Vienna Development 101.

I've read this report, but it seems to be missing some information and I can't tell what the pictures show. I guess I still need to go to the town to read the June 13th 2005 minutes since they aren't posted on the town or historicvienna.com website, but it would be helpful to know specifically what this group proposed that the Council didn't like. Also, on building height - a developer would be lucky to get 4 stories with a 45' building, much less 7 stories as is mentioned in this report. There really is no need for the town to propose more than 5-6 stories because that is the tallest you can build a wood-frame building. Unless you go significantly above this height which is unlikely and not needed since Vienna has no metro at it's center, there is no need to raise the height over the max for wood frame construction.

Did anyone read my posting awhile back which I referenced some pictures of new 3-5 story buildings in revitalized downtowns? I re-pasted it below. Are these style/height of buildings what the committee was recommending? If not, what were they recommending? It doesn't say anything in this report other than specifying some general heights and setbacks and asking the Council to hire someone to develop a form based code?

Posted by: Smart Growth Advocate | July 16, 2008 12:53 PM
Maybe some people want Ballston in Vienna, but especially with Tysons planned for that type of high-rise development, I would guess most people just want to improve the vibrancy of Vienna's downtown by creating a more mixed-use and pedestrian friendly area. Many places have revitalized their downtowns with just 2-5 story buildings (of course many did this before the recession). One problem preventing Vienna from having mixed use buildings though is the 35' height limit. With retail merchants wanting a tall first story, it's very difficult to build more than 2 stories with a 35' height limit and most mixed use buildings are at least 3-4 stories. Below are some examples of what I'd like Vienna to emulate at least in the center of town (most are local but I included Naperville since it's regularly listed as one of the best places to live by CNN Money Mag). I would guess that with this economy, Maple would not be developed overnight and the redevelopment would have little impact on at least the vehicular travel through Vienna and only sporatic impact to pedestrians.
Hyattsville
http://www.eya.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=microsites.welcome&neighborhoodid=6B5240AC-96B6-175C-99CE06061246A2C6
http://whyhyattsville.typepad.com/why_hyattsville_real_esta/hyattsville_business/index.html
Fairfax:
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/Oldtown/Images_files/chainbridge.jpg
Kentlands:
http://luciensteil.tripod.com/katarxis02-1/id53.html
Naperville:
http://www.visitnaperville.com/newsite/images/downtown.jpg
Historic Manassas:
http://historicmanassas.mymediaroom.com/gallery/viewimage.aspx?id=1658

This was not implemented for being a bad idea. It was not implemented because if Vienna was to become this progressive and open the old boobs on Town Council would lose their seats to more progressive and accomplished politicians. Not implementing this report is what simple minded Town Council members do when they want to hang onto power. Don't implement the report and Vienna stays backwater - just the way they like it with them in control. If ANYONE can plausibly and intelligently argue against this position...let's hear it.

HV, thanks for posting this for us. It is, however, a mind-numbing amount of stuff that takes a couple hours to really understand. Some of it irrelevant notes, articles, & various people's scribbles and questions w/o answers. Essentially, the report seems to be encouraging form based code, but the town attorney appears to think that it might be illegal because towns are not allowed to dictate architectural styles. My understanding of form based code is that it doesn't require that level of design control. (I also would point out that if it's illegal to regulate design, how the hell has the town gotten away with dictating the arbitrary shade of green allowed on a sign?) Form based code might be a good idea, but it's not clear that anything can be done without the leadership to make some decisions & see it through.

Look at the nice pics that Smart Growth Advocate posted, then make a list of the similarities of the street scenes shown & compare them to Maple Ave. They show what we need to change.

There was a report presented to Town Council in person by members of the committee on this subject that made clear the written notes, but as we all know that was not seen (or recorded) due to the Vienna TV ban. Cliff notes version? Expand the process on Church Street to Maple Avenue with added height up to 5-6 stories. The old boobs killed it.

My understanding of form based code is that it is needed when there are many different street styles that need to be achieved within an area and you want development to conform differently to each street. In the case of the Maple Avenue corridor, I'm not sure there needs to be a variety of street styles. Definitely Maple Avenue, being a major arterial that is wider than the other streets in Vienna and already has a landscape buffer area next to the street should be treated differently, but how important is it to treat the other side streets and minor arterials such as Park, Lawyers/Old Courthouse, and Beulah differently from each other?

My personal opinion is that there should be more control along Maple Avenue to give the town a unified appearance (similar to what the landscape buffer is already helping to do) and then be more flexible on the side streets. Just to give an example of this idea (not specifics I'm recommending) - the town could agree that along Maple Ave, the majority of the building front can be set between 17' and 30' from the curb with an 8' min. sidewalk, but along all other streets with commercial/mixed use frontage the majority of the building front could be setback anywhere from 10' to 40' from the curb with a 6' min. sidewalk).

If the town is only trying to write form codes for two types of streets, this can easily be written out similar to the other zones Vienna already has. Pictures are definitely helpful and add a lot to help explain the words, but this new zoning really does not have to be any more complicated than the C-1B zoning. Asking the council to produce a complicated form based zoning document for each street in town just seems to delay their decision even longer.

"Smart Growth Advocate" we will never get to all of your knowledge unless the political reality is solved. The Town Council is doing nothing, I repeat, nothing. Nor do they have any intent to do anything. The faster we can all get on THAT page, the faster we may get to some type of Maple Avenue "fix". But let's stop pretending that the current Town Council is proceeding toward anything except the same ole sh**.

Hmm... was driving down Church today, and mentally doubled the height of the Bazin's development (3 stories) to six stories. Wow, did not like that picture. And if you go to six stories for all those buildings, what is the impact on traffic? If residential - its naive to think they will relay on public transit. If office... just adds to the rush hour traffic. Not against change, just pointing out you can't add density without a resulting impact on traffic.

1. There is no proposal for Church Street to go 6 stories.

2. The land area on Maple is quite different than Church Street (larger), where we can all see multiple 6 story structures already.

3. The Maple Avenue Vision Committee dealt with structures that did not tower over the street. There was a 'step back' on the buildings as height increased.

4. Simply saying "we have too much traffic therefor let's put our head in the sand and do nothing" is not the solution. Maybe if done right Vienna could lead the way in creating a walkable community - which would help on the traffic some. But by and large traffic is here to stay and if that is the case it would be nice to have a downtown that has some vitality, not one where it seems every other 60s/70s style strip mall is either for lease or looks like run down ****.

5. Everyone here does realize that down town Vienna is by and large gross since there is NONE, ZERO incentive to redevelop? We all get that right? Look at a picture of down town Vienna circa today and circa 1979 and what is the difference? Not much, I have done the pictorial exercise. There is no excuse for that except political incompetence.

Mr. Man - I agree with you. I hope others realize that traffic is not going to go away and that adding a reasonalble amount of people to our commercial downtown area will strengthen it's vibrancy and walkability.

Also In this report, the owners along Maple say they can re-develop with a max height of 48'. This would not allow buildings any taller than 5 stories. Somewhere else the report talks about limiting the height to as low as 4 stories or 45'. 4-5 stories on Maple would provide a similar enclosure to the new buildings on Church St. simply because the paving on Maple is wider and the sidewalk that would be created on Maple Avenue is also wider than Church Street. I do not believe there is any way buildings would be considered "towering" at 4-5 stories. Planners calculate whether a building will create a "towering" effect through a ratio of building height to street width. Recommended ratios are between 1:3 and 1.5:1. With a 45-48' max height and an approximate width of Maple Avenue at 100' wide, the max. ratio along Maple would be 1:2 (and the average would probably be about 1:4 when you factor in older buildings that would remain and surface parking lots. In comparison, D.C. has about a 1.3:1 ratio (builders can build 30' taller than the width of the street. DC has a max height 3 times the building height recommended by the Vision Committee and I've never heard anyone say DC has "towering buildings". Also in comparison, Tysons task force is considering buildings up to 30 stories. If people in this town have any issues with height, they should take it up with the Tysons Task Force and let Vienna have at least 4-5 stories in it's downtown.

Smart Growth thank you for your ideas and knowledge-love them.

Well well for all those who think all we do is complain it seems that smart growth has proved you wrong. Way to go. I just wish this could come to fruition.

I think the town has to determine what the minimum changes could be to inspire new construction downtown. Obviously the current rules are stiffeling growth. But then again, there is Hadeed.

I hope the owners of these buildings will be able to flush the toilets considering the sewer problems!!ha ha