Planning staff outline proposed zoning amendment to revise landscape and open-space requirements

Planning staff gave Winchester City Council a high-level overview of a text amendment to the city zoning ordinance intended to revise minimum landscape-area and open-space standards for private redevelopment projects.

The proposal — described as a multi-part text amendment initiated by the planning commission — aims “to increase the quantity, more importantly, the quality of landscape areas and green space on projects within the city,” a planning staff speaker said. The change would apply to private development and is intended to reflect denser redevelopment patterns such as planned unit developments and infill in the downtown area.

The measure distinguishes “landscape area” (living vegetative cover such as grass, trees and shrubs) from “common open space” (amenity space that may include courts or paved areas), and would reduce some downtown minimums where buildings are lot-line to lot-line and cannot reasonably provide additional on-site green space. Staff said existing nonresidential downtown buildings that retain current landscaping would not be retroactively required to add new green space unless the use changes and triggers the new standard.

To prevent projects from entirely avoiding on-site green space, staff proposed a floor requiring no less than 25% of the otherwise required landscape area be provided on-site (for example, 25% of an existing 45% requirement). For modest conversions, staff proposed narrow waivers allowing up to a few additional residential units (for example, up to three) without triggering full new green-space calculations. “We said no less than 25% of whatever that requirement is,” planning staff said, explaining the minimum would limit blanket waivers.

When projects cannot meet on-site requirements, staff outlined three alternatives: provide equivalent landscape area off-site near the project, donate land to the city in the project vicinity, or contribute money to a green-space fund the city would use to acquire or improve parks and pocket parks. On fund administration, staff said expenditures from the green-space fund would be included in the annual budget process so council would review proposed uses during budget deliberations.

Councilors pressed staff for additional detail. Councilor Sullivan asked whether contributions would be one-time payments or ongoing contributions and requested pro-forma scenarios showing typical contribution amounts and likely park improvements. “That’s maybe if we bring it back to give other councils time to chime in, how that was kind of rationalized, the pros and cons of that,” Sullivan said. Planning staff acknowledged the need for examples and suggested council submit questions ahead of the next meeting so staff can prepare scenarios.

Councilman Halstead said he favored allowing contributions that build larger, publicly accessible green spaces rather than small, private amenities, but opposed reducing residential green-space requirements to zero. He suggested another tool — reducing parking minimums — as a way to free up space for greenery on-site. Planning staff reiterated that the downtown nonresidential 0% minimum is targeted to commercial properties that are parking-exempt and that any existing landscaping would not be reduced by the amendment.

Councilor Beach asked whether developers who pay into the fund would receive stormwater fee credits; staff said the green-space fund and the stormwater utility are separate programs and that stormwater fees would still apply to the property’s impervious coverage. Staff also confirmed that the council would see proposed fund expenditures during the budget process.

The council did not take action; members and staff agreed the amendment is substantial and should be reviewed in parts across several future meetings. Staff asked councilors to forward specific questions so the next session can include pro-formas and more detailed examples.