By Michael A. Spotts
In the lead-up to the County Board’s July work session on County staff’s missing middle proposal in July, I submitted a brief comment letter to the Board on actions that they could take to improve the proposal and address some of the legitimate concerns about allowing gentle density increases in Arlington’s currently single-family exclusive neighborhoods. Anxiety about issues such as tree canopy, stormwater management, and the loss of attainable housing are understandable given some of the challenges the County has experienced on those fronts in recent decades. However, it is precisely because we are facing those challenges today that makes centering those critiques on missing middle housing so misplaced. It is the status quo that is creating those challenges, and keeping the status quo will only allow the current challenges to worsen, and push more and more development to the urban fringes where tree canopy and open space is being even more rapidly lost. Missing middle housing - especially if paired with complementary policies related to those core concerns - creates an opportunity to actually improve on these issues that the status quo does not. To be effective, these policies generally can apply to ALL neighborhoods and properties - including the single-family redevelopments that are contributing to the problem today. The following post outlines a non-exhaustive list of options that the County Board can consider to seize this opportunity.
EXCERPT: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM JULY 2022 COMMENT LETTER (1)
Among the common critiques of missing middle, the two that I find most understandable are stormwater and tree canopy. As I also covered in my May 2022 letter to the County Board, these are problems that we're having now - including in single-family neighborhoods - without missing middle. Therefore, missing middle housing (MMH) should not bear the burden of addressing it. However, there are generally applicable policies that the county board could adopt alongside MMH that would address these issues, specifically:
Allowing (via streamlined administrative approval, not the uncertain zoning appeals process) modest increases in height, flexibility in setbacks, or other spatial flexibility IF it enables the preservation of existing canopy trees (or planting of new canopy trees), the incorporation of an on-lot retention pond, reduction of lot coverage ratio, or other environmental benefits of that nature. (ADDENDUM - this streamlined process could be predicated on providing a conservation easement for these environmental benefits, which would address the current dynamic in which builders are required to plant trees, but there are few provisions on the type of tree (canopy trees vs. decorative trees) and the property owner has the right to cut them down at any point).
Announcing an expansion of existing initiatives to support canopy trees on private lots (with specific dollars attached).
Announcing an acceleration of utility undergrounding initiatives (ADDENDUM - canopy trees are often overly trimmed - and sometimes die as a result - to keep them away from power lines. In addition, the space available for planting new canopy trees is greatly reduced, since adequate clearance from utilities is necessary for them to grow and thrive. The amount of additional tree planting space that could be available absent power lines is considerable, and this change could open up space near all properties, regardless of whether they are existing or being redeveloped.)
Creating a "street tree easement" program, where the County enters into agreements with property owners to plant and maintain trees on private parcels on the property line that border the public realm.
Initiating a "public tree planting" accelerator program - conduct an audit of County owned and other public space where trees can be planted during the fall and spring season. This could be paired with an ambitious target - "2023 new trees in 2023" for example)
Affordable homeownership developers have testified to their belief that MMH can be a game changer. Some practitioners that I have spoken with believe they're currently de facto locked out of Arlington unless a "unicorn" property falls into their lap. To address concerns raised about who will actually benefit from MMH (such as those included in the NAACP's otherwise MMH - supportive letter), the County could pair MMH changes with a pilot program for affordable homeownership development. It could basically serve as a revolving loan fund/line-of-credit that is paid back when the builder closes with the income-eligible purchaser. (Practitioners interviewed on this topic) believe that this can be accomplished at dollar figures at or below AHIF rental amounts (and could be repayed much more quickly).
As I mentioned in (my May 2022 letter to the County Board), allowing lot subdivision to enable more "fee simple" ownership opportunities can reduce barriers to horizontal missing middle and create a simpler, less expensive ownership opportunities in some circumstances. This may require addressing minimum lot sizes and other issues related to non-conformity (which should apply generally, outside of the context of missing middle).
The County should give proactive consideration to the issue of predatory acquisition practices (covered in the aforementioned May 2022 letter). This could be a fairly low-cost intervention (education, mandatory notification, etc).
The designs that are shown in publications on missing middle vary widely in quality. Those of us that support MMH have tended to show pictures of the best that MMH can be, while those that oppose show what they believe to be the least appealing designs. In reality, there is going to be a mix of good and bad design, as there is with our current single-family neighborhoods. The County should not get in the business of making aesthetic judgments that are in the eye of the beholder. However, the County could create Arlington-specific educational materials tailored to our real-world conditions that promote design best practices (i.e., how to incorporate parking without paving over more of the lot, how to provide privacy, etc.). An example of this has been done in Norfolk, via a "Missing Middle Pattern Book": https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66555/MissingMiddlePatternBook. This could also be a way to implement the aforementioned recommendation on flexibility to preserve trees/permeable space. If an owner or builder follows the pattern book and pays a small fee for the administrative review they could receive quasi-by right approval for your variance. The County could also offer modest incentives for selecting a preferred design (i.e., replanted trees provided through the tree canopy fund instead of at the developers' expense). As a nod to community concerns about design, there could also be a community process that informs the preferred design process (as long as this is an educational guide rather than a mandatory, prescriptive design requirement).
Finally, though I think the by-right proposal is a critical component, the County could allow neighborhoods to "plot their own course" for more "planned" versions of missing middle. Some Arlington residents I’ve spoken with have mentioned that while they are not thrilled by the concept of some of the lower density missing middle forms (i.e., duplexes and triplexes), they view some other forms that go beyond the current county proposal more favorably (for examples, rowhomes similar to Glebewood or Fairlingon). The County could provide a process through which individual neighborhoods could initiate planning processes (post-passage of MMH) to incorporate provisions to enable alternative forms of MM, like larger rowhome developments, cottage clusters, etc. Importantly, it should be stipulated that these plans would only be allowed if they had the effect of expanding, rather than restricting, what might otherwise be allowed under the by-right MMH proposal.
(1) This excerpt has been lightly edited from the version submitted to the County Board for readability and to provide clarity as a stand-alone post. Any substantive changes/additions are indicated by the “addendum” disclaimer.