Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances zoning amendment on open-space rules and alternatives; sends ordinance to public hearing
Summary
Winchester City staff presented O2024-17 to revise open-space and landscaping standards, proposing three alternatives for developments that cannot provide on-site green space; council directed staff to return the ordinance for public hearing after clarifications on fund use and administrative vs. council approvals.
City planning staff presented a publicly sponsored zoning amendment (O2024-17) at a Winchester City Council work session on Oct. 22 that would revise minimum open-space and landscaping requirements and create alternatives in lieu of on-site open space.
Staff described a tiered approach tied to primary and secondary assessment districts and the historic Winchester district. In denser downtown areas, staff said projects may be unable to provide required green space on-site; the ordinance therefore proposes three alternatives: provide equivalent landscaped area off-site and maintain it, convey off-site land to the city, or make a one-time contribution to a green-space fund. Planning staff noted the fund contribution is likely to be the most commonly used option.
To illustrate how the alternatives work in practice, staff walked the council through pro forma examples. For a downtown Dollar General retrofit that adds four residential units above commercial space, staff calculated a one-time contribution of about $7,800 to the green-space fund; for a narrow downtown lot at 1 North Braddock Street, staff estimated roughly $6,500; and for a larger 151-unit development outside the historic/downtown districts, staff estimated a one-time contribution near $58,000.
Councilors questioned whether impervious rock surfaces would count toward landscape requirements; planning staff said rock would not count (trees would), and emphasized that past waivers were brought through the planning commission. Councilors also debated whether the one-time fees should be indexed or carry a surcharge (one councilor proposed a 10% add-on) so contributions retain value and reflect the cost to start new projects. Staff recommended aligning any spending timeline with the capital improvement plan; the session noted that capital improvement funds typically must be spent within seven years.
Councilors discussed whether alternatives should be approved administratively by staff to streamline projects or require City Council approval; staff said that if an alternative is selected, it would ultimately come back to council for approval of the waiver, but administrative pathways could streamline routine decisions.
A councilor moved to bring the ordinance back in the public hearing process with clarifications; another councilor seconded the motion. The council affirmed the move to public hearing during the session and staff will prepare the ordinance for the public hearing and subsequent agenda steps.
Why this matters: The amendment would give the city structured options to preserve green space goals while supporting downtown redevelopment and avoiding inconsistent case-by-case waivers.
Next steps: Staff will revise draft language to reflect council feedback on fund use, indexing, potential surcharges, and the approval threshold, then schedule a public hearing.
