 Redevelopment overlay district, where areas as small as four acres can be rezoned to the UMU district. The Vision 2026 Plan also recommends establishment of a suburban mixed-use district that provides a development option that allows moderate density horizontally-mixed use development in the suburban areas of the county. Fifth, new zoning tools are needed in key commercial areas to encourage higher quality development and redevelopment that support a more urban, walkable environment. During project kick-off meetings and interviews, adding an incentive-based form-based overlay district to the updated ordinance was discussed as a preferred tool to accomplish this objective. The following sections provide recommendations for the county to consider in order to update, simplify, and make the zoning districts easier to use as well as implement specific recommendations in the Vision 2026 Plan. A. Refine the Zoning Districts In order to address the issues outlined in the introduction to this section, we suggest the current zoning district structure be refined, and several new districts be added to implement the recommendations in the Vision 2026 Plan. The suggested restructuring is outlined below. The column on the left identifies the county s current zoning districts and the column on the right shows the proposed restructuring. C-1 Conservation District C-1 Conservation District A-1 Agricultural District A-1 Agricultural District R-0 One-family Residence District R-0 One-family Residence District R-0A One-family Residence District R-0A One-family Residence District R-1 One-family Residence District R-1 One-family Residence District R-1A One-family Residence District R-1A One-family Residence District R-2 One-family Residence District R-2 One-family Residence District R-2A One-family Residence District R-2A One-family Residence District

52 R-3 One-family Residence District R-3 One-family Residence District R-3A One-family Residence District R-3A One-family Residence District R-4 One-family Residence District R-4 One-family Residence District R-4A One-family Residence District R-4A One-family Residence District R-5 General Residence District R-5 General Residence District R-5A General Residence District R-5A General Residence District R-6 General Residence District R-6 General Residence District RTH Residential Townhouse District RTH Residential Townhouse District RMP Residential Manufactured Home Park (DELETE) O-1 Office District O-1 Office District O-2 Office District O-2 Office District O-3 Office District O-3 Office District O/S Office Services District O/S Office Services District O/S-2 Office Service 2 District O/S-2 Office Service 2 District B-1 Business District B-1 Business District B-2 Business District B-2 Business District B-3 Business District B-3 Business District SMU Suburban Mixed-Use District (NEW) UMU Urban Mixed Use District UMU Urban Mixed-Use District M-1 Light Industrial District M-1 Light Industrial District M-2 General Industrial District M-2 General Industrial District M-3 Heavy Industrial District M-3 Heavy Industrial District I-1 Institutional District (DELETE) RPN Planned Neighborhood District PMD Planned Industrial District (DELETE) (DELETE) G-PD General Planned Development District (NEW) TND-PD Traditional Neighborhood Development Planned Development District (NEW)

53 ASO Airport Safety Overlay District WBSO West Broad Street Overlay District Innsbrook Redevelopment Overlay District AS-O Airport Safety Overlay District WBS-O West Broad Street Overlay District IR-O Innsbrook Redevelopment Overlay District CBPA-O Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay (NEW) SFHA-O Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay (NEW) CFB-O Center Form Based Overlay District (NEW) R5C-O Route 5 Corridor Overlay District (NEW) The proposed refinement of the current line-up of zoning districts results in 31 base zoning districts (of which two are new planned development districts). The table proposes deleting four districts that are not mapped. They include the RMP, RPN, PMD, and I-1 districts. The Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMP) district is proposed to be deleted because there is only one manufactured home park in the county (and it is not in an area zoned RMP). The Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) district is proposed to be deleted because it was supposed to be removed upon adoption of the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district several years ago, but has not been deleted from the regulations. The Planned Industrial (PMD) district is proposed to be deleted because it is rarely used and is generally perceived by county staff and the development community as inconsistent with the rest of the ordinance. The I-1 district is proposed to be deleted because it is not mapped and was originally intended as a means of preventing some uses like prisons from locating in the county. The district is no longer needed because the proposed use table will clarify that such uses are prohibited. The table suggests adding seven new zoning districts. They are the Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) district, the General Planned Development (G-PD) district, the Center Form Based Overlay (CFB-O) district, the Traditional Neighborhood Development Planned Development (TND- PD) district, the Route 5 Corridor Overlay (R5C-O) district, The

54 Chesapeake Bay Protection Overlay (CPB-O), and the Floodplain Overlay (FP-O). The SMU district, as discussed above, would provide a development option allowing moderate-density horizontally and vertically mixed-use development in the suburban areas of the county, as recommended in the Vision 2026 Plan. The G-PD district would accommodate residential, commercial, and mixed-use development based on an approved PD plan and terms and conditions document. The CFB-O district would establish an optional set of zoning regulations that would be applied to an area in the county as an alternative to the standards in the underlying base zoning district. The optional zoning regulations would require development consistent with established form and design standards in exchange for allowing a broader mix of uses and more intense development. The standards in the CFB-O district would be based on a design charrette conducted during the drafting phase. The four-day charrette would include meetings and design sessions that would allow members of the community and interested parties to provide input and observe design work in real time. The CFB-O district would be applied in areas of the county where redevelopment and walkable urbanism are a priority. The TND-PD district would build on previous efforts in the county to draft a TND ordinance. Each TND-PD district established would be subject to an approved plan and agreement, which would address elements associated with good TND development, such as civic buildings, a town center, a retail mix, integrated open space, housing choice, and a strong public realm. The R5C-O district would translate guidelines from the Route 5 Corridor/Marion Hill Study into a set of workable standards designed to achieve the study s goals. The study is ongoing, but is anticipated to be completed with sufficient time for the drafting of the R5C-O district. The CBPA-O district would carry forward Chesapeake Bay Protection Area provisions in Section of the current zoning ordinance. The SFHA-O district would consolidate and carry forward provisions in the current zoning ordinance pertaining to special flood hazard areas, including Section

55 B. Incorporate New Graphic-Based Zoning District Information Another change that would make the current development regulations more understandable and user-friendly is to revise the way zoning district information is presented. Currently, the zoning district standards are organized in a series of different articles spread throughout Chapter 24 of the County Code of Ordinances. Generally, most of the articles that include zoning district regulations set out the range of permitted (principal), provisional, conditional, and accessory uses. These uses are presented in rote lists with considerable duplication from district to district. Some districts also include additional conditions or development standards comprised of a mix of use-specific standards, procedural information, or development standards. The dimensional standards follow the overlay district standards in Article XXI, and are presented in a summary table format that is difficult to read. We suggest the user-friendliness of the zoning district information would be dramatically improved through the following: Consolidation of district-related information into a single article (Article 3: Zoning Districts); Grouping similar districts (e.g., rural districts, residential districts, commercial districts, mixed-use districts, commercial districts, industrial districts); Modifying the sequence of district presentation to better follow the continuum of densities and intensities (so that the least dense/intense districts are presented first, followed by the more dense/intense districts); Reorganizing the zoning district provisions into a two-page format that includes the following elements: - A purpose statement summarizing the intended character and range of uses for the district; - The principal intensity and dimensional standards applicable in the district; - Graphics showing lot patterns and building types typical of the district; and - Graphics showing how dimensional standards apply to the principal development types allowed in the district. An example layout is shown on the following page.

56 Presenting district regulations in this manner allows ordinance users to quickly and easily understand the character and principal limitations applicable in each zoning district, and enables the county to readily excerpt and distribute summaries of each district s intended purpose and defining characteristics and standards. Under this arrangement, all use regulations and standards, as well as the standards for accessory and temporary uses would be organized by district and consolidated in proposed Article 4: Use Standards. C. Add a Summary Use Table As mentioned previously, the current zoning district standards incorporate a series of repetitive lists of permitted (principal), provisional, conditional, and accessory uses for each zoning district. In addition, the current regulations use a pyramid-based zoning scheme where one district allows the full range of permitted uses in a less-dense or less-intense district. This approach adds numerous pages to the text, and can lead to inconsistencies over time as parts of a zoning district are modified (while other parts may not be modified). In addition, uses are not grouped or classified in any meaningful way. Also, in some cases the current regulations use different terminology for the same or similar uses (e.g., club, fraternity, lodge or

57 similar meeting place versus private club, lodge, meeting hall and fraternal organization ). Many modern codes today address these challenges through establishment of a use classification system and the development of a summary use table. A use classification system brings additional structure, precision, and clarity to the range of uses. Current best practices incorporate a three-tiered use classification system comprised of use classifications, use categories, and use types. Use classifications, the broadest category, organizes land uses and activities into general use categories (agricultural uses, residential uses, public and institutional uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses). Use categories, the second level, or tier in the system, is composed of groups of individual types of uses. For example, under the Residential use classification, there are typically two use categories: Household Living and Group Living. Use categories are further divided into specific use types based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered, and site conditions. Each use type is defined. This threetiered system of use classifications, use categories, and use types provides a systematic basis for assigning present and future land uses to the zoning districts. We suggest the updated development regulations use this approach. A summary use table sets out a full listing (by row) of all allowable uses in a single table along with a full listing of all zoning districts (by column). The table also sets out the type of procedure used to review a particular use type by zoning district. It can also include a column referencing individual use-specific standards applied to a particular use, regardless of the zoning district where it is located. The table provides an easy-to-use summary of where a particular use is permitted as well as the range of uses allowed in a particular district. We suggest the county consider replacing the current use lists with a more contemporary summary use table. An example of a summary use table from another code is shown on the following page.

58 D. Update Use Types In addition to inclusion of a summary use table, we also suggest the county consider updating the individual use types in the zoning ordinance. While the current development regulations have been the subject of numerous amendments and additions over the years, the last formal update of the regulations was in As a result, many of the use types listed are 50 years old or older, and do not reflect current trends in housing, retail sales, or industry. The county s development regulations would benefit from a thorough review of the listed uses to incorporate new use types such as mansion apartments (a six or seven unit apartment building designed to resemble a large home), solar arrays, microbreweries, retail sales from community gardens, meal assembly kitchens, e-commerce stores, escape rooms, and many others. Including these kinds of uses will make it easier for all users to understand and use the development regulations. The regulations should also address uses such as tattoo parlors, piercing establishments, and payday loan /cash advance businesses.

59 In addition to updating the regulations to address new uses, the current regulations should also be reviewed for obsolete uses, particularly in the industrial districts. Uses such as asbestos processing, blacksmith, candle or sperm oil manufacture, cooperage works, shoddy manufacturing (use of recycled wool), and many other antiquated uses found in the current regulations should be removed. As a starting point in the process of updating the use types, a table of proposed use types in included in Appendix C. E. Add New Use-Specific Standards Currently, each of the zoning districts includes a set of use-specific standards for the range of uses allowed in the district (though in some cases the use-specific standards are referred to as conditions or development standards ). Use-specific standards are development standards applied to a use, regardless of the district where it is proposed, or only when the use is proposed within a certain district. Modern development codes generally apply use-specific standards as a means of ensuring uses remain compatible with their surroundings, do not cause negative impacts, and in some instances achieve desired development form. Development codes that rely on use-specific standards often reduce the number of uses that require discretionary review by an appointed or elected body (through, for example, provisional use permit review) in favor of a more expedient staff review, since the minimum standards for the use are codified in the use specific standards. In addition to the new standards for telecommunication facilities described in Key Theme 1 of this Code Assessment, we suggest the county consider codifying new use-specific standards for the following uses (there may be others as well): Shopping centers; Outdoor storage (as a principal use); The continuum of care facilities; Civic uses; Information technology uses; and New use types added in accordance with subsection D above, as appropriate, such as solar arrays, microbreweries, and community gardens.

60 F. Add Sections on Accessory and Temporary Uses While many of the current zoning district provisions include specific sections identifying the range of allowable accessory uses, the permitted (principal), provisional, and conditional use sections are also sprinkled with use types that are accessory or temporary uses. For example, the Office/Service (O/S) district allows ATMs, newspaper racks, and vending and dispensing machines in the provisional uses section (Sec ) instead of in the accessory uses in Section The O-1 Office district includes accessory dwellings in the list of provisional uses in Section :1 instead of Section , Accessory Uses Permitted. The Agricultural (A-1) district allows summerhouses or cabins for seasonal, non-permanent use as permitted (principal) uses. New accessory structures, such as storage containers, shipping containers, and portable on-demand storage units, are currently not addressed in the development regulations. In addition, the regulations should take into account the state-mandated regulation of temporary family health care facilities. Inclusion of new sections in the development regulations that specifically address accessory and temporary uses would help reduce the amount of repetition in the current regulations as well as simplify and make the code easier to navigate. As with the principal uses, we also suggest the county consider broadening the range of use-specific standards that apply to accessory and temporary uses, and codify them. For example, standards could be established for drive-through facilities as an accessory use that would apply generally, in all zoning districts. Clear, use-specific standards would facilitate review and decision making by county staff on development that includes accessory and temporary uses, since the uses could only be approved if they comply with a specific set of standards. The standards could address a variety of aspects of the use, including location, number, setbacks, visual impacts, operation, and duration. In addition to new use-specific standards, there are existing use-specific standards for some accessory or temporary uses that would benefit from review and revision to ensure they are consistent with the county s planning goals, and national best practices. These include, but are not limited to the standards controlling: The maximum number of allowable trailers, boats, or commercial vehicles allowed as part of a single-family use; Guest houses and caretaker quarters; Temporary family care facilities;

61 Accessory dwelling units proposed as part of a single-family development; Outdoor dining (whether as convenience seating, dining, or as part of some form of entertainment); and Home occupations or home-based businesses.

62 The quality of development in Henrico County, like many communities throughout Virginia and the nation, is important to the county s economic prosperity, environment, and to the continued enjoyment of a high quality of life. This attitude underlies many of the goals and policies in the Vision 2026 Plan. For example, Chapter 12, Implementation, sets out a detailed policy matrix summarizing the policy guidance from Chapter 5, Land Use. The land use policies are organized into 12 general policies as well as a series of policies by different types of land use (e.g., rural, residential, mixed-use, etc.). Some of the key policies call for the design of new development to be compatible with existing development, to minimize adverse environmental and fiscal impacts, and to promote high-quality development through compliance with site plan standards and the Design Guidelines Manual. Development quality was also expressed as important by stakeholders interviewed during the project kick-off meetings. Development quality is largely addressed in the current regulations through standards for parking and landscaping, as well as through guidelines found in external documents such as the Design Guidelines Manual (which has not been formally adopted) and the Commercial Lighting Guidelines. While these provisions have served the county well through the years, there is room for improvement. More generally, during the kick-off meetings and in stakeholder interviews, many expressed the need for flexibility in the standards to address the contexts of infill and redevelopment, particularly along commercial corridors, in shopping centers, and in small-lot residential neighborhoods. Specific examples of development standards in need of improvement are identified below. The current parking standards (Section 24-96): Do not specifically establish parking standards for all uses (leaving county staff the responsibility to provide interpretations on standards where none exist); Include only limited provisions for parking flexibility (joint use and substitute parking);

63 Do not clearly define what floor area is included in parking calculations; and Include no configuration or dimensional requirements for parking spaces. The landscaping standards (Section ) do not address: Foundation plantings or screening of ground-based mechanical equipment or service areas; Provisions for planting area configuration (although there is a separate landscaping manual); and Provisions for flexibility. The fence, wall, and hedge standards (Section 24-95(l)) do not: Require landscaping when proximate to a public street; and Prohibit barbed and concertina wire, as well as electric fences; The lighting guidelines for commercial development (Commercial Lighting Guidelines) do not apply to multi-family residential development, nor do they reflect current trends in limiting light trespass or glare prevention. Finally, the current development regulations: Only include minimal mobility and circulation standards, provisions that many communities are including in their development codes to make development and neighborhoods better connected and more pedestrian-friendly; Do not have a set of neighborhood compatibility standards to ensure protection of the character of existing single-family neighborhoods when multi-family or commercial/nonresidential development proposes to locate in close proximity; Have signage regulations that include procedural aspects and include no illustrations; Do not include any references to the county s stormwater standards or stormwater design manual; and Are in need of an update in terminology. The Vision 2026 Plan seeks to promote higher quality development and recognizes the need to keep development profitable. Regulations that impose onerous standards in an effort to promote high-quality development may drive away potential new businesses and development. On the other hand, regulations that impose minimal standards may result in poor development quality, which could also have a negative impact on the type of economic development desired by the county. What is needed

64 in Henrico County is an approach that will establish high quality, yet workable development standards. The following sections outline recommendations for updating the current development standards. The intent is to foster high development quality while also incorporating flexibility and incentive provisions in order to achieve the county s economic development goals. A. Update the Parking Standards As discussed above, Section of the development regulations sets out the off-street parking standards; they are organized into standards for parking decks, standards for mixed-use or joint-use parking lots, standards for substitute (off-site) parking, a brief summary table of parking requirements for 17 different use types, basic standards for parking space size and location, and provisions that clarify that parking areas are considered open space. Section sets out basic configuration requirements dealing with setbacks, lighting, paving, drainage, and parking lot entrances. Many of these standards are not consistent with current best practices. In addition, and as is discussed above, they require county staff to make frequent interpretation of the standards, and negotiate application of the current parking standards, with limited guidance. i. Modernizing the Parking Standards To address these problems, we suggest the following: Current parking standards should be reviewed and modified to bring them into conformance with current best practices (such as those standards in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual, other national standards, and recent parking standards adopted by other local governments). Also, we suggest the current standards be supplemented with a summary table that sets out the parking requirements for all allowable uses (uses shown in the summary use table), along with provisions for uses with variable parking demands, and provisions that allow the Planning Director to require preparation of a parking demand study for unusual uses where there is no reliable parking demand data. The requirements for parking decks in the current regulations should be reviewed and amended to ensure they do not create disincentives for structured parking. (The graph associated with requirements for parking decks serving shopping centers should be

65 removed in favor of clearer standards). Maximum space requirements (or caps), if considered by the county for some uses, should be increased or removed for parking structures so they may be used for shared or off-site parking arrangements. Additionally, new parking lot standards should address bus shelters and turn-outs, motorcycle parking, and drivethrough stacking. The current standards that require off-street parking associated with residential uses (other than single-family homes) to be located behind residential structures should include new provisions to provide some flexibility. Parking standards should be modified to be consistent with the ADA requirements in the building code regarding access and safety (and conform to federal law). Diagrams should be added that clearly show the dimensional requirements for parking spaces, drive aisles, etc. and should include provisions for different types of parking such as perpendicular, parallel and angled parking, as well as electric charging stations. Standards regulating commercial loading areas should be updated. Standards for construction and maintenance of parking lot surfaces should be clarified. Standards for on-site parking of commercial fleet vehicles should be considered. The parking standards should include a set of bicycle parking incentives. The Vision 2026 Plan includes a policy of encouraging bicycle accommodations in conjunction with new development; however, the current zoning ordinance does not address bicycle parking. The bicycle parking incentives would apply to office, retail, multi-family residential, community facility, and hotel uses in areas of the county where bicycle facilities exist or are planned. ii. Parking and Development Character In addition to recommendations above for modernizing the county s parking standards, we suggest the county consider additional best practices identified below to achieve its vision for a vibrant county that is a great place to live, work, and play.

66 The Vision 2026 Plan calls for the reduction of the impact of parking on the character of the built and natural environment. Specifically, under the Community Character policies for mixed use districts, plan policies include limiting the visibility of parking lots and parking structures, placing the focus on the pedestrian environment and the buildings themselves, and locating parking lots and parking structures to the rear of buildings or within integrated, architecturally-detailed buildings. Other plan policies call for providing parking lots with perimeter and interior landscaping and adequate provisions for pedestrian circulation. In order to implement these plan policies and to improve development quality, we suggest the county consider the following additional standards: Different sets of standards Establishing different minimum parking standards for mixed-use, higher intensity areas versus other areas in the county. Maximum parking requirements Use of caps or limits on the number of parking spaces provided for some uses (e.g., mixed-use, retail, office, and multifamily) or in some areas (e.g., urban locations) to prevent building too much parking. Additional alternatives for flexibility Supplementing the shared and substitute parking provisions with additional flexibility options such as deferred parking. 5 Reductions in specific situations Parking reductions for mixeduse districts and for development in more urban portions of the county, as well as reductions for affordable housing, senior housing, and/or housing for people with disabilities; On-street parking allowances Allowing on-street parking to be credited towards a portion of the off-street parking requirements in more urban and mixed-use areas; 6 5 This would be used if the owner can demonstrate that the required number of required parking spaces is excessive. An area of sufficient size to meet the deferred number of parking spaces is retained as open space, and the owner agrees in writing to conduct a parking demand study after the development is in operation (a predetermined time), and construct the deferred parking if the parking study shows it is needed (otherwise it does not have to be built and the land deferred for parking can be used for other purposes). 6 This would also require amending Section 2-35, Parking on the Public Right-of- Way, of the Design Manual, which currently precludes this. Stipulations to this

67 Location of parking lots Requiring a portion of the required surface parking associated with mixed-use and nonresidential uses in targeted areas of the community to be located to the sides or rear of buildings; Large parking lot standards Requiring large parking lots of 300 or more spaces to be broken up into sections and incorporate pedestrian-friendly features such as sidewalks and more landscaping; Parking for single-family dwellings and townhouses Limiting parking in front of the structure to the driveway, which could occupy a limited percentage of the area between the building and the front lot line; Bicycle parking Requiring provision of bicycle parking facilities and other transit related facilities (like shelters) in areas proximate to schools, churches, and transit, and requiring bicycle parking to be located in prominent, convenient, and secure locations; Low impact development Providing incentives, in coordination with the Public Works Department, for parking lot design to incorporate low impact development techniques such as pervious paving, vegetated swales, infiltration/flow-through planters, rain gardens, etc. Many communities across the country have included these kinds of standards in their development codes to promote a higher quality visual environment, reduce automobile dependency, and help address stormwater management and other environmental concerns. B. Add Mobility and Circulation Standards As discussed in Key Theme 1 above, we recommend the county consider adding standards to support a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile travel. These standards would include standards for street connections, block lengths (when they are included in a development), access between developments, sidewalks, and provisions to support pedestrian circulation. provision should be included. For example, the on-street parking should be located along the frontage owned by the applicant or landowner, exclusive of any curb cut, and should be available for general public use at all times.

68 C. Enhance the Landscaping Standards Section of the development regulations sets out landscaping, tree cover, and buffering requirements. They are organized into general requirements, standards for tree protection plans, transitional buffers, parking lot landscaping, and administrative provisions. In addition, the county has a separate landscape manual that sets out preferred species lists and planting details. The Tree Protection standards in Sections (c) and (d) require trees of six inches in DBH (diameter at breast height) or greater located within a required setback from a public right of way be retained during and after development. The standards also require that any application for land development approval (including singlefamily development within Chesapeake Bay overlay areas) provide a tree protection plan that depicts required buffers, proposed tree protection zones, tree cover calculations, and proposed tree protection measures (such as protective fencing or staking details. We suggest that the county carry forward elements of its current tree canopy cover protection standards with minor procedural, measurement, and location provisions to help clarify the regulations. In addition, we suggest the county consider supplementing the current requirements with new standards for the protection of healthy significant (DBH of 22 inches or greater) memorial, heritage, and specimen trees (as currently defined) to be included within required tree protection areas. These standards would require these trees to be maintained after development except in cases where their retention hinders compliance with the development regulations. In those cases, the tree(s) could be removed subject to mitigation in the form of new tree plantings of four inches DBH in an amount equivalent to the cumulative DBH of trees removed. To the extent possible under the Virginia Code, the standards should also include provisions for off-site planting in cases where mitigation trees cannot be accommodated on a development site. The current Transitional Buffer standards establish buffering requirements for new development based on the adjacent zoning district. The regulations include four different kinds of buffers, ranging in width from 10 feet to 50 feet, along with corresponding planting requirements for each. In some instances alternative screening techniques (consisting primarily of six-foot-tall opaque fences or walls) may be used instead of a required

69 buffer type. Generally, most forms of residential development are not required to provide transitional buffers, including townhomes, even when adjacent to single-family development. We suggest the county consider modifying this standard to require screening and buffers when larger townhouse or multi-family development is adjacent to single-family homes. We also suggest the standards be modified to allow alternative screening in every district instead of just the districts listed in the matrix, and that the standards be clarified regarding the need to incorporate shrubs between the fence/wall and the lot line in addition to an opaque fence or wall when an alternative screen is used. The Parking Lot Landscaping provisions found in Section (e)(4) are comprised of peripheral screening requirements. A six-foot-wide strip is required between the parking lot and lot line except in cases where a transitional buffer is already required. At least two trees for every 100 linear feet are required. Additionally, a 10-foot-wide strip is required along rights-of-way. These strips are required to include two and one-half trees for every 100 linear feet. The standards also require interior planting areas to occupy at least five percent of the total area of the parking spaces, and islands every 19 spaces. The standards, however, do not require the islands to be planted. We suggest the county consider supplementing these standards with requirements for a continuous evergreen hedge with a minimum height of 36 inches along all parking lot edges (except where one parking lot abuts another parking lot or where a transitional buffer is required). In addition, we suggest the interior planting requirements be enhanced to require no parking space more than 50 feet from a canopy tree, and that each landscaping island include at least one tree and two or more shrubs. We also suggest the county consider the following enhancements to the current landscaping standards as means of ensuring higher development quality: Include requirements for street trees along streets for single-family development and in some nonresidential and mixed-use districts. Include requirements for native species to reduce irrigation requirements, and species diversity requirements to prevent monocultures. Provide greater flexibility in meeting landscaping objectives by authorizing the submittal and approval of an alternative landscape plan where site size, topography, easements, or other conditions make strict compliance with standards impractical. Clarify the requirements for tree protection devices used during construction, where existing trees are being saved.

70 New enforcement provisions that require replacement of required trees cut down in violation of the ordinance standards with new trees of at least three inches in DBH in an amount equal to the diameter of the trees removed (applicants could meet the replacement requirements with fewer trees as long as the DBH measurements between the removed trees and the replacement trees are comparable.) New foundation planting requirements for nonresidential and multi-family uses along building facades facing public rights-ofway. Clarifying that multi-building developments or multi-parcel developments developed under a common plan or common management are not required to provide vegetated buffers between different use types. Refinement of the performance guarantee provisions with a oneyear performance guarantee to ensure planted landscaping and retained vegetation lives through its first year. D. Add Standards for Open Space Set-Asides The Vision 2026 Plan identifies encouraging the preservation of private open space as a general development policy throughout the county. Preserving open space has land use, general livability, health, and environmental benefits. Both passive and active open space areas support recreation opportunities and walkability. Civic and gathering spaces support a good quality of life and a sense of community. Open space setasides can protect environmentally sensitive lands that perform valuable functions, including supporting wildlife and preventing flooding. The current development regulations do not require open space set-asides in new development, with one exception. Section 24-34(g) of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 20 percent of the area of new development in the UMU district to be set aside for outdoor recreation and open space for the common use and enjoyment of residents, visitors, and employees within the UMU district. A smaller percentage may be approved by provisional use permit. Standards for the set-aside areas address generally their location within the UMU district, design, and maintenance. Outside of the UMU district, there are no uniform private open space set-aside standards that apply to site development. We recommend the county consider establishing a uniform set of open space set-aside standards that would apply to new development. Because open space needs are different for different types of development in

71 different development contexts, the standards would vary based on use type and geographical location. The two geographical areas that we propose for consideration are: Areas designated in the Vision 2026 Plan for the most intense commercial and mixed-use development; and Other areas of the county. Open space standards in the most intense commercial and mixed-use areas would require a lower set-aside percentage than in the other areas and would be flexible enough to allow features more prevalent in compact, mixed-use urban environments (e.g., plazas and other public gathering spaces, fountains, use of stormwater infrastructure as site amenities, sidewalk furniture, roof-top or terrace gardens perhaps even indoor atriums). Green roofs would also count towards meeting open space requirements, and might even be further incentivized through additional development intensity or building height. Open space standards should also reflect the different needs of various types of development. For example, multi-family residential development is generally subject to higher open space set-aside requirements than mixeduse, commercial, or industrial development. Regardless of the location and type of development, standards should ensure that required open space is usable and functional for designated open space purposes and does not merely consist of undevelopable leftover land. This can be achieved by adding locational and design rules governing the location, configuration, and usability of the open space. Those rules would give priority to protecting natural hazard areas, natural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., floodplains and riparian buffers). 7 In order to ensure the continued viability of open space set-asides, the standards would also include provisions addressing the ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for required open space, whether the open space is owned and maintained by a public entity, nonprofit organization, or property owners association. 7 During the drafting of the standards, consideration will be given to the Planning Department s Open Space/Recreational Development Guidelines for Residential Development, which were endorsed by the Planning Commission in 2004.

72 E. Add Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Maintaining compatible development and redevelopment is an issue discussed in the Vision 2026 Plan. Neighborhood compatibility standards are provisions intended to address edge area development adjacent to single-family neighborhoods (i.e., instances when multi-story, mixed-use structures, or commercial, office, or multi-family development is located adjacent to single-family neighborhoods or vacant land in single-family zoning districts). The standards are established to ensure when this happens, the form of development in the edge areas is compatible with the character of the adjacent single-family development (by addressing building mass, height, appearance, lighting, signage, the location of parking lots and accessways, the location of service areas and outdoor activities, and operational conditions.) We suggest the county consider adding a set of neighborhood compatibility standards to its development regulations to protect the character of established single-family neighborhoods. If added, the neighborhood compatibility standards could apply to any new nonresidential development (e.g., commercial or office uses), mixed-use development, or multi-family and townhouse development when it is adjacent or across the street from existing single-family residential development or vacant land in single-family zoning district. The table below includes a sampling of the types of neighborhood compatibility standards adopted by other jurisdictions, for the county s consideration. Construct a similar roof type as single-family development in terms of slope and arrangement, to prevent abrupt changes in roof form Building Façade Standards Building Dimension Standards Site Design Standards Orient porches, balconies, outdoor use areas, and other site attributes such as vending machines associated with attached residential development away from adjacent single-family residential uses Use similarly sized and patterned features such as windows, doors, awnings, arcades, pilasters, cornices, wall offsets, building materials, and other building articulations included on adjacent single-family development Buildings over a certain height be stepped back in height from adjacent singlefamily homes, so the tallest part of the structure does not abut a single-family residential use Buildings be no higher than a specified height when adjacent or within a certain distance from a single-family residential home When dealing with multi-building developments on one or more lots, establish a continuum of use intensity where uses of moderate intensity are sited between

73 high-intensity uses and low-intensity uses (e.g., office uses between retail and detached residential), as they relate to adjacent single-family development Lot Size Consistency Parking and Driveway Area Standards Loading and Refuse Storage Area Standards Lighting Standards Signage Standards Open Space Set- Aside Standards Operational Standards Require lot sizes remain within a specified percent of any adjacent single-family lots bounding a development Orient parking spaces away from (or parallel to) single-family residences so that headlights do not project directly into yards Require a ten-foot-wide fully-opaque vegetated buffer or a comparable buffer between single-family residences and nonresidential development Require parking for developments over a certain area in square feet be located interior to the site, and a minimum distance from single-family development Require adjoining parking lots serving nonresidential or mixed-use buildings be interconnected Require parking structure facades adjacent to single-family residences receive enhanced design treatment to soften their visual impact Require loading and refuse storage areas be located a certain distance from singlefamily development Require loading and refuse storage areas be fully screened from view of singlefamily development using materials that are the same as, or of equal quality to, the materials used for the principal building, which are compatible with the materials used for the single-family development Require loading and refuse storage areas be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaped so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent single-family development and public streets Require loading and refuse storage areas be located within buildings when the building served is over a specified area Limit footcandle values to a specified level at lot lines of single-family development Reduce the sign area and maximum height of all signs in transition areas by a specified percent of that normally allowed When open space is required, locate it in the transition area between the nonresidential/multi-family use and single-family development, unless there is a compelling reason for it to be located elsewhere on the site Curtail outdoor dining or other activities after 9:00 PM on weeknights and 11:00 PM on weekends Limit trash collection or other service functions to only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Require amplified music, singing, or other forms of noise audible at the property line be extinguished (including noise from the typical production process associated with the use) after 9:00 PM Sunday through Thursday nights and 11 PM Friday and Saturday nights

74 F. Incorporate and Revise Exterior Lighting Guidelines The spillover of light and glare from buildings and parking lots can be a serious annoyance to neighbors, pedestrians, and passing motorists. The county s current commercial exterior lighting guidelines, which are guidelines, not requirements, suggest maximum light trespass of 0.5 footcandles at adjacent residential lot lines, which is consistent with national best practices. The guidelines also suggest that lighting plans should anticipate reducing lighting levels after the close of business and that only security lighting be maintained. The guidelines, however, provide only basic recommendations related to maximum mounting height and pole location for lights. Additionally, there are only general suggestions regarding maximum lighting intensity. 8 While the county s lighting guidelines address some of the basic elements of best practices regarding exterior lighting, we suggest the county consider incorporating the lighting standards into the development regulations (as other Virginia communities have done), make them requirements, and broaden the provisions to address the full range of lighting related issues that are seen in many development codes today (this has been done in the Urban Mixed Use district). If new exterior lighting standards are established, they should be measurable, and address glare, direction, shielding, spillover, maximum height, and maximum on-site levels of light to enhance safety as well as address compatibility and aesthetic concerns. In addition, the new standards could set out specific lighting standards for uses often responsible for excessive brightness and glare such as gasoline station canopies, car sales establishments, convenience stores, and similar uses. Submittal of a lighting plan would be required to ensure compliance with the standards (requirements for submittal and review may vary by land use or zoning district). The following table provides, for the county s consideration, a sample of the types of standards that have been adopted by other jurisdictions. As noted in earlier tables, this is an example of 8 The county has adopted exterior lighting standards for capital projects that address a broader range of lighting elements (e.g., minimum illumination and uniformity ratios). If new exterior lighting standards are included in the rewritten ordinance, we recommend the standards for capital projects be reviewed and included if appropriate.

75 regulations from another community. Appropriate standards for Henrico County would be determined if the county wants to include them in the development regulations. Hours of Illumination Maximum Lighting Height Illumination Direction Sign Lighting Shielding, Exterior Shielding, Interior Shielding, Canopies Maximum Illumination Levels Minimum Illumination Levels Exemptions for a Security Plan Public and institutional uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses that are adjacent to existing residential development or vacant land in residential districts shall turn off all exterior lighting except lighting necessary for security or emergency purposes by 10:00 P.M. or during non-operating hours Except for outdoor sports fields or performance areas, the height of outdoor lighting, whether mounted on poles or walls or by other means, shall be no greater than X feet in residential districts, X feet in commercial and mixed-use districts, and X feet in industrial districts In all districts, lighting shall be directed downward. In addition, upwardly-directed lighting shall not be used to illuminate structures, except for low-wattage architectural lighting Lighting fixtures illuminating signs shall comply with the standards of this section, and such fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the sign face Light fixtures shall use full cut-off lenses or hoods to prevent glare or spillover from the site onto adjacent lands and streets No interior light source shall be positioned, aimed, or configured so as to result in the light source being visible from land occupied by existing residential development. No light source in a canopy structure shall extend downward further than the lowest edge of the canopy ceiling Most regulations establish maximum illumination levels for all outdoor lighting and indoor lighting visible from outside Require a minimum level of illumination in specified areas (e.g., parking lots, pedestrian paths, and plazas) Government facilities, parks and open areas, public safety, and other uses where sensitive or dangerous materials are stored may submit to staff a site security plan proposing exterior lighting that allows deviation from the standards

76 G. Strengthen and Update Fence and Wall Standards Along with exterior lighting requirements, fencing requirements also have a significant impact on a community s safety and aesthetics. Section 24-95(l) of the zoning ordinance contains the county s fence and wall provisions (though additional provisions pertaining to fences and walls as alternative screening devices are included in Section (e) of the landscaping provisions). The current fence and wall provisions are organized into a series of general standards addressing fence height, fence/wall location within sight distance triangles associated with street intersections, and a variety of different fence/wall height provisions for commercial, townhouse, general residential, and other zoning districts. Generally, fence/wall heights are limited between three feet and six inches in front yards, and seven feet in other required yards, though there are procedures to increase heights up to 10 feet within required yards when located in nonresidential districts (typically as part of a landscaping plan or alternative screening proposal associated with a transitional buffer yard). While the county s current standards address fence height, there are few standards related to fence maintenance, appearance, location relative to right-of-way edges, or requirements for landscaping material when the fence or wall is proximate to a street right-of-way. The standards are also silent as to the types of allowable materials or the ability to include barbed or concertina wire. Many communities which initiate efforts to improve development quality have added or modified fence and wall standards. This is an area of the current regulations the county should consider modifying to achieve higher quality development. Additional ways in which the standards might be modified include: Prohibition of certain types of fencing materials in front, side, and rear yards (e.g., prohibitions on metal slat fencing or chain link fences in front yards and along public streets); Standards for fences around stormwater BMPs; Required landscaping in front of fences located within 20 feet of a public street; and Requiring the finished sides of fences to face the outside of the enclosed area. As requested during kick-off meetings, the fence and wall standards will: Ensure fence height standards are appropriate and simplified where possible; Clarify screening requirements for refuse containers and HVAC and similar equipment (e.g., generators); 9 and Include a requirement for safety railing on retaining walls in some situations not addressed by the building code. It should be noted, however, that any revisions to fence and wall standards must be carefully tailored for infill and mixed-use projects so that they do not thwart infill development and prevent better 9 Screening requirements for a broader range of utility and mechanical equipment will be considered, both in the fence and wall standards and in other areas of the code (e.g., landscaping standards or use-specific standards), taking into consideration the Screening of Utility and Mechanical Equipment policy adopted by the Planning Commission in 2002.

77 connections. The following table provides some examples of the types of standards that have been adopted by other jurisdictions. Location Alleys Temporary Fences Landscaping Security Exemptions Customary Materials Maintenance Required Fences are permitted on the property line between two or more parcels of land held in private ownership Standards for fences and walls adjacent to alleys Temporary fences for construction sites or a similar purpose shall comply with the requirements of the building code adopted by the county and the standards of the zoning code Standards that require fences over four feet in height and within a certain distance of a public street right of way to incorporate modest landscaping to help prevent fence canyons along public streets Provisions that allow for some fences to have taller height to protect public uses or to incorporate barbed or concertina wire Fences and walls shall be constructed of any combination of treated wood posts and planks, rot-resistant wood (such as cypress or redwood), wrought iron, decorative metal materials, brick, stone, masonry materials, or products designed to resemble these materials. All other fence materials are prohibited All fences and walls shall be maintained in good repair and in a safe and attractive condition including, but not limited to, the replacement of missing, decayed, or broken structural and decorative elements. All fences and walls shall receive regular structural maintenance to prevent and address sagging and weathering of surfaces visible from the public right-of-way H. Incorporate Water Quality Requirements The county has detailed stormwater quality and quantity manuals and guidelines for new development that are set out in various outside documents. Several county staff members mentioned the need to incorporate references to the county s stormwater quality requirements during the kick-off meetings. Article VII of Chapter 10, County Code of Ordinances, includes the stormwater management requirements. They are brief and reference the Stormwater Guidelines Manual maintained by the County Engineer. The Public Works Department maintains a document on the county s web site referred to as the Environmental Manual that includes chapters addressing watershed management (including riparian setbacks), stormwater, erosion and sediment control, minimum design standards, and other related topics.

78 We suggest various portions of the development regulations (e.g., site plan requirements, subdivision requirements, environmental provisions, etc.) incorporate cross-references to the Environmental Manual. I. Update Subdivision Standards We suggest that the standards in the subdivision ordinance should incorporate the following changes requested during project kick-off meetings: Update and clarify the requirements for common areas; Clarify that a public water supply is required in all new subdivisions; Update bonding requirements to include time limits, so that a mechanism is in place for the county to finish roads when they are partially completed; Consider adding a requirement for sewer easements in subdivisions that are proposed where sewer is likely to be extended; Include conservation subdivision standards and procedures; and Require that wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers be placed in common ownership.

79 Communities nationwide are realizing there are benefits to developments that incorporate environmentally friendly development practices. Environmentally friendly development involves building techniques that include some of the following practices: use of renewable energy, improved water quality and stormwater management, water conservation, protection of natural features and existing vegetation, and the promotion of recycling and waste reduction. In addition to environmentally friendly development, an environmentally friendly community is also healthy from a social and economic perspective. This could mean providing affordable housing and adequate day care facilities in the community where people work, setting the stage for small businesses to operate, and facilitating uses supporting green collar jobs like building retrofits, solar panel manufacturing and installation, and recycling facilities. Set forth below are some of the key areas the county may want to consider addressing in its development regulations to encourage environmentally friendly development. They are based on issues that were highlighted in the Vision 2026 Plan, in project kick-off meetings and interviews, and in survey responses. A. Remove Obstacles to Environmentally Friendly Development Recently, many people have become aware of several new forms of environmentally friendly development, such as wind energy conversion systems, solar systems, geothermal systems, rainwater harvesting systems, electric car charging stations, farmers markets, community gardens, and modern stormwater practices like constructed wetlands and rain gardens. However, there are also other forms of environmentally friendly development that are not as readily recognized, but are often subject to regulatory obstacles. For example, clothes lines are environmentally friendly, but often prohibited in neighborhoods through covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Other forms of small scale urban agriculture

80 like the raising of poultry or bees often face similar restrictions. In fact, several respondents to the survey stated that the county s current setback requirements in the zoning ordinance that apply to hen houses and bee keeping are overly restrictive. There are sometimes limitations on backyard composting, front yard gardens, xeriscaping, edible landscaping, or the convenient placement of community recycling centers in or near neighborhoods. There are also operational aspects of development that are environmentally friendly but restricted through development regulations - like extinguishing exterior lighting after closing, use of gravel or other permeable materials in parking areas, or use of reflective paving materials in parking areas that do not absorb heat. Many regulations, including Henrico County s, are silent about how wind energy conversion systems and similar environmentally friendly development are treated. Are they allowed as a permitted or accessory use? Where, and under what circumstances? If the regulations are silent or prohibit solar panels to be placed on the roofs of homes as an accessory use, the regulations can be modified to remove the obstacle. We suggest the county consider its development regulations in light of removing potential obstacles to environmentally friendly development, and that these obstacles be removed, where appropriate. B. Incorporate New Use Standards Along with removal of obstacles, the county should also consider supplementing the development regulations by expanding use standards for certain environmentally friendly uses to promote their establishment. Some of the different uses include: Small wind energy conversion systems; Large wind energy conversion systems; Solar arrays; Photovoltaic cells on roofs or other structures; Cisterns or rainwater harvesting tanks of 500 or more gallons; Community gardens; Poultry and bee keeping as accessory uses; Electric car charging and CNG fueling stations; Greenhouses over 200 square feet in size; and Other uses, as appropriate.

81 C. Establish a System of Incentives to Promote Environmentally Friendly Development In addition, we also suggest the development regulations include a series of incentives for development that incorporates environmentally friendly features. The incentives could take the form of density bonuses, additional building height, additional lot coverage, reductions in parking or other development standards, reduced application fees, or even expedited development review. These incentives would be offered commensurate with the provision of a range of different environmentally friendly development features provided by an applicant from a menu of allowable techniques included in the regulations. Such techniques could include LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, or an equivalent use of green roofs or other rainwater harvesting techniques, use of lowimpact development practices for on-site stormwater management, use of on-site electricity generated from alternative energy sources, provision of additional open space that exceeds minimum requirements, enhancement or upgrade to existing riparian buffers or other on-site natural features, protection of steep slopes, provision of affordable housing, or other features. The amount of bonus available would be commensurate with the cost (or value) of the development feature provided. This approach helps applicants recover some of the costs of environmentally friendly building features while encouraging environmentally friendly development.

82 (This page is intentionally left blank.)

83 Part III of this Code Assessment provides an overview of the proposed structure and general substance of the development regulations if the suggestions identified in Part II are addressed. As part of the review and discussion of this Code Assessment, the county can consider this proposed structure and format. It will serve as a road map for the drafting of the updated zoning and subdivision ordinances. The following pages present a general outline of the revised development regulations. We view the annotated outline and the previous parts of the Code Assessment as vehicles for helping to define expectations about what is to be accomplished in the new zoning ordinance before we begin the detailed drafting work. In addition to providing a road map for drafting the new ordinance, the Annotated Outline provides an organizing framework for continued conversations with the county about key zoning and subdivision regulation issues. The revised text and structure in the Annotated Outline are organized under two chapters (the same as the current development regulations): Chapter 24: Zoning, and Chapter 19: Subdivision. The structure and contents of each of the articles within each chapter are described on the following pages. In addition to the revised text and structure, the updated zoning ordinance and the updated subdivision ordinance should each include a summary table of contents at the beginning, article-based tables of contents, and an index at the back of the document.

84 (This page is intentionally left blank.)

85 General Commentary: This article contains important general provisions that are relevant to the zoning ordinance as a whole. The article plays an important part in making the regulations easier to understand by including certain overarching principles and establishing a clear basis for the authority upon which the regulations are adopted by the county. Many provisions in this article are currently located in different places throughout the existing regulations and are proposed for consolidation here. A. Title This is a new section that sets forth the official name of the zoning ordinance (e.g., The Zoning Ordinance of Henrico County ) as well as any acceptable shortened references (e.g., the Ordinance, or this Ordinance ). B. Authority This is a new section that contains references to the statutory authority for the county s adoption of the zoning ordinance under the Code of Virginia. It will also include a provision stating that if the ordinance cites a provision of the Code of Virginia or federal law that is amended or superseded, the ordinance will be deemed amended to refer to the amended section or the section that most nearly corresponds to the superseded section. C. General Purpose and Intent A general purpose and intent section can inform decision-makers in future years about the intent of the Board of Supervisors when it adopted the regulations. This section replaces Section 24-1, Purpose. It will include statements from the enabling legislation in the Code of Virginia as well as relevant goal statements from the Vision 2026 Plan, and a statement related to the importance of economic development. Individual purpose statements related to districts, design standards, or procedures will be relocated to those specific sections. D. Applicability and Jurisdiction This section builds on the provisions found in Section 24-2 of the existing regulations and makes clear who is subject to the regulations. It will also address lots that are bifurcated by city limit lines, but are also in the unincorporated county.

86 E. Implement Comprehensive Plan This is a new section. It will set out the general legislative intent that one of the purposes of the zoning ordinance is to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The statement will be general in nature. The Vision 2026 Plan will not be specifically identified here as the Comprehensive Plan, as it will be updated over time and its name might change. F. Relationship with Other Laws, Covenants or Deed Restrictions This is a new section that provides in case of conflict between the regulations and other legislative enactments of the Commonwealth or county, the stricter provision applies. The section also clarifies that the county will not be responsible for monitoring or enforcing private easements, covenants, and restrictions, though it may inquire into private easements and restrictions in reviewing development plans for the purpose of ensuring consistency with county requirements. G. Transitional Provisions This is a new section that addresses how existing approvals, complete applications, nonconformities, and violations are addressed after adoption of the updated zoning ordinance. Violations of the current regulations continue to be violations under the new regulations (unless they are no longer considered violations), violations are subject to the penalties and enforcement provisions set forth in new Article 24-7: Enforcement. Complete applications that are in the development approval pipeline at the time of the adoption of the new regulations may be processed under the provisions of the prior regulations, or the updated zoning ordinance, at the option of the applicant. Provisional use permits, conditional use permits, special exceptions, variances, preliminary plats, statutorily-vested development and building permits are governed by the terms and conditions of their approvals, and the rules in existence at the time of their approval. If, however, applicants fail to comply with the terms and conditions of their approval or fail to meet established time frames, their approval expires and development of the site must comply with the requirements of the new regulations. Applications submitted after the effective date of the new regulations are subject to the procedures and standards of the new regulations. This section will also include a summary table explaining how the prior zoning districts are translated into the new zoning districts (as is shown on Pages above). The translation of former zoning districts to new zoning districts is intended to increase efficiency and ensure that the districts that are carried forward do not overlap with one another.

87 H. Severability This standard provision declares that if any parts of the regulations are ruled invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the regulations are not affected and remain in effect.

88 General Commentary: This administration article consolidates the provisions related to the review of development. It contains information on the various advisory and decision-making bodies in the county (e.g., Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Planning Director), the common review procedures section that sets out the application submittal and review process, and application-specific procedures section that contains review standards for development approvals and permits (map amendments, site plans, building permits, etc.). This information will be consolidated, streamlined, and conformed to the Code of Virginia and national best practices. A. Administrative and Decision-Making Bodies The first section in the new Administration article identifies the advisory and decisionmaking entities and persons responsible for the review and administration of development under the regulations. It is our experience that provisions such as these help to establish clear lines of authority in the county s advisory and decision-making procedures. This section will identify the specific responsibilities relative to the regulations of each review board or staff person. The table in this section provides an overview of the review structure. The table below is a blend of the county s current procedures along with a series of new procedures, including a planned development procedure, temporary use permit, tree removal permit, and an administrative modification. S = Staff Review; R = Recommendation; D = Decision; A = Appeal; <> = Public hearing Text Amendment[1] S <R> <D> Map Amendment (Rezoning) S <R> <D> Conditional Zoning S <R> <D> Planned Development [NEW] S <R> <D> Provisional Use Permit S <R> <D> Transfer of Provisional Use Permit D <A> Conditional Use Permit S <D>

89 S = Staff Review; R = Recommendation; D = Decision; A = Appeal; <> = Public hearing Building Permit D S Sign Permit D S Temporary Use Permit [NEW] D <D> [2] Occupancy Certificate D S Special Flood Hazard Area Permit D S Tree Removal Permit [NEW] D <A> Plan of Development S <D> Transfer of Plan of Development D <A> Administrative Site Plan D Variance S <D> Interpretation D <A> Proffer Interpretation D <A> Administrative Modification [NEW] Appeal D <A> <D> NOTES: [1] Text amendment applications must be initiated by the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission [2] Some temporary uses are required to be approved by the BZA following a public hearing B. Common Review Procedures In the current regulations a number of the procedures for development applications are set forth in individual permit processes. The current trend in zoning administration is to consolidate these procedures which is what this section on common review